Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Postscript

Table of Contents

Response to claims made in "Postscript" (paperback only)

A FairMormon Analysis of: One Nation Under Gods, a work by author: Richard Abanes
Claim Evaluation
One Nation Under Gods
Chart one nation under gods postcript.jpg

Response to claims made in One Nation Under Gods, "Postscript" (paperback only)

Jump to Subtopic:


Response to claim: 437, n2 - "all marriages continued in heaven will involve participation in plural marriage"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Quoting Whelan: "[T]here still remains within the Church a limited form of plural marriage. Those husbands who have lost a beloved spouse and are left alone in this world can still be married for time and eternity to another wife....It is clear that all marriages continued in heaven will involve participation in plural marriage."

Author's sources:
  1. Shane LeGrand Whelan, More Than One: Plural Marriage—A Sacred Heritage, A Promise for Tomorrow, 208.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

While it is possible for a man to be sealed to more than one woman in the next life, there is no evidence that "all marriages continued in heaven will involve participation in plural marriage." It is not clear what the author hopes to demonstrate by this claim, or why Shane Whelan's view carries any weight beyond his own opinions.


Response to claim: 438 - "More than a few Mormons, although they had never actually read my book, declared without hesitation that it was rife with errors"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "More than a few Mormons, although they had never actually read my book, declared without hesitation that it was rife with errors."

Author's sources:
  1. Author's statement.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

FairMormon can assure the author that we have read his book, and can declare without hesitation that both the hardbound and paperback version are rife with errors.


Response to claim: 441, n10 - Boyd K. Packer said: "I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Boyd K. Packer said: "I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth."

Author's sources:
  1. Roger D. Launius, Book Review, Journal of the West, reproduced online at Signature Books.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

There is much that the author does not reveal about this quote or its context.

Response to claim: 442, n14 - "Some of the harshest criticism I received from Mormons came from those who were irate over my depiction of Brigham Young"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "Some of the harshest criticism I received from Mormons came from those who were irate over my depiction of Brigham Young....then I acquired a new book dealing with the issue—Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows by independent historian and Salt Lake Tribune columnist Will Bagley....This tremendously in-depth volume not only supported my perspective, but greatly expanded on my conclusions..."

Author's sources:
  1. Author's statement.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Bagley's work has major problems, and the author shares many of them. See reviews of his work here.

Response to claim: 442 - Did Will Bagley demonstrate that LDS leaders, and particularly Brigham Young, "probably" planned and executed the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Will Bagley demonstrate that LDS leaders, and particularly Brigham Young, "probably" planned and executed the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Author's sources:
  1. Author's conclusion based upon Bagley's conclusion.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

There is substantial evidence that Brigham Young did not order the massacre. Bagley (and, following him, the author of ONUG) have distorted the contents of the Huntington diary and ignored other evidence.

Response to claim: 442 - "Mormons...consider it their religious right to kill antagonistic outsiders, common criminals, LDS apostates, and even faithful Mormons who committed sins worthy of death"==

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Will Bagley, referring to a statement made by Quinn, said "The decision to do whatever was necessary to build the kingdom 'encouraged Mormons to consider it their religious right to kill antagonistic outsiders, common criminals, LDS apostates, and even faithful Mormons who committed sins worthy of death.'"

Author's sources:
  1. Bagley, 42.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Critics of Mormonism have created a long list of alleged "crimes" that were "worthy of death" in the 1800s.

Response to claim: 443 - Did Will Bagley "prove the charge often dismissed by faithful LDS church members" that Latter-day Saints refused to sell any provisions to the Fancher party?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Will Bagley "prove the charge often dismissed by faithful LDS church members" that Latter-day Saints refused to sell any provisions to the Fancher party?
  1. Author's opinion.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

There were reasons that Brigham ordered that no provisions be sold to the immigrants, and it had to do with preparation for the approaching army.


Question: Did Brigham Young issue orders that no food or grain should be sold to "Gentiles" that were passing through Utah?

The full context of the letter from Brigham is totally and utterly lost in an effort to cast Brigham in the worst light possible

The critical book One Nation Under Gods mentions "Brigham's prohibition on trading with Gentiles." The author states that "on August 2, 1857, Young wrote a letter telling church leaders to make sure no one sold as much as 'one kernal' of grain to their enemies. The author cites "Brigham Young letter to Bronson and Haight, August 2, 1857, MS 1234 LDSCA." [1]

In attempting to identify reasons for conflict between Utah Mormons and non-Mormon emigrants and travelers, the author uses a letter from Brigham Young out of context and insert words into the text that don't exist. All this, without even having a complete copy of the text of the letter the he used as documentation. The author has twisted and contorted this letter to serve the purpose of placing Brigham in the light of being a ruthless governor, attempting to starve the "Gentiles," while stocking up on weapons and ammunition. The full context is totally and utterly lost in an effort to cast Brigham in the worst light possible. It is simply misleading to omit the underlying reasons for Brigham's instructions.

The critics' version of the letter from Brigham Young

When asked for a copy of the text of the letter from Young to Bronson, the author provided the following:

Bishop Bronson, Dear Brother,

I wish you to notify all Presiding elders within Millard County to have the Brethren in their district to save all their grain, nor let a kernal [sic] go to waste or be sold to our enemies. And those who persist in selling grain to the gentiles, or suffer their stock to trample it into the earth I wish you to note as such. Let the Bishops get all the grain not necessary for immediate use, into their hands, if possible…. Save your ammunition, keep your Guns and Pistols in order, and prepare yourselves in all things-particularly by living your religion-for that which may hereafter come to pass. Praying that God may add to you his blessing.

I am your Brother in Christ

Copy sent to president I.C. Haight for the Bishops and presiding Elders in and south of Iron County.

The author did not have a copy of the actual letter. He only had an abbreviated and incomplete copy obtained by someone else

Here is the complete letter (The author didn't know the contents of the omitted portion) from the Church Archives (with the omitted portion in ellipsis, above, written in BOLD ALL CAPS, below):

I wish you to notify all Presiding elders within Millard County to have the Brethren in their districts to save all their grain; nor let a kernal [sic] go to waste or be sold to our enemies. And those who persist in selling grain to the gentiles, or suffer their stock to trample it into the earth I wish you to note as such. Let the Bishops get all the grain not necessary for immediate use, into their hands, if possible; AND BY HAVING GOOD STOREAGES, TAKE MEASURES TO PRESERVE IT AS LONG AS MAY BE NECESSARY.

LET EVERY POUND OF WOOL BE USED TO THE BEST ADVANTAGE IN MANUFACTURING COMFORTABLE CLOTHING AS IT MAY HEREAFTER BE HIGHLY IMPORTANT TO US. Save your ammunition, keep your Guns and Pistols in order, and prepare yourselves in all things-particularly by living your religion-for that which may hereafter come to pass. Praying that God may add to you his blessing.

First, the intent of Brigham's orders was not to "starve" the travelers by withholding food. There was absolutely no malice involved, using this source as a reference. The obvious purpose was conservation and having the bishops store all the grain they could and not let "one kernal" go to waste, period. Of course, the reader wouldn't get this from the selective quoting the author uses or without the entire context and the omitted section about storing and preserving it as long as possible.

Second, there is no mention of "food." The author's assertion that food was implied by Brigham, as an item not to sell or trade with the emigrants, has no basis. This letter only mentions grain, which was used for feeding livestock or could be turned into flour for obvious food purposes. It has been pointed out by others that traveling emigrants would have had no use for grain as food. They didn't have mobile wheat grinders. The grain would have only been used for livestock. Had Brigham meant food, he would have included many other food items that were in the possession of the Utah residents. Brigham's deposition in John D. Lee's trial also demonstrates that was exactly what he was talking about.

Counsel and advice were given to the citizens not to sell grain to the emigrants to feed their stock, but to let them have sufficient for themselves if they were out

Was any counsel or instructions given by any person to the citizens of Utah not to sell grain or trade with the emigrant trains passing through Utah at that time? If so, what were those instructions and counsel?

[Brigham Young] Answer -- Yes, counsel and advice were given to the citizens not to sell grain to the emigrants to feed their stock, but to let them have sufficient for themselves if they were out. The simple reason for this was that for several years our crops had been short, and the prospect was at that time that we might have trouble with the United States army, then enroute for this place, and we wanted to preserve the grain for food. The citizens of the Territory were counseled not to feed grain to their own stock. No person was ever punished or called in question for furnishing supplies to the emigrants, within my knowledge." (The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanita Brooks, p. 286)

Third, this conservation and preparation effort was not limited to "food" and "weapons" as the author would have his readers believe. In the context of the letter, wool and clothing and storage of grain are also mentioned, giving us a larger picture that malice toward the "Gentiles" was not the intent; preparing for battle with and deprivation of the "Gentiles" was not the purpose. Conservation, preparing for hard times, and the imminent arrival of the Army were the purposes.


Response to claim: 443 - "Blood of the Prophets once and for all dispelled the long-standing Mormon myth that members of the doomed company poisoned an important cattle stream, thereby almost deserving their fate"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

 Author's quote: "Blood of the Prophets once and for all dispelled the long-standing Mormon myth that members of the doomed company poisoned an important cattle stream, thereby almost deserving their fate."

Author's sources:
  1. Author's opinion.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Mormon authors have not accepted the poisoning uncritically, and Bagley is not the first to challenge it, or claim that if true it would not justify the slaughter at Mountain Meadows. Even if the immigrants had poisoned a stream, they would not have deserved their fate.

Response to claim: 443, 615n15 (PB) - Bagley states "In their desire to exonerate Brigham Young of any guilt, official Mormon accounts of the crime laid the blame on victims and Indians, a tradition that is alive and well today"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Bagley states "In their desire to exonerate Brigham Young of any guilt, official Mormon accounts of the crime laid the blame on victims and Indians, a tradition that is alive and well today."

Author's sources:
  1. Bagley, xvii.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The closest thing to an "official Mormon account" of the massacre is probably an Ensign article: "some 50 to 60 local militiamen in southern Utah, aided by American Indian allies, massacred about 120 emigrants who were traveling by wagon to California. The horrific crime, which spared only 17 children age six and under, occurred in a highland valley called the Mountain Meadows...."[2]

A new book coauthored by Turley expresses similar views.[3]

See link in previous row which demonstrates that some LDS historians have not 'blamed' the victims.

Response to claim: 443, 615n16-18 - Brigham Young said: "When a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro' him in the River"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Brigham Young said: "When a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro' him in the River."

Author's sources:
  • Instruction to Bishops, quoted in Thomas Bullock diary, December 13, 1846. Cited in D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 657.;
  • History of the Church, 7:597. Volume 7 link
  • Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet, 182.
  • Thomas G. Alexander, "Wilford Woodruff and the Mormon Reformation of 1855-57," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 25num=2 (Summer 1992), 27.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The citations from Alexander deal with blood atonement and the Mormon Reformation. The author does not tell us that Alexander says in both places that "Young's references to blood atonement were probably hyperbole...." The author is repeating himself; these charges have been raised in Chapter 11.

Response to claim: 444-446, n23-24 - Did past LDS leaders hold and expound racist views?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did past LDS leaders hold and expound racist views?

Author's sources:

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Some past LDS leaders held racial attitudes that were common at the time that they lived.

Question: How did the "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" become associated with Mormonism?

Early members of the Church brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism

Prior to 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the “mark of Cain” was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious “folk doctrine” in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the “mark of Cain” to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent—a policy for which no revelatory prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

Early members of the Church were, for the most part, converts from Protestant sects. It is understandable that they naturally brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism. Many modern members of the Church, for instance, are unaware that Joseph Smith ordained at least one African-American man to the priesthood: Elijah Abel.

At some point during Brigham Young's administration, the priesthood ban was initiated. No revelation, if there ever was one, was published, although many throughout the history of the Church have assumed that the reason for the ban must be that blacks were the cursed seed of Cain, and therefore not allowed the priesthood (usually stemming from a misreading of Abraham 1). The correct answer as to why the ban was put into place is: we don't know. For further information on the priesthood ban, see Blacks and the priesthood.

Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, after the revelation granting blacks the priesthood:

It is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. [4]

Prior to this statement by Elder Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the “mark of Cain” was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious “folk doctrine” in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the “mark of Cain” to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent—a policy for which no revelation or prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

The speculation was that in the premortal existence, certain spirits were set aside to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain’s murder of his brother and covenant with Satan (Genesis 4:11–15; Moses 5:23–25, Moses 5:36–40), and then again later by Ham’s offense against his father Noah. The reasons why this lineage was set apart weren’t clear, but it was speculated they were somehow less valiant than their premortal brethren during the war in heaven. In this life, then, the holy priesthood was to be withheld from all who had had any trace of that lineage.

As neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot logically be interpreted this way unless one starts with the priesthood ban itself and then works backward, looking for scriptures to support a predetermined belief.


Response to claim: 447, 616n31 - Did Gordon B. Hinckley "admit" in April 2002 that Latter-day Saints do not believe in the same 'Jesus' as non-LDS Christians?

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

Did Gordon B. Hinckley "admit" in April 2002 that Latter-day Saints do not believe in the same 'Jesus' as non-LDS Christians?

Author's sources:

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

This was no "confession"—President Hinckley was bearing testimony of Christ. The Saints believe in the God of the Bible, which is consistent with Joseph Smith's vision. They do not accept the nonbiblical creeds added later.


Question: Did Gordon B. Hinckley say that Latter-day Saints do not worship the biblical Jesus?

It is clear that Latter-day Saints believe in the biblical Christ—the Christ that is described in the New Testament

President Gordon B. Hinckley, responding to a question regarding whether Latter-day Saints believe in the “traditional Christ,” stated:

No I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the fullness of times. [5]

President Hinckley is referring to the concept of Christ that has developed in the centuries since the Nicene Creed was formed

President Hinckley is referring to the concept of Christ that has developed in the centuries since the Nicene Creed was formed—He is saying that we do not believe in non-Biblical creeds. This statement is quite correct: Latter-day Saints do not have some of the same beliefs about Christ that other Christian churches do. He is not saying that we do not believe in the Biblical Christ. In fact, the reason that Latter-day Saints do not accept these creeds is because they are non-Biblical. President Hinckley continued (with words usually omitted by critics):

Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I'm trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life.

Hinckley: "Believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the greatest figure of time and eternity"

Consider the following words by President Hinckley:

Believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the greatest figure of time and eternity. Believe that His matchless life reached back before the world was formed. Believe that He was the Creator of the earth on which we live. Believe that He was Jehovah of the Old Testament, that He was the Messiah of the New Testament, that He died and was resurrected, that He visited the western continents and taught the people here, that He ushered in this final gospel dispensation, and that He lives, the living Son of the living God, our Savior and our Redeemer. [6]

In the statement above, there is no question that President Hinckley is professing belief in the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Critics, however, ignore clear statements such as these, and instead look to justify their claims that Latter-day Saints are not Christian by mining the quotes of church leaders for phrases which seem to support their position.

In order to strengthen their claim, critics of the Church sometimes even modify these quotes

Consider the use of President Hinckley’s quote in the critical Search for the Truth DVD. The critics have actually added a phrase to the quote:

No I don't believe in the traditional Christ. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the Fullness of Times. [7]

President Hinckley understood how the critics would attempt to portray Latter-day Saints with regard to their belief in Christ:

As a Church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. They spoke to him. He spoke with Them. He testified openly, unequivocally, and unabashedly of that great vision. It was a vision of the Almighty and of the Redeemer of the world, glorious beyond our understanding but certain and unequivocating in the knowledge which it brought. It is out of that knowledge, rooted deep in the soil of modern revelation, that we, in the words of Nephi, “talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that [we and] our children may know to what source [we] may look for a remission of [our] sins” (2 Nephi 25:26). [8]

President Hinckley was quite clear in his position regarding Christ:

Are we Christians? Of course we are Christians. We believe in Christ. We worship Christ. We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant His holy name. The Church to which we belong carries His name. He is our Lord, our Savior, our Redeemer through whom came the great Atonement with salvation and eternal life. [9]


Response to claim: 448, 616n34 - The author claims that Dallin Oaks told Latter-day Saints in 1995 "that so-called Christianity sees God as an entirely different kind of being"

The author(s) of One Nation Under Gods make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Dallin Oaks told Latter-day Saints in 1995 "that so-called Christianity sees God as an entirely different kind of being"

Author's sources:
  1. Dallin H. Oaks, "Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign (May 1995), 84.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

Elder Oaks nowhere says "so-called Christianity," or uses the phrase "an entirely different kind of being."

Question: Did Elder Dallin Oaks say that "so-called Christianity sees God as an entirely different kind of being"?

Elder Oaks never said any such thing

Author Richard Abanes in his critical book One Nation Under Gods claims that Dallin Oaks told Mormons in 1995 "that so-called Christianity sees God as an entirely different kind of being." He cites Dallin H. Oaks, "Apostasy and Restoration ," Ensign, May 1995, 84. However, Elder Oaks made no such claim.

In the cited article, Elder Oaks says nothing about "so-called Christianity." The only mention of the phrase "so-called" in the article is the following:

The received language of the Bible remained, but the so-called “hidden meanings” of scriptural words were now explained in the vocabulary of a philosophy alien to their origins.

Elder Oaks' contention is not that the LDS God is not the Christian God, but rather that many Christian faiths have grafted non-scriptural ideas onto their conception of God

Elder Oaks does not deny the label of Christian to others who differ with us, or think that we do not also have many points in common.

In the cited article, Elder Oaks says nothing about "so-called Christianity." Instead, he uses such phrases as:

  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many beliefs in common with other Christian churches....
  • In common with the rest of Christianity, we believe in a Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
  • Like other Christians, we believe in a heaven or paradise and a hell following mortal life, but to us that two-part division of the righteous and the wicked is merely temporary, while the spirits of the dead await their resurrections and final judgments.
  • It is the reality of these glorious possibilities that causes us to proclaim our message of restored Christianity to all people, even to good practicing Christians with other beliefs.

Elder Oaks describes the differences between LDS belief and that of many other Christians as due to the influence of Greek philosophy after the loss of the apostles

We maintain that the concepts identified by such nonscriptural terms as “the incomprehensible mystery of God” and “the mystery of the Holy Trinity” are attributable to the ideas of Greek philosophy. These philosophical concepts transformed Christianity in the first few centuries following the deaths of the Apostles. For example, philosophers then maintained that physical matter was evil and that God was a spirit without feelings or passions. Persons of this persuasion, including learned men who became influential converts to Christianity, had a hard time accepting the simple teachings of early Christianity: an Only Begotten Son who said he was in the express image of his Father in Heaven and who taught his followers to be one as he and his Father were one, and a Messiah who died on a cross and later appeared to his followers as a resurrected being with flesh and bones.

The collision between the speculative world of Greek philosophy and the simple, literal faith and practice of the earliest Christians produced sharp contentions that threatened to widen political divisions in the fragmenting Roman empire. This led Emperor Constantine to convene the first churchwide council in a.d. 325. The action of this council of Nicaea remains the most important single event after the death of the Apostles in formulating the modern Christian concept of deity. The Nicene Creed erased the idea of the separate being of Father and Son by defining God the Son as being of “one substance with the Father.”

Other councils followed, and from their decisions and the writings of churchmen and philosophers there came a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine in which the orthodox Christians of that day lost the fulness of truth about the nature of God and the Godhead. The consequences persist in the various creeds of Christianity, which declare a Godhead of only one being and which describe that single being or God as “incomprehensible” and “without body, parts, or passions.” One of the distinguishing features of the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is its rejection of all of these postbiblical creeds (italics added).


Notes

  1. Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, Endnote 82, page 566 (hardback)
  2. Richard E. Turley, Jr., "The Mountain Meadows Massacre," Ensign (September 2007), 14–21.
  3. Turley, Walker and Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, xii-xiii. notes: "One approach [to recounting the massacre] portrays the perpetrators as good people and the victims as evil ones who committed outrages during their travel through central and southern Utah. Some descendants of the perpetrators and several Mormon historians have adopted this approach because it seems, on the surface, to excuse or soften what happened....Readers of our book will find little sympathy for...[this] approach..."
  4. Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God,” address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 1978.
  5. Gordon B. Hinckley, cited in "Crown of Gospel is Upon Our Heads," LDS Church News, (Saturday, 20 June 1998): 7.
  6. Gordon B. Hinckley, "Be Not Faithless," Ensign (Apr. 1989), 2.;See also “Words of the Prophet: My Testimony of Christ”, New Era, Apr. 2001. (emphasis added)
  7. This version of the statement is attributed to President Hinckley in the “Search for the Truth” DVD. A screenshot may be viewed here. (emphasis added)
  8. Gordon B. Hinckley, "We Look to Christ," Ensign (May 2002), 90. off-site
  9. Gordon B. Hinckley, "What Are People Asking about Us?," Ensign (Nov. 1998), 70. off-site