Mormonism and culture/Response to "Why People Leave the LDS Church" (2008)/Historical and doctrinal issues

FAIR Answers—back to home page

An analysis of "Why People Leave the LDS Church" (2008)—Historical and doctrinal issues



A FAIR Analysis of: "Why People Leave the LDS Church" (2008), a work by author: John P. Dehlin
 		Social and cultural issues

An analysis of "Why People Leave the LDS Church" (2008)—Historical and doctrinal issues




∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in the Church: Joseph Smith was a pure, innocent boy.
  • What the history/facts tell us: Joseph used a "magical peep stone" to help people find buried treasure.



Things to think about
  •   The author is applying presentism  —The critics often ignore or fail to provide historical context to understand why things might have been different earlier.
     Why is Joseph being relatively pure and innocent contradicted by using a seer stone?
  •   The author is using loaded language   —Critics often use negative terms, biased language, or casual terms to make LDS matters seem bizarre, evil, or absurd.
     "Magical peep stone" is both loaded language and not how Joseph or his family would have seen the matter.

Quotes to think about
Joseph Smith—History 28, Pearl of Great Price

I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God.

In the young Joseph Smith's time and place, "money digging" was a popular, and sometimes respected activity. When Joseph was 16, the Palmyra Herald printed such remarks as:

  • "digging for money hid in the earth is a very common thing and in this state it is even considered as honorable and profitable employment"
  • "One gentleman...digging...ten to twelve years, found a sufficient quantity of money to build him a commodious house.
  • "another...dug up...fifty thousand dollars!" [1]

And, in 1825 the Wayne Sentinel in Palmyra reported that buried treasure had been found "by the help of a mineral stone, (which becomes transparent when placed in a hat and the light excluded by the face of him who looks into it)." [2]

Given the financial difficulties under which the Smith family labored, it would hardly be surprising that they might hope for such a reversal in their fortunes. Richard Bushman has compared the Smith's attitude toward treasure digging with a modern attitude toward gambling, or buying a lottery ticket. Bushman points out that looking for treasure had little stigma attached to it among all classes in the 17th century, and continued to be respectable among the lower classes into the 18th and 19th. [3]
Additional information

  • Treasure seeking—Was Joseph Smith's engagement in "money digging" or looking for buried treasure a blot on his character? (Link)


  • Practitioner of occultism and magic?—Some claim that Joseph Smith's spiritual experiences began as products of "magic," the "occult," or "treasure seeking," and that only later did Joseph describe his experiences in Christian, religious terms: speaking of God, angels, and prophethood. (Link)
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in the Church: Joseph Smith turned down alcohol in surgery
  • What the history/facts tell us: Joseph drank beer and wine as an adult (his own journal)



Things to think about
  •   The author is applying presentism  —The critics often ignore or fail to provide historical context to understand why things might have been different earlier.
  • It is true that the story of Joseph's leg operation should not be used as a lesson on the Word of Wisdom.
  • Beer and wine were not seen as a violation of the Word of Wisdom in Joseph's day (they were not regarded as "strong drinks," which were generally distilled liquors). The members of Joseph's day were not troubled by his actions—this demonstrates that the member is probably misunderstanding the historical context, because he is bothered by something that did not bother Joseph's contemporaries.

Additional information

  • History and implementation of the Word of Wisdom—Observance of the Word of Wisdom has changed over time, due to on-going revelation from modern-day prophets, who put greater emphasis on certain elements of the revelation originally given to Joseph Smith. Early Latter-day Saints were not under the same requirements as today's Saints are. (Link)

∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in the Church: Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus
  • What the history/facts tell us: First vision has multiple, and varied accounts (Pres. Hinckley)



Things to think about
  •   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.
  • If he cites President Hinckley, how can it be fairly said that the Church is not disclosing this matter?
  • Joseph did see God and Jesus.
  • Joseph's 1832 journal account of the First Vision is the only one that does not explicitly mention a second personage, though both may be present by implication (see here). The remainder of the "multiple, varied accounts" all claim that Joseph saw two personages.
  • No early critic or member made a similar complaint—which probably suggests that those who think it causes problems for Joseph's account are missing something in their assessment.
  •   Church never tells us  —Critics often claim the Church doesn't reveal or discuss something, when Church publications have discussed the matter, often at length and in detail.
  • Contrary to the presenter's implied claim, these matters have been extensively and exhaustively discussed and reported in Church-published books and materials. For example:
    • Church Educational System, “Additional Details from Joseph Smith’s 1832 Account of the First Vision,” in Presidents of the Church: Student Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), 5–6.
    • Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002), 9–20.
    • Dean C. Jessee, "The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision," Brigham Young University Studies 9 no. 3 (Spring 1969), 279–80.
    • Dean C. Jessee, "The Earliest Documented Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision," in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820–1844 (Documents in Latter-day Saint History), edited by John W. Welch with Erick B. Carlson, (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press / Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 2005), 1–33. ISBN 0842526072. This book has recently been reprinted, in paperback. BYU Studies and Deseret Book (July 13, 2011)

Quotes to think about

During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church.
—Accounts of the First Vision, Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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.
—“Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ,” Dennis B. Neuenschwander, Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22 off-site

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

A non-LDS scholar agrees:

"Critics of Mormonism have delighted in the discrepancies between the canonical [1838 Pearl of Great Price] account and earlier renditions, especially one written in Smith's own hand in 1832. For example, in the 1832 version, Jesus appears to Smith alone, and does all the talking himself. Such complaints, however, are much ado about relatively nothing. Any good lawyer (or historian) would expect to find contradictions or competing narratives written down years apart and decades after the event. And despite the contradictions, key elements abide. In each case, Jesus appears to Smith in a vision. In each case, Smith is blessed with a revelation. In each case, God tells him to remain aloof from all Christian denominations, as something better is in store." - Stephen Prothero, American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003), 171.


Additional information

  • Joseph's accounts of the First Vision—Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision. Critics charge that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore had no such vision. (Link)


∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in the Church: Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using the "Urim and Thummim"
  • What the history/facts tell us:The same "peep stone" was used to translate the Book of Mormon—Stone in the hat, plates not in sight (Russell M. Nelson)



Things to think about
  •   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.
  • Since the presenter quotes Russell M. Nelson's talk published in the Ensign as evidence, how can he then claim that he was never told this by the Church?
  •   The author is applying presentism  —The critics often ignore or fail to provide historical context to understand why things might have been different earlier.
  • By 1832, both the Nephite Interpreters and the seer stone were referred to by Church members as the "Urim and Thummim."

Quotes to think about
  •   Church never tells us  —Critics often claim the Church doesn't reveal or discuss something, when Church publications have discussed the matter, often at length and in detail.
In 2005, Opening the Heavens was published jointly by the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History and Deseret Book. As part of this book, at least twenty-nine references to the stone (often with the hat) are included, from both friendly and hostile sources:
  • p. 112, 129, 130, 135, 136, 137, 138, 142, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 164, 166, 168, 178, 184, 185, 187, 192, 193, 196.

"Martin Harris related of the seer stone: 'Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin'"
—Neal A. Maxwell, “‘By the Gift and Power of God’,” Ensign, Jan 1997, 36 (emphasis added) off-site

"David Whitmer wrote: ' Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.'"
—Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, Jul 1993, 61. (emphasis added) off-site

"Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark."
—Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.

The scriptures indicate that translation involved sight, power, transcription of the characters, the Urim and Thummim or a seerstone, study, and prayer.
After returning from a trip to Palmyra to settle his affairs, Martin began to transcribe. From April 12 to June 14, Joseph translated while Martin wrote, with only a curtain between them. On occasion they took breaks from the arduous task, sometimes going to the river and throwing stones. Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them." —Kenneth W. Godfrey, "A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon," Ensign (Jan 1988).

"There he gave his most detailed view of 'the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated': “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light."
—Richard Lloyd Anderson, "‘By the Gift and Power of God’," Ensign (Sep 1977), 79, emphasis added. off-site

"To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone."
—“A Peaceful Heart,” Friend, Sep 1974, 7 off-site


Additional information


∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in the Church: Joseph Smith had one wife—Emma
  • What the history/facts tell us: Joseph had 30 wives, some of them married to other men, several teenagers (familysearch.org)



Things to think about
  • It is unlikely that anyone taught in Church that "Joseph Smith had just one wife." Rather, Emma features most prominently in Church history, and Joseph's other wives are not mentioned.
  •   Church never tells us  —Critics often claim the Church doesn't reveal or discuss something, when Church publications have discussed the matter, often at length and in detail.
  • Members are encouraged to read the scriptures—LDS scripture discussing plural marriage makes it clear that Emma was instructed to accept the other plural wives that had been given to Joseph (DC 132꞉52).
  • Since it is not practiced today, LDS publications do not focus on plural marriage. But, the issue is mentioned repeatedly:

Starting during Joseph Smith’s own lifetime but limited to a few dozen families until its official announcement in 1852, plural marriage brought a powerful new challenge to the equanimity of Latter-day Saint family life...
—Davis Bitton, "Great-Grandfather’s Family," Ensign (Feb 1977), 48.(emphasis added)

Her great trial came when the prophet revealed to Emma that they would be required to live the ancient law of Abraham—plural marriage. Emma suffered deeply hurt feelings because of it. While she agreed with this doctrine at times, at other times she opposed it. Years later, Emma is purported to have denied that any such doctrine was ever introduced by her husband.
—Gracia N. Jones, "My Great-Great-Grandmother, Emma Hale Smith," Ensign (Aug 1992), 30.(emphasis added)

  • Even the younger ages of some plural wives has been mentioned:
Although little Don Carlos Smith died a short time later, Emily and Eliza continued to live in the Smith home, where, in the summer of 1842, both girls “were married to Bro. Joseph about the same time, but neither of us knew about the other at the time; everything was so secret” (Emily, “Incidents,” p. 186).
—Dean Jessee, "‘Steadfastness and Patient Endurance’: The Legacy of Edward Partridge," Ensign (Jun 1979), 41. off-site (emphasis added)
''' How a family accepts members who join it by marriage is, in some ways, analogous to how a Church accepts members who join it by baptism. The experiences of plural marriage' make the analogy even closer....the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded a revelation to the Whitneys on plural marriage....The Whitneys gave their daughter into the system of plural marriage and received into their family other plural wives.
—D. Michael Quinn, “The Newel K. Whitney Family,” Ensign, Dec 1978, 42 off-site (emphasis added)



Additional information


∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in the Church: Joseph Smith was falsely accused and persecuted
  • What the history/facts tell us: [Joseph's use of a "magical peep stone"] was the reason for some of the early "trials" and court cases involving Joseph (Court records) Joseph denied polygamy publicly (Oaks)



Things to think about
  •   The author is applying presentism  —The critics often ignore or fail to provide historical context to understand why things might have been different earlier.
  •   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.
  • If the presenter cites Elder Oaks, how can the Church be hiding these facts?
  • It is not clear why the presenter thinks these facts oppose each other. Joseph a hearing (not a trial) in 1826 for his use of the peep stone and accused of trying to defraud someone. He was not found guilty, and was free from further legal investigation on the matter. This would seem to imply that the charge against him was false (or, at least, not proven).
  • Joseph did deny plural marriage for reasons of safety; however, he was never charged with polygamy or bigamy or anything else related to plural marriage. Court cases were brought on other grounds, and study of the prophet's involvement with the legal system demonstrates that the courts were often used to harass and persecute Joseph and other members.

Quotes to think about
  •   Church never tells us  —Critics often claim the Church doesn't reveal or discuss something, when Church publications have discussed the matter, often at length and in detail.

Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.
—Anonymous, "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life," Ensign (Jun 1994), 24. off-site


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)
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in the Church: Joseph Smith went to the jail in Carthage like a "Lamb to the Slaughter"
  • What the history/facts tell us: Exposure of polygamy and destruction of printing press led to martyrdom.



Things to think about
  •   Not doctrine  —Critics make claims about what "the Church teaches" or what "I was taught," but these ideas are specifically repudiated by official sources.
  • The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor has always been taught to have played a role in the martyrdom.
  • Claims of polygamy did not begin with the Expositor: John C. Bennett, for example, had written numerous letters, published them as a book, and embarked on an anti-Mormon lecture tour in which tales of polygamy featured prominently. They were far more detailed than anything in the Expositor, which charged Joseph and others with causing the death of Mormon women.
  • Joseph and the others were not in jail because of the Expositor. They had posted bail, and were free until the circuit court judge arrived to hear the case (which would have only penalized them with a fine if found guilty). They were in jail because they were falsely charged with treason. This charge was upheld by a justice of the peace, who the head of the Carthage Greys—the militia unit that would later murder Joseph.
  •   Church never tells us  —Critics often claim the Church doesn't reveal or discuss something, when Church publications have discussed the matter, often at length and in detail.

Quotes to think about
"Chapter 22: The Martyrdom," Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual, (2003), 273–285 off-site

The Expositor Affair. Leaders of the conspiracy were exposed in the Times and Seasons and were excommunicated from the Church. Thwarted in their plans, the dissenters decided to publish an opposition newspaper. The first and only issue of their paper, which was called the Nauvoo Expositor, appeared on 7 June 1844. Throughout the paper they accused Joseph Smith of teaching vicious principles, practicing whoredoms, advocating so-called spiritual wifery, grasping for political power, preaching that there were many gods, speaking blasphemously of God, and promoting an inquisition.
....
The excitement was so intense that [Governor] Ford published an open letter urging calmness and then went to Carthage to neutralize a situation that threatened civil war. He also wrote to Joseph Smith insisting that only a trial of the city council members before a non-Mormon jury in Carthage would satisfy the people.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:547–49.

If my life is of no value to my friends it is of none to myself.


Additional information

  • Nauvoo Expositor—What can you tell me about the Nauvoo Expositor? Did Joseph violate the law by ordering it destroyed? (Link)


∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in the Church: Joseph Smith was 2nd to Jesus in Righteousness (no man has done more for the salvation of others except Jesus Christ)



Things to think about
  •   the author is applying fundamentalist thinking  —The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.
  •   Not doctrine  —Critics make claims about what "the Church teaches" or what "I was taught," but these ideas are specifically repudiated by official sources.
  • The Church does not teach that Joseph was "second to Jesus in Righteousness". Rather, Joseph's influence and impact are said to have done more for salvation than anyone besides Jesus. However, it is not Joseph's righteousness that saves others, or that helps redeem them. Instead, it is only the authority that Joseph restored, the scripture he produced, and the doctrines he taught that provide a way to salvation:
Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord's anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum (D&C 135꞉3)
Joseph's personal righteousness is immaterial.
Quotes to think about
  • Joseph repeatedly encouraged the Saints not to ascribe some great perfection or righteousness to him:
I have not an idea there has been a great many very good men since Adam There was one good man Jesus.—Many think a prophet must be a great deal better than any body else.—suppose I would condescend. yes I will call it condescend, to be a great deal better than any of you. I would be raised up to the highest heaven, and who should I have to accompany me....
I don[']t want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. - Ehat and Cook, Words of Joseph Smith, 2nd Ed, (1996), 114, 21 May 1843.
  • He also told the Saints:
He then commenc'd reading the 13 chapter, 17 "Though I speak with the tongues of men" &C. and said don't be limited in your views with regard to your neighbors' virtues, but be limited towards your own virtues, and not think yourselves more righteous than others; you must enlarge your souls toward others if you [w]ould do like Jesus, and carry your fellow creatures to Abrams bosom. He said he had manifested long suffering and we must do so too. (Ehat and Cook, Words of Joseph Smith, 2nd Ed, (1996), 114, 28 Feb 1842 address.).
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: The Book of Mormon is the "most correct book on earth."
  • What the history/facts seem to tell us: The Book of Mormon has had over 4000 changes. Many minor, some major.



Things to think about
  • Almost all the changes are minor. There are probably only half-a-dozen changes of any significance at all.
  • Brigham Young University has funded the most detailed and searching examination of the original text of the Book of Mormon, conducted by Royal Skousen. The Church can hardly be said to have hidden such matters.
  • Joseph Smith supervised editing of the Book of Mormon.
  • Such things are of historical interest, but they do not change the Book of Mormon's message or teachings. It is not surprising, then, that only those who study the history of the text might pay very much attention to such things.

Quotes to think about
  •   Church never tells us  —Critics often claim the Church doesn't reveal or discuss something, when Church publications have discussed the matter, often at length and in detail.
Some Church publications do mention the issue:

"In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and 13:40. The text would be correct with or without the additional words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding." - George Horton, "Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon," Ensign (December 1983).

"Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them. Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books....Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered. Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true." -Boyd K. Packer, "We Believe All That God Has Revealed," Ensign (May 1974), 94.


Additional information

  • As the most correct book—It is claimed that since Joseph stated that it was "the most correct book," that the Book of Mormon should not have contained any errors. Yet, Mormon himself states in the preface that any mistakes contained therein are the mistakes of men. (Link)


  • Textual changes—The claim is often heard that there are more than 4000 changes to the Book of Mormon text. The majority of these are typographical. Few of the changes are significant. We examine the more noteworthy changes. (Link)
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: The Book of Mormon was found in the Hill Cumorah, in New York, where it was buried by Moroni.
  • What the history/facts seem to tell us: No one has been able to find any geography that credibly maps to what's in the Book of Mormon.



Things to think about
  •   The author seriously misunderstands the data  —The critic either genuinely misunderstands an issue or feigns confusion, and then disputes his or her misunderstanding as if it were accurate.
  • No one in the Church disputes that the Hill in New York was where Joseph found the plates, after they were buried by Moroni.
  • The question is whether early Mormons were correct in labeling this hill "Cumorah," and equating it with the Hill Cumorah in the Nephite record. A close reading of the Book of Mormon text demonstrates that doing so is probably not accurate.
  • The Book of Mormon creates a complex, credible, and internally-consistent geography. It is not clear why the presenter feels qualified to claim that no such maps are "credible." (See John Sorenson's Mormon's Map, for example.)
  • If an member is expecting to be able to correlate the Book of Mormon's internal map with real-world present-day locations, that is a taller order, partly because we have no New World "anchor points" at which we can confidently place a known Book of Mormon location. Because of this, real-world maps can be consistent with the Book of Mormon, but they cannot be definitive. Such maps with the best scholarly support include Sorenson's real-world model, and Paulsen's refinements upon it.

Additional information


  • Geography—The geographical setting of the Book of Mormon has been the subject of serious study and casual speculation since before the book was first published. We describe the various theories and examine the strengths and weaknesses of each. (Link)
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...



Things to think about
  •   The author seriously misunderstands the data  —The critic either genuinely misunderstands an issue or feigns confusion, and then disputes his or her misunderstanding as if it were accurate.
  • The Book of Mormon is a record of the ancestors of the native Americans. If even a very small group of people, like Lehi's, from 2600 years ago has any descendants, then everyone in the Americas (and elsewhere) is now their descendant. He is mistaken if he thinks that most of the DNA should come from Lehi if these people are to be Lehi's descendants.
  • It's not clear why "bones" cause a problem for the Book of Mormon. How does one tell a Nephite bone from a non-Nephite bone?
  • Book of Mormon armor matches what is known about pre-Columbian armor.
  • The presenter invokes a wide range of supposed "anachronisms," but shows little familiarity with the discussion that has long taken place about such things.
  • For example, barley has been known in the New World since 1983, despite his claim.
  • Likewise, a 7-day calendar was known among pre-Columbian Americans. Elephants only date to Jaredite times, and there are plausible candidates. Other issues are treated in the links provided above.
  • The theory about View of the Hebrews is a poor one, as even a superficial comparison of its text with the Book of Mormon demonstrates.
  • Church scholars were so certain that the View of the Hebrews posed no risk to the Book of Mormon that BYU published the text anew so it would be more easily accessible.
Cover of the January 1968 issue of the Improvement Era, the Church's official magazine of the time. Note the color photograph of the recovered Facsimile 1.
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: The Book of Abraham was translated from papyrus.
  • What the history/facts seem to tell us: Experts agree (Nibley included) that the Book of Abraham is not a translation of the papyrus.



Things to think about
  •   Caricature believers' arguments  —Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.
  •   The author seriously misunderstands the data  —The critic either genuinely misunderstands an issue or feigns confusion, and then disputes his or her misunderstanding as if it were accurate.
  • Nibley's position is being misrepresented. Nibley insisted that the fragments of papyrus that remain are not the source for the Book of Abraham (except Facsimile 1). He did not claim that the Book of Abraham was not translated from the papyrus.
  •   Church never tells us  —Critics often claim the Church doesn't reveal or discuss something, when Church publications have discussed the matter, often at length and in detail.
  • Nibley published what he thought about the matter in the official Church magazine. Thus, if Church instructors were mistaken, it is not because the Church hid or distorted the matter.

Quotes to think about
The Church's official magazine did not hide Nibley's conclusion about the papyrus fragments rediscovered in 1968.


Additional information

  • When did the Church disclose that the Joseph Smith Papyri were an Egyptian funerary text?—Critics often assert that the Church did not identify the Joseph Smith Papyri as an Egyptian funerary text until after Egyptologists examined them. They also claim that the Church is hiding or "covering up" the papyri's actual contents. Both assertions are incorrect. In fact, the Church ran a multi-part series with color pictures of the papyri in the Improvement Era (the predecessor to the Ensign) less than two months after they were received from the Metropolitan Museum. The series repeatedly affirmed that the recovered papyri contained Egyptian funerary materials and not the text of Book of Abraham. Although the article erroneously identified the papyrus as the Egyptian "Book of the Dead," it was later correctly identified as a "Book of Breathings. (Link)


∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...



Things to think about
  •   the author is applying fundamentalist thinking  —The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.
  •   Not doctrine  —Critics make claims about what "the Church teaches" or what "I was taught," but these ideas are specifically repudiated by official sources.
  • Following the prophet does not mean the prophet is perfect.
  • How could any member possibly be surprised by the fact that mortal leaders "have not been perfect"? The Bible is full of stories of prophets who were not perfect. No one is perfect, save Jesus. This is an impossible standard.
  • Any Church member was almost certainly also taught in Church that he or she should seek personal revelation and get a personal testimony of anything which the prophet asked him or her to do before following.
  • It is unlikely that any Church member was ever asked to preach or believe Adam-God theory, blood atonement, or racism in Church.
  • Prophets have also repudiated these speculative teachings, on Adam-God, race, and the critics' interpretation of blood atonement, which were never sustained by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (as is required to make doctrine binding) or voted upon by the Church membership.

Quotes to think about

it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”

—D. Todd Christopherson, "The Doctrine of Christ," Ensign (May 2012).

Brigham Young made it clear how Church members should "Follow the Prophet":

I do not wish any Latter–day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. —Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:45.


Additional information

  • Prophetic are not infallible—Critics sometimes impose absolutist assumptions on the Church by holding inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets. Critics therefore insist, based upon these assumptions, that any statement by any LDS Church leader represents LDS doctrine and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Latter-day Saints. (Link)


∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: The Prophet "talks with God"
  • What the history/facts seem to tell us: Polygamy: from everlasting to embarrassment. Blacks and the priesthood: from "never in this life" to "what ban?" Policy not doctrine. Mark Hoffman [sic] fooled Church leaders.



Things to think about
  •   the author is applying fundamentalist thinking  —The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.
  •   Not doctrine  —Critics make claims about what "the Church teaches" or what "I was taught," but these ideas are specifically repudiated by official sources.
  • Just because prophets may "speak with God" does not mean that everything prophets think, believe, or say comes from God.
  • God respects prophets' (and everyone else's) moral agency: God expects us to think, reason, and draw conclusions. No one will do so perfectly.
  • Some members apparently held an extremely rigid, fundamentalist view of such matters that simply could not cope with the realities of history and mortal life.
  • The presenter focuses on quotes that support his thesis (the Church is false, or not what it claims) but he ignores the fact that other leaders said different things about these matters. Since the leaders were not of one voice on the matter, and knew this, and yet did not see this as a problem, that ought to suggest that they understood that views could and would differ.
  • The presenter again overlooks the absolute necessity of personal revelation before accepting any teaching as binding and authoritative.

Additional information

  • Prophetic are not infallible—Critics sometimes impose absolutist assumptions on the Church by holding inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets. Critics therefore insist, based upon these assumptions, that any statement by any LDS Church leader represents LDS doctrine and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Latter-day Saints. (Link)
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: Words of modern prophets are scripture. "When the brethren have spoken, the discussion ends."
  • What the history/facts seem to tell us: The Church has "completely distanced" itself from the Journal of Discourses. You won't see many quotes from the Journal of Discourses.



Things to think about
  •   the author is applying fundamentalist thinking  —The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.
  •   Not doctrine  —Critics make claims about what "the Church teaches" or what "I was taught," but these ideas are specifically repudiated by official sources.
  • The idea that "when the brethren have spoken, the discussion ends" is false doctrine. Something similar was printed as a home teaching message written in 1945 by a Church employee, and George Albert Smith repudiated it. If any Church member was taught this, he or she was taught false doctrine.
  •   Church never tells us  —Critics often claim the Church doesn't reveal or discuss something, when Church publications have discussed the matter, often at length and in detail.
  • How many quotes from the Journal of Discourses counts as "many"? For earlier Church leaders, almost entire manuals have been created from quotes that can be found in the Journal of Discourses, since this is where their talks were reprinted. Often, however, another source for the same quote is provided (e.g., a Church newspaper such as Deseret News), so the presenter may not realize that the same material is also found in the Journal of Discourses. See, for example:
  • To find a quote from these manuals in the Journal of Discourses, simply copy a few words or a phrase into the search box of the FAIRwiki at the left side of the screen, and surround them by quotation marks.
  • Contrary to the presenter's claim, members have probably been exposed to more material in the Journal of Discourses by way of the Priesthood and Relief Society manuals than any Church classes in the last few generations.

Quotes to think about
Brigham Young made the following statements:
Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for yourselves. [4]
The great masses of the people neither think nor act for themselves. . . . I see too much of this gross ignorance among this chosen people of God. [5]
Joseph Smith said the following:
All have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to conscience. . . . We are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive anyone of exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts. [6]
Dallin H. Oaks shared the following in the April 2008 conference:
Members who have a testimony and who act upon it under the direction of their Church leaders are sometimes accused of blind obedience.
Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church and in the performance of needed priesthood ordinances. But when it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospel—our personal testimonies—we each have a direct relationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.
Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience. We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God. This has to do with His existence, our relationship to Him, and the truth of His restored gospel. This channel results in knowledge. These two channels are mutually reinforcing: knowledge encourages obedience (see Deuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1). [7]
Additional quotes from both early and present-day Church leaders may be found here.
Additional information

∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: The book Mormon Doctrine was just that.
  • What the history/facts seem to tell us: Massive errors. Elder McConkie censured and punished.



Things to think about
  •   the author is applying fundamentalist thinking  —The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.
  •   Not doctrine  —Critics make claims about what "the Church teaches" or what "I was taught," but these ideas are specifically repudiated by official sources.
  • Church leaders are not perfect. No Church manual or publication has ever declared Mormon Doctrine as "official doctrine".

Additional information

  • Prophetic are not infallible—Critics sometimes impose absolutist assumptions on the Church by holding inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets. Critics therefore insist, based upon these assumptions, that any statement by any LDS Church leader represents LDS doctrine and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Latter-day Saints. (Link)
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: LDS General Authorities are among the most righteous people in the world.
  • What the history/facts seem to tell us: Paul Dunn, George P. Lee, Richard Lyman. Abuses: sexual, baptismal, ecclesiastical.



Things to think about
  •   the author is applying fundamentalist thinking  —The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.
  •   Not doctrine  —Critics make claims about what "the Church teaches" or what "I was taught," but these ideas are specifically repudiated by official sources.
  • When these leaders made serious errors in judgment and/or committed grave sins, they were disciplined, by the Church.
  • No one is perfect, or free from the risk of using their moral agency to fall. Only Jesus lived a perfect life.

Quotes to think about
The scriptures makes this risk crystal clear:
  • "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matthew 24:24
  • "For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22).
  • "the heart of my servant James Covill was right before me, for he covenanted with me that he would obey my word. And he received the word with gladness, but straightway Satan tempted him; and the fear of persecution and the cares of the world caused him to reject the word. 3 Wherefore he broke my covenant, and it remaineth with me to do with him as seemeth me good. Amen" (DC 40꞉1-3).
Even Joseph Smith and other Church leaders were warned that their choices could cause them to fall from favor with God (emphasis added in all cases):
  • "...let my servants Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon take their journey as soon as preparations can be made to leave their homes, and journey to the land of Missouri. And inasmuch as they are faithful unto me, it shall be made known unto them what they shall do; And it shall also, inasmuch as they are faithful, be made known unto them the land of your inheritance. And inasmuch as they are not faithful, they shall be cut off, even as I will, as seemeth me good" (DC 52꞉3-6).
  • "And now, verily I say unto Joseph Smith, Jun.—You have not kept the commandments, and must needs stand rebuked before the Lord; Your family must needs repent and forsake some things, and give more earnest heed unto your sayings, or be removed out of their place. What I say unto one I say unto all; pray always lest that wicked one have power in you, and remove you out of your place" (DC 93꞉47-49).
  • "My servant Newel K. Whitney also, a bishop of my church, hath need to be chastened, and set in order his family, and see that they are more diligent and concerned at home, and pray always, or they shall be removed out of their place" (DC 93꞉50).
  • "Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall" (DC 3꞉9).

Additional information

  • Prophetic are not infallible—Critics sometimes impose absolutist assumptions on the Church by holding inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets. Critics therefore insist, based upon these assumptions, that any statement by any LDS Church leader represents LDS doctrine and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Latter-day Saints. (Link)
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: Church doctrine is the same today, yesterday and forever.
  • What the history/facts seem to tell us: President Hinckley on Larry King, on men becoming gods and vice versa, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it." On polygamy, "not doctrinal."



Things to think about
  •   the author is applying fundamentalist thinking  —The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.
  •   Not doctrine  —Critics make claims about what "the Church teaches" or what "I was taught," but these ideas are specifically repudiated by official sources.
  • The practice of polygamy is not doctrinal at present. No Church leader has denied that plural marriage has a doctrinal basis: it remains clearly in DC 132, for example.
  • How doctrine is taught and emphasized will change as modern revelation progresses. The Articles of Faith remind us:
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God (A+of+F 1꞉9).
  •   The author seriously misunderstands the data  —The critic either genuinely misunderstands an issue or feigns confusion, and then disputes his or her misunderstanding as if it were accurate.
  • The presenter misunderstands what President Hinckley said, and because he does not include the full citation, the meaning is not clear. The only doctrine about which he evidenced some uncertainty or lack of much information was about God's "pre-divine" history.

Quotes to think about
  • The quote is not from Larry King; it is from an interview with TIME magazine.
    • The question asked was: Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?
    • President Hinckley answered: :A: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it. [The portion in italics was omitted from TIME's reporting, and thus from the presenter's report.]
President Hinckley did not deny or renounce the doctrine of God's previous mortal state. He asserted that:
  • we don't emphasize it.
  • we don't tend to teach it much in public discourse.
  • he doesn't know much about this topic, though he understands the philosophical underpinnings.
  • no one else in the Church has much information on it either.
Any claim that President Hinckley did not believe the King Follett Discourse or the Lorenzo Snow couplet has to deal with this contemporary public statement from a talk he gave in October 1994 General Conference:
...[T]he whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom. [8]
Although he did not mention the other half of President Snow's statement ("As man is, God once was"), it's quite clear from the context that President Hinckley was aware of and agreed with it.
Additional information

  • Hinckley downplaying the King Follett Discourse—It is claimed that, in an effort to appear more "mainline" Christian, the Church is downplaying the importance of some doctrines taught late in Joseph Smith's lifetime. Prominent among these is the doctrine of human deification. To bolster their argument, critics usually quote from a 1997 TIME magazine interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it." Critics have claimed that this means that President Hinckley has admitted to altering LDS doctrine, or discarding a teaching from the past. (Link)
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: Church doctrine comes straight from God to the prophets.



Things to think about
  •   the author is applying fundamentalist thinking  —The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.
  •   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  •   Not doctrine  —Critics make claims about what "the Church teaches" or what "I was taught," but these ideas are specifically repudiated by official sources.
  • Any Church member cannot have avoided also learning that God reveals, "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little" (see Isaiah 28:13, 2 Nephi 28꞉30, DC 98꞉12). Nor is he likely to have avoided hearing that God will "yet reveal many great and important things" (Articles of Faith 1:9). There would be little point in such on-going revelation if it would not change our minds and conclusions about some matters.
  • Also, simply because doctrine comes from God does not mean that everything that a prophet thinks, concludes, or says is "straight from God."

Additional information

  • Prophetic are not infallible—Critics sometimes impose absolutist assumptions on the Church by holding inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets. Critics therefore insist, based upon these assumptions, that any statement by any LDS Church leader represents LDS doctrine and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Latter-day Saints. (Link)
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: Word of Wisdom—Joseph turned down wine, Jesus drank grape juice.
  • What the history/facts seem to tell us: Not a commandment until the early 1900s. Many apostles/prophets drank/used tobacco. Joseph had a bar in his mansion, drank wine the night before he was murdered.



Things to think about
  •   The author is applying presentism  —The critics often ignore or fail to provide historical context to understand why things might have been different earlier.
  •   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  • The presenter is here repeating this concern about the Word of Wisdom (see above). Since he knows that the Word of Wisdom was not a commandment until the 1900s (and even DC 89꞉2) makes it clear), why is he so troubled by Joseph not keeping the Word of Wisdom in the way that modern members are required to?

Additional information

  • History and implementation of the Word of Wisdom—Observance of the Word of Wisdom has changed over time, due to on-going revelation from modern-day prophets, who put greater emphasis on certain elements of the revelation originally given to Joseph Smith. Early Latter-day Saints were not under the same requirements as today's Saints are. (Link)
∗       ∗       ∗

"Why People Leave the LDS Church" by John Dehlin says...
  • What I learned growing up in Church: Temple ceremony was direct from God.
  • What the history/facts seem to tell us: Temple ceremony, many direct connections to Masonic lodge. Drastic changes in ceremony from inception to now.



Things to think about
  •   The author is applying presentism  —The critics often ignore or fail to provide historical context to understand why things might have been different earlier.
  •   the author is applying fundamentalist thinking  —The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.
  • Members were all aware of changes to the presentation of the temple ordinances as they happened. They did not see any contradiction or problem with this.
  • The earliest members were well aware of the parallels with the Masonic lodge. Joseph Smith actively encouraged membership in the Masons at Nauvoo, which is a strange act to take if he is trying to hide the source of his ideas.
  • The message, doctrine, and intent of the Masonic ceremonies and the temple ordinances are completely different. Early members understood this, and were not troubled by some of the mechanical or structural similarities.

Additional information

Notes
  1. ↑ Palmyra Herald (24 July 1822); cited in Russell Anderson, "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith," (2002 FAIR Conference presentation.) FAIR link
  2. ↑ "Wonderful Discovery," Wayne Sentinel [Palmyra, New York] (27 December 1825), page 2, col. 4. Reprinted from the Orleans Advocate of Orleans, New York; cited by Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000), 170–171.
  3. ↑ Richard L. Bushman, "Joseph Smith Miscellany," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2005 FAIR Conference) FAIR link
  4. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:107.
  5. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:295.
  6. ↑ Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 49. off-site
  7. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Testimony," Ensign (May 2008).
  8. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Don't Drop the Ball," Ensign (November 1994), 46–49.


Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Mormonism_and_culture/Response_to_%22Why_People_Leave_the_LDS_Church%22_(2008)/Historical_and_doctrinal_issues&oldid=190247"