Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Lying for the Lord

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to MormonThink page "Lying for the Lord"

The Temple

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

Tithing

Quick Navigation

• "The official version of the First Vision by Joseph Smith....evolved after years of creative editing"
• "Moroni is pictured floating above Joseph or next to his bed, alone in his bedroom"
• "The LDS Church permits members and others to believe that the History of the Church was written by Joseph Smith"
• "Some things that are true are not very useful"

Joseph Smith's different accounts of the First Vision

I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.

—Gordon B. Hinckley, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Ensign, Oct 1984, 2 off-site

∗       ∗       ∗

<onlyinclude>

1. REDIRECTMultiple accounts of the First Vision

Joseph Smith gave a number of different accounts of the First Vision to a variety of people. Some assert that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore had no such vision.

The Church has published information about the various First Vision accounts since at least 1970. Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often seek to point out differences between the various accounts which Joseph Smith gave of his First Vision. In defense of their position that the Prophet changed his story over a six year period (1832 to 1838) they claim that the earliest followers of Joseph Smith either didn’t know about the First Vision, or seem to have been confused about it. The Church, however, has discussed the various accounts in a number of publications. Joseph Smith's various accounts of the First Vision were targeted at different audiences, and had different purposes. They, however, show a remarkable degree of harmony between them. There is no evidence that the early leaders of the Church did not understand that the Prophet saw two Divine Personages during his inaugural theophany.

"First Vision Accounts," Gospel Topics, located on lds.org.

The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.3 Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented.

(Click here for full article)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "LESSON 6: Joseph Smith—History 1:1–20," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, (2013)

Just as Joseph Smith emphasized different aspects of his vision in his multiple accounts, the Apostle Paul emphasized different aspects of his vision of the Savior to different audiences (see Acts 9:1–9; Acts 22:5–11; Acts 26:12–20). Why do you think Joseph Smith and Paul emphasized different things each time they related the accounts of their visions?

(Click here for full article)

Milton V. Backman, "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign, (January 1985)

On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences.1 It is not surprising, therefore, that each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience.

(Click here for full article)

James B. Allen,  "Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision - What Do We Learn from Them?," Improvement Era, (April 1970)

Nevertheless, it can now be demonstrated that the Prophet described his experience to friends and acquaintances at least as early as 1831-32, and that he continued to do so in varying detail until the year of his death, 1844. We presently know of at least eight contemporary documents that were written during his lifetime.

Dennis B. Neuenschwander, "Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ," Ensign, (January 2009)

Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.

(Click here for full article)

Steven C. Harper, "Four Accounts and Three Critiques of Joseph Smith’s First Vision"

Steven C. Harper,  Proceedings of the 2011 FAIR Conference, (August 2011)

There are essentially three arguments against the first vision. The minister to whom Joseph reported the event announced that there were no such things these days. More than a century later Fawn Brodie wrote with literary grace to mask historical deficiencies that Joseph concocted the vision years after he said it happened. Then a generation later Wesley Walters charged Joseph with inventing revivalism when a lack of historical evidence proved that there was none, and therefore no subsequent vision as a result. So by now it has become a foregone conclusion for some there are no such things as visions, and Joseph failed to mention his experience for years and then gave conflicting accounts that didn’t match historical facts.

Why didn't Joseph Smith's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?

Summary: It is claimed that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823, his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false. It is claimed that no Church artwork shows Joseph's siblings asleep. The claim is false.

Jump to details:

• Question: Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?
• Mark Ashurst-McGee: "This argument falls short theoretically. For those who do not believe in Joseph's visions, there was nothing to wake anyone anyway"
• Question: Why didn't Joseph say that his family didn't wake up during Moroni's visit?
• Question: Has God used his power to enforce sleep on other occasions?
• Question: Why does Church artwork portray Joseph as being alone during Moroni's visit?

FairMormon Response

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Latter-day Saint history

Overview	Latter-day Saint history Approaching history Responding to criticisms about Church history Primary source documents of early Church history
Accuracy of Church History	Alleged whitewashing of Church history Alleged whitewashing of polygamy in Church history Alleged hiding of facts in Church history History scholars and Church discipline Accuracy of Church art History of the Church (6-volume history) Lucy Mack Smith's biography of Joseph Smith Histories written by scholars
Forgeries and folklore	Mark Hofmann Kinderhook Plates The Sealed Book of Mormon by Mauricio Berger The Mentinah Papers The Ang Aklatan The Bat Creek Stone The Burrows Cave artifacts Mormon urban legends or folklore

The History of the Church, which bears Joseph Smith’s name, was begun under his dictation and direction and completed after his death according to his instructions. The original sources used to compile the History were the Prophet’s own diaries, correspondence, and other documents. Those who may feel that the work is not a fundamental historical source because the Prophet did not personally write much of it are in error. The History, with its priceless collection of primary documents, remains the most important source of historical information on the life of Joseph Smith and early Latter-day Saint history.

—Dean C. Jessee, "I Have a Question," Ensign (July 1985)

∗       ∗       ∗

Who is the author of History of the Church?

The History of the Church, though credited to Joseph Smith, was not actually authored by him

Dean C. Jessee wrote of this question :

The History of the Church, which bears Joseph Smith’s name, was begun under his dictation and direction and completed after his death according to his instructions. The original sources used to compile the History were the Prophet’s own diaries, correspondence, and other documents. Those who may feel that the work is not a fundamental historical source because the Prophet did not personally write much of it are in error. The History, with its priceless collection of primary documents, remains the most important source of historical information on the life of Joseph Smith and early Latter-day Saint history.

The work presents the teachings and activities of the Prophet with a remarkable degree of accuracy. A look at how it was produced, and at the concepts that governed historical writing at that time, helps tell us the nature of the history.

Production of the history

Continued Jessee:

Among the difficulties encountered by Joseph Smith was his own lack of formal literary education. He wrote that it took the exertions of all his father’s family to sustain themselves, “therefore we were deprived of the benefit of an education. … I was merely instructed in reading, writing and the ground rules of arithmetic, which constituted my whole literary acquirements.” Throughout his life the Prophet seemed to be concerned with his lack of literary training. In his extant correspondence he refers to his “lack of fluency in address,” his limited “ability in conveying my ideas in writing,” and “the imperfections of my writing.”

The Prophet thus relied on others to write for him. More than two dozen clerks are known to have assisted him in a secretarial capacity. Of these, nine left the Church (typical of the challenges of those years), and four others died while engaged in important writing assignments.

A major inhibition of efforts to keep a record was the persecution the Prophet and the Church experienced. During the years in which the history was being written, the Latter-day Saints moved or were driven across two-thirds of the North American continent. Such unstable conditions resulted in the loss of some records and affected the accuracy of many of those that were preserved. In addition, the Prophet endured lawsuits and repeated arrests that took his attention from the history.

When Willard Richards took over the duties of Church historian in December 1842, a mere 157 pages of a work that eventually numbered 2,000 pages had been written.

On 1 March 1842, publication of the history in serial form commenced in the Nauvoo newspaper Times and Seasons. By 27 June 1844, the date of Joseph Smith’s death, the manuscript had been completed only to 5 August 1838 and published to December 1831. However, important source material had been preserved for completing the history. Shortly before his death, the Prophet wrote: “For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said.” Some have indicated that, prior to his death, the Prophet reviewed most of what his clerks had written.

While in Carthage Jail shortly before his death, Joseph Smith instructed the Church historian, Willard Richards, who was there with him, to continue the history. This Elder Richards did, and for the next decade he was the custodian of the records and the architect of the history. After Joseph Smith’s death, work on the history continued, even as the Saints prepared to leave Nauvoo for the Rocky Mountains. With the addition of 674 pages to the manuscript, nearly as much work was done on the history in the period between the Prophet’s death and the departure of the Saints from Nauvoo as had been done in the preceding years.

At the time the records of the Church were packed at Nauvoo for the journey west in February 1846, Willard Richards had compiled the history to 1 March 1843. But in the disruptive years that followed, he was never able to complete that work. After Brother Richards’s death in 1854, George A. Smith and Wilford Woodruff continued work on the history. To assure accuracy, every effort was made to collect information. Late in 1845, for instance, an epistle to the Saints urged all who knew of “any fact, circumstance, incident, event, or transaction” that should be in the history to please report it.

Finally, in August 1856, eighteen years after the history was begun, the work was completed to the death of Joseph Smith. The entire manuscript had been read in the hearing of the First Presidency and other witnesses for a general appraisal.

The History of the Church

Modern standards of history writing were not always observed in earlier time periods. For example, some are surprised to learn at the six-volume History of the Church has portions which were written as if Joseph Smith had written the words, when in fact the original documents were written by others.

Is this an attempt at dishonesty?

The common nineteenth-century format of writing was chosen by Joseph Smith, who directed his clerks to write a first person

Historian Dean Jessee described the differences between historical writing as practiced by a modern writer, and those practices in place in Joseph Smith's day:

Since none of the manuscript of the history is in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, and apparently not much of the text was actually dictated by him, why did those employed on the work write in first person, as though the Prophet himself were writing? That common nineteenth-century format was chosen by Joseph Smith, who directed his clerks to write a first person, daily narrative based upon diaries kept by himself and his clerks. In addition, since Joseph Smith’s diary did not provide an unbroken narrative of his life, the compilers of the history were to bridge gaps by using other sources (diaries, Church periodicals, minute and record books of Church and civic organizations, letters and documents kept on file, and news of current world happenings), changing indirect discourse to direct as if Joseph Smith had done the writing himself. Not uncommon according to the editorial practices of the day, this method of supplying missing detail had the effect of providing a smooth-flowing, connected narrative of events.

Many examples from other works of the period show that this was the historical standard of the time. Nineteenth-century American methods of historical writing and editing were very different from those of today. In 1837, for example, Jared Sparks—regarded as “the first great compiler of national records”—edited in twelve volumes the Writings of George Washington. When his work was later compared with original manuscripts, it was found that he had rewritten portions of letters, deleted or altered offensive passages, and changed irregularities in style and awkward modes of expression.

In his review of historical editing in the United States, Lyman E. Butterfield has noted that changing text and creating text faithful to the ideas of the writer were not uncommon in early years, and that seldom were original texts left to speak for themselves. The History of the Church was written in the general literary and historical climate of its time.

New Testament parallels

Jessee noted that this 19th century approach to historiography matches more ancient practices, such as those used by some Biblical authors:

New Testament writers apparently used a similar method in writing the Gospels. One Bible commentary records that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark (Interpreter’s Bible, 7:235–36) and omitted or altered what seemed to be critical of the Apostles. For example, Mark records that James and John came to the Savior and asked that he give them whatsoever they desired; whereupon, the Savior heard their plea that each might sit by his side when he came in glory. (Mark 10:35–37.) When Matthew recorded the event, he said that it was the mother of James and John who desired this privilege for her sons (Matt. 20:20–21.) This difference in recording the circumstances, presumably to place the Apostles in a better light, does not destroy the credibility of the Savior’s mission, nor may we believe that there was dishonesty in making the change.

Challenges with direct citation

Jessee cautions:

One of the challenges facing those who compiled the history was that of presenting the Prophet’s sermons and teachings. Since none of Joseph’s clerks had mastered shorthand during his lifetime, reports of what he said were made longhand. Many of these were smooth-flowing, well-connected summaries and were copied into the history almost as recorded. In some instances, however, it was necessary to reconstruct an address from brief notes and disconnected ideas. George A. Smith’s editorial work was careful, and when he was finished, each discourse was read to members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, some of whom had also heard the original address. Their input proved invaluable. These measures no doubt guaranteed the doctrinal accuracy of such reporting of Joseph Smith’s discourses, but the result obviously would not reflect his personality and speaking style as accurately as a verbatim report would have done.

An analysis of the History reveals those portions obtained from material written personally by Joseph Smith. These clearly reflect his loving and warm spirit. For example, the following is an entry from the History stemming from a portion of Joseph Smith’s 1835 diary written by himself:

“September 23. I was at home writing blessings for my most beloved brethren, but was hindered by a multitude of visitors. The Lord has blessed our souls this day, and may God grant to continue His mercies unto my house this night, for Christ’s sake. This day my soul has desired the salvation of Brother Ezra Thayer. Also Brother Noah Packard came to my house and loaned the committee one thousand dollars to assist building the house of the Lord. Oh! may God bless him a hundred fold, even of the things of the earth, for this righteous act. My heart is full of desire today, to be blessed of the God of Abraham with prosperity, until I shall be able to pay all my debts, for it is the delight of my soul to be honest. O Lord, that thou knowest right well. Help me, and I will give to the poor.”

Is History of the Church not accurate because Joseph Smith did not write it himself?

The content of the History of the Church is likely largely accurate

Dean C. Jessee noted:

The History will continue to be the most important source of information on the life of the Prophet and early Latter-day Saint history. Since the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve—some of whom were participants in the historical events—reviewed the history, it is reliable. It should be known that the revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants are also recorded in the History of the Church and most assuredly are true and reliable.

It is important to realize that the content of the History of the Church is likely largely accurate, though it can of course be supplemented with other material to expand or correct it. Areas which may be less accurate are the precise wording attributed to Joseph Smith, or the 'personality' of some of the entries, especially the later ones written after his death. Though the History of the Church speaks in the first person as if Joseph were writing, these words are put in his mouth by admirers, often after his martyrdom. Thus, small details of Joseph's "personality" in the History are less likely to be accurate.

Related article:

History of the Church as the "most correct" history? Summary: Quote mining of Doctrines of Salvation about the History of the Church being "the most correct" of any history.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 398, see also all of Chapter 13.( Index of claims )

Notes

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that the "Rocky Mountain Prophecy" is deceptive.

Author's source(s)

• Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 406

FairMormon commentary

• Many other Church members later wrote about Joseph's discussion of the Rocky Mountains area. To accept a "forgery" theory, we must accept that all of these people who remembered Joseph speaking about the Rocky Mountains were lying or fabricating their experience.
• Furthermore, we must also accept that Joseph was sending explorers to the west with no real expectation of moving, and the discussion of heading west by both members and enemies was all idle talk.

Additional information

• Forged prophecy about Saints in Rocky Mountains?—Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner claim that a prophecy from Joseph about the Saints' move to the Rocky Mountains was forged after the fact and inserted into the History of the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that using the name "Moroni" for the angel that visited Joseph Smith was deceptive and that the name was originally Nephi.

Author's source(s)

• Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism
• Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? p.136

FairMormon commentary

• This is not an example of Joseph Smith changing his story over time, but an example of a detail being improperly recorded by someone other than the Prophet, and then reprinted uncritically. Clear contemporary evidence from Joseph and his enemies—who would have seized upon any inconsistency had they known about it—shows that "Moroni" was the name of the heavenly messenger BEFORE the 1838 and 1839 histories were recorded.

Additional information

• Nephi or Moroni—The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. It is claimed that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni". (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that Joseph Smith's drinking and use of tobacco is deliberately hidden.

Author's source(s)

• Tanner, Changing World of Mormonism, pages 413-414

FairMormon commentary

• The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today. It was not the strict test of fellowships that it is for the modern member. Members and leaders struggled with its application
• Critics count on "presentism"—they hope readers will judge historical figures by the standards of our day, instead of their day.

Additional information

• Almon Babbitt followed Joseph in violating the Word of Wisdom—Critics charge that Joseph Smith violated the Word of Wisdom, and that another member (Almon W. Babbitt) followed his example. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that the Church deliberately hides its history.

FairMormon commentary

• Church historians and church hierarchy are fully aware of its history, yet they maintain strong testimonies of the authenticity and authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Problems arise when faithful members can't reconcile a perfect Savior and his church being led by imperfect people. Developing an understanding that all people, even prophets of the Lord make mistakes. Only Jesus Christ himself was perfect.

Additional information

• Censorship and revision—It is claimed that the church has "whitewashed" some of the information about its origins to appear more palatable to members and investigators. Some feel that this is done intentionally to hide negative aspects of church history. Others feel that it is done to focus on the good, but that it causes problems for believing members when they encounter these issues outside of church curriculum. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that when Joseph Smith edited revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants, that it was for deceptive purposes.

FairMormon commentary

• If Joseph could receive the Doctrine and Covenants by revelation, then he could also receive revelation to improve, modify, revise, and expand his revelatory product. The question remains the same—was Joseph Smith a prophet? If he was, then his action is completely legitimate. If he was not, then it makes little difference whether his pretended revelations were altered or not.
• The Saints have never believed in inerrant prophets or inerrant scripture. The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU.

Additional information

• Textual changes—Joseph Smith and others made revisions, additions, and deletions to his early revelations when preparing them for publication. It is claimed that revelations from God are inerrant and should never be changed, and this proves that Joseph Smith did not receive revelation. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that the Church has removed references to "Joseph Smith's activities as a professional con man" from its history, such as his arrest and trial for being a "glass looker."

FairMormon commentary

• Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissing his prophetic claims via ad hominem. Modern-day claims about him being found to be a "con man" are simply the same attack with updated language, usually bolstered by a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing.
• Joseph's tendency to assume the best of others, even to his own repeated detriment, also argues for his sincerity. One might legitimately claim that Joseph was mistaken about his prophetic claims, but it will not do to claim that he was cynically, knowingly deceiving others for his own gain.

Additional information

• 1826 trial for "glasslooking"—Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking." Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that if this trial record existed that it would be "the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith?" (Link)

• Was Joseph found guilty of being a "con man"?—It is claimed that Joseph was a "con man," and that he was found guilty of being such in a court of law. This refers to the 1826 trial. (Link)

"Some things that are true are not very useful"

MormonThink states...

""Apostle Boyd Packer declared, 'There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.' 'Some things that are true are not very useful.'""

FairMormon Response

Boyd K. Packer's talk: "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect"

Summary: Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." The following quote is a favorite of critics who wish to demonstrate that the Church wishes to suppress its history and independent thought: "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

Jump to details:

• Question: Why did Elder Boyd K. Packer state that "Some things that are true are not very useful"?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that the Church obscures Joseph's use of a seer stone by using the term "Urim and Thummim."

FairMormon commentary

• Early members of the Church tended to use the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters. *The Nephite interpreters were never called "Urim and Thummim" by the Book of Mormon text; the label is a modern application.
• The term "Urim and Thummim" was only applied to the seer stone and Nephite interpreters several years after the Book of Mormon was published.

Additional information

• Joseph as seer and his use of seer stones—What do we know about Joseph's seer stone? What is its relation to the "Urim and Thummim"? Did Joseph place his seer stone in his hat while he was translating the Book of Mormon? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that the Church is being deceptive by claiming that the Three and Eight Witnesses actually saw the gold plates.

FairMormon commentary

• The witnesses were men considered honest, responsible, and intelligent. Their contemporaries did not know quite what to make of three such men who testified of angels and gold plates, but they did not impugn the character or reliability of the men who bore that testimony.

Additional information

• What was the character of the witnesses?—Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons. (Link)

• Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof—It is claimed that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics note that the Book of Mormon translation occurred using Joseph's seer stone and that the plates didn't need to be present.

FairMormon commentary

• It is important to remember that what we do know for certain is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was carried out "by the gift and power of God." These are the only words that Joseph Smith himself used to describe the translation process.
• We do not know the exact method of translation, other than Joseph employed instruments designated for that purpose: The Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone. Many have offered their own opinions about how these devices "functioned" in the process, but it should be kept in mind that these opinions are given by people who never performed the translation process itself: They can only report on what they observed the Prophet doing at the time.
• Historical sources also indicate that at some later point in time, both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's seer stone were referred to using the term "Urim and Thummim." Whether Joseph used the "original" Urim and Thummim (i.e. Nephite interpreters or "spectacles") or his own seer stone to perform this sacred task is beside the point, and it does not diminish the power of the resulting work.

Additional information

• Description of translation method and circumstances—Friendly and unfriendly accounts of those who witnessed and heard about the translation of the Book of Mormon (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that Fanny Alger was "[o]ne of Joseph Smith's first experiments with adultery "

FairMormon commentary

• The Fanny Alger marriage illustrates many of the difficulties which the historian encounters in polygamy. There is little information available, much of it is second hand, and virtually all of it was recorded "after the fact." Even the dates are unclear, and subject to debate.
• It seems clear, however, that Joseph, Fanny's family, Levi Hancock, and even hostile witnesses saw their relationship as a marriage, albeit an unorthodox one. The witness of Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young make it untenable to claim that only a later Mormon whitewash turned an affair into a marriage.

Additional information

• Fanny Alger: Marriage or affair?—Critics charge that Joseph Smith's early plural marriage(s) cannot have been "real" marriages, since the doctrine of "eternal marriage" (i.e., marriages which last beyond the grave) was not introduced until 1841. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics note that the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants promoted monogamy while polygamy was secretly being practiced.

FairMormon commentary

• The statement itself was not changed between the 1835 and 1844 editions of the D&C. In fact, the statement remained in the D&C until the 1876 edition, even though plural marriage had been taught since at least 1831, practiced in secret since 1836, and practiced openly since 1852. The matter of not removing it in 1852 was simply due to the fact that a new edition of the D&C was not published until 1876.

Additional information

• 1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy—The 1835 edition of the D&C contained a statement of marriage which denied the practice of polygamy. Since this was published during Joseph Smith's lifetime, why might the prophet have allowed it to be published if he was actually practicing polygamy at that time? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that Joseph lied when he stated the "spiritual wifery" was "absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing."

FairMormon commentary

• Joseph distinguished "spiritual wifery," a term used by John C. Bennet, from the doctrine of plural marriage.

Additional information

• John C. Bennett—John C. Bennett material is in three draft chapters. Given their length and difficulty of converting them to wiki format, they are presented here in downloadable PDF. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics note that Joseph took wives without Emma's consent, contrary to the requirement that the first wife needed to give consent.

FairMormon commentary

• Emma was aware of plural marriage; it is not clear at exactly what point she was made aware, partly due to there being relatively few early sources on the matter. Emma was generally opposed to the practice of plural marriage, and did much to try and thwart it. There were times, however, when Emma gave permission for Joseph's plural marriages, though she soon changed her mind. Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but her difficulties arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet.

Additional information

• Sealing required Emma's consent—Critics contend that although Emma Hale Smith was Joseph's first wife, that Joseph was sealed to other wives before being sealed to Emma. The assumption follows that Emma was not in a position to consent to Joseph's other marriages, since she was not longer the "first wife." (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics note that Joseph wrote a letter to Sarah Ann Whitney telling her to come when Emma was not present.

FairMormon commentary

• Critics would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter? Joseph doesn't want Emma gone because he wants to be alone with Sarah Ann—a feat that would be difficult to accomplish with her parents there—he wants Emma gone either because she is opposed to plural marriage (the contention that would result from an encounter between Emma and the Whitney's just a few weeks after Joseph's sealing to Sarah Ann would hardly be conducive to having the spirit present in order to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads"), or because she may have been followed or spied upon by Joseph's enemies, putting the Whitneys in danger.

Additional information

• Did Joseph write secret "love letters" to any of his polygamous wives?—It is claimed that on 18 August 1842 Joseph Smith wrote a “love letter” to Sarah Ann Whitney requesting a secret rendezvous or "tryst." Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks prior to this time. What does this letter actually say? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Joseph publicly denied plural marriage while secretly practicing it.

FairMormon commentary

• It is true that Joseph hid the practice of plural marriage.

Quotes to consider
A contemporary journal describes the reaction to Joseph's attempt to teach this doctrine:

When the prophet “went to his dinner,” [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, “as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people.” So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said “Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said.” (Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986),48; citing Robinson, Journal, 23–24.)

Additional information

• Hiding the truth about polygamy—It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that the Church histories "deceive readers by failing to point out that Joseph exercised poor judgment."

FairMormon commentary

• Church histories are full of examples of Joseph Smith exercising poor judgment and the consequences that resulted from it. Some examples include:
  • The Kirtland Safety Society—Consequence: apostasy of many Church leaders, including two of the three witnesses.
  • The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press—Consequence: the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Joseph's polyandrous marriages were not published in Church manuals.

FairMormon commentary

• Church manuals don't say much of anything about any type of plural marriage at all, not just those that were polyandrous.

Additional information

• Joseph Smith and polyandry—Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto was issued in 1890.

FairMormon commentary

• Some Church members unfamiliar with the history behind the aggressive Federal anti-polygamy movement have been troubled by critics who try to portray Church members’ and leaders’ choices as dishonest and improper. It is important to realize that this is a point on which modern enemies of the Church would be impossible to satisfy. If the Church had acquiesced to government pressure and stopped polygamy completely in 1890, the Church would then be charged with having “revelations on demand,” or with abandoning something they claimed was divine under government pressure. In fact, prior to the Manifesto, the attorney prosecuting Elder Lorenzo Snow for polygamy “predicted that if Snow and others were found guilty and sent to prison church leaders would find it convenient to have a revelation setting aside the commandment on polygamy.”

Additional information

• Practiced after the Manifesto—limited number of plural marriages were solemnized after Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto of 1890 (Official Declaration 1). Some of these marriages were apparently sanctioned by some in positions of Church leadership. It is claimed that this demonstrates that the Manifesto was merely a political tactic, and that the "revelation" of the Manifesto was merely a cynical ploy. They also claim that Post-Manifesto marriages demonstrate the LDS Church's contempt for the civil law of the land. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• It is claimed that the Church is deceptive in its practices for ensuring that Baptism for the Dead is not performed for Holocaust victims or celebrities.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  The Church has made great efforts to prevent such baptisms from being performed. Critics want to the Church to exercise some form of control over members who persist in submitting such names. At other times these same critics complain that the Church exercises too much control over its members.
• While work toward the complete removal of all Holocaust victims' names from the Church's database continues, controversy and frustration may well continue to surface. It is important to remember that progress has been made, and that as temple approval safeguards become more sophisticated, one can hope that misguided individuals will be much less able to violate the agreement.
• The Church has now flagged Holocaust-related names in the database so that if an attempt is made to perform ordinance work for them, the user's account will be locked.

Additional information

• Work for Holocaust victims—In 1995, after it was learned that a substantial number of Holocaust victims were listed in the Church's temple records as having been baptized, an agreement was signed between the Church and leading Jewish authorities which officially ended baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims posthumously. (Link)