Eternal Truths? (Continued)

After reading my previous blog post (link) a few people asked me to elaborate on the nine issues I mentioned. I put forth the argument that religion (Mormonism in particular) is just as changing and mutable as science is. I state this argument because people often state that we should trust God over science because God's truths never change, whereas science changes a lot. I listed nine examples of ways in which God's truths have changed. OK, that's a bit disingenuous. I have nine examples of ways in which people's understanding of God's truths have changed. But regardless, that makes no difference. Because one could easily say that scientific truths don't change, it's simply our understanding of those truths.

Before I begin I want to point out a few disclaimers. None of what I state below is for the purpose of proving that the church isn't true or that religion is stupid. I simply want people to realize that one must be careful with religious truths. They are just as fickle as scientific truths. Many horrible atrocities have occurred and continue to occur because people are unwilling to see their religious views as amendable.

I will also put forth that the following is going to be pretty long. I'm going to include a lot of quotes. I know that it's generally wise to keep blog posts as short as possible. This will not be one of those posts. So, if you aren't interested in the material, feel free to stop reading now.

There is one argument that can be used against any of the following points. That argument is either that prophets are fallible or that they were simply speaking their opinion. I agree with that view 100%. The difficulty is that generally we don't know when prophets are speaking their opinion. We are generally only told ex-post-facto. Take blacks and the priesthood. We now see this as a matter of policy rather than doctrine. It's pretty clear that turn-of-the-century Mormons saw this as doctrine. Sure, they were wrong, but how many things do we consider to be doctrine that are only opinions (ie one earring, no gambling, etc..).

As with any post, I am always happy to hear dissenting opinions and other interpretations. I may not agree with you, but I will appreciate the opportunity to consider your opinion. That is one of the primary ways we grow in knowledge, hearing others views which do not match with our own. So, with no further ado, here we go.


1. Mormons no longer believe that blacks are descended from Cain, nor that they are lesser than white people. This is a doctrine that was taught quite clearly by people like Brigham Young and John Taylor.

Simply put, Brigham Young and John Taylor were racists. There is no way around that fact. Here are a few choice quotes (the emphasis is mine).

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the AFRICAN RACE? If the WHITE man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the PENALTY, under the LAW OF GOD, IS DEATH ON THE SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO."
-Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)

"And after the flood we are told that the CURSE that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through HAM'S WIFE, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? because it was necessary that the DEVIL SHOULD HAVE A REPRESENTATION upon the earth as well as God;..."
- John Taylor (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304)

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the AFRICAN RACE? If the WHITE man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the PENALTY, under the LAW OF GOD, IS DEATH ON THE SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO."
-Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)

I hope all of my readers feel truly saddened by these horrible teachings. There are plenty more quotes like the three above. If you really want to see some others, please follow this link. Contrast these teachings with a talk recently given by Gordon B. Hinckley in April 2006 conference.

"Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.
...Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such."
-Gordon B. Hinckley ("The Need for Greater Kindness," Ensign, May 2006, page 58)

Clearly there has been a change in opinion of the prophets towards people of color. Thank goodness for this. But we must accept the fact that in Brigham Young and John Taylor's day blacks were considered to be less than white people. Also, this view did not end with the turn of the century. I have quotes from people like Mark E. Petersen and Ezra Taft Benson that cause the heart to break. Let it be remembered that the church did not aid in the civil rights movement, quite the opposite. Thank goodness this has changed.


2. Mormons no longer believe that polygamy is a requirement for exaltation.

This may be a surprise to many people, but polygamy was taught to be a requirement for exaltation. Now there is an arguable explanation for this. One may say that it is a requirement to follow all of the Lord's commandments to receive exaltation. So, when polygamy was a commandment, it was required, now it is not. There are a few problematic statements though. Here is one:

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."
-Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 268)

3. The Lamanites are no longer thought to be the principle ancestors of the American Indians.

Recent advances in DNA research have not been good for the church's claims regarding the Book of Mormon. Many of you are probably aware (or maybe not) that the introduction to the Book of Mormon was recently changed from "...they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" to "...they are among the ancestors of the American Indians." If the Lamanites were the principle ancestors of the American Indians, we would expect to see bagel eating Indians with long-noses (sorry, that was inappropriate). But we do not. Instead, we see people with very similar features to Asians, just as anthropologists have been claiming for years.

The theories regarding this discrepancy are many and varied. The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) has a page dedicated to explaining the DNA issue (link). Notice that the general claim is that the Lamanites were engulfed by a larger non-Lamanite Asian-descendent race. It should be clear that this is a change of view from that held by the church for the past nearly two centuries.


4. According to Gordon B. Hinckley, we no longer necessarily believe that God was once a man like us.

Most of us are quite familiar with the

From an interview with Time magazine in August 1997, Hinckley is responding to Luke P Wilson.

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?

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.

And now here's another interview in 1997 with the San Francisco Chronicle.

Q: Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more a couplet than anything else.

I was always taught that this is true. This has been taught for decades. I taught this on my mission. Gordon B. Hinckley is not denying this doctrine, but he is clearly distancing us from the doctrine. How many years until this doctrine completely disappears from Mormon theology?


5. Many people no longer believe that Noah's flood was a world event but rather that it was a localized event.

I'm not going to say much on this subject. The leadership of the church hasn't spoken much on this topic. They leave this to the theologians. But there is definitely a movement away from the idea of a universal flood. After all, it just doesn't make sense. But that said, there are numerous statements from prophets throughout the years affirming the church's belief in a universal flood rather than a localized flood. We've already given up, for the most part, on young earth creationism, can universal flood be far behind?


6. Mormons no longer permit women to give priesthood blessings, even though they used to do so in Nauvoo.

Chris Welton, if you're reading, this one's for you. This may come as a surprise, but women used to have the right to give blessings. The right was not quite as unlimited as men, but they had the right to do so for family members and some others. One common case was that women would give blessings to the pregnant women within the relief society. Here are a few quotes about it.

"A wife does not hold the priesthood in connection with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, or with any other officer holding the Melchizedek priesthood, she may do so with perfect propriety. It is no uncommon thing for a man and wife unitedly to administer to their children, and the husband being mouth, he may properly say out of courtesy, 'By authority of the holy priesthood in us vested.'"
- Joseph F. Smith (The Improvement Era, 1907, vol. 10 no. 4, page 308)

"4. Have the sisters the right to administer to sick children?
Answer: Yes; they have the same right to administer to sick children as to adults, and may anoint and lay hands upon them in faith.

5. Should the administering and anointing be sealed?
Answer: It is proper for sisters to lay on hands, using a few simple words, avoiding the terms employed in the temple, and instead of using the word 'seal' use the word 'confirm'".
- Letter sent to Bishops and Stake Presidents by the First Presidency in 1914

A remnant of this practice can still be seen in the fact that women are able to officiate in the priesthood within the temple. But the act of a women joining priesthood holders in the practice of the laying on of hands is definitely not accepted any longer. In fact, you can get in big trouble for claiming that women can, just ask Margaret Toscano.


7. Blood atonement is no longer believed.

Here's another repugnant teaching brought to us by Brigham Young. Blood atonement claims that there are certain sins which the atonement of Jesus does not cover. Those who commit these sins cannot reach the highest degree of the celestial kingdom unless they personally atone for the sin by having their own blood willingly spilt. Here are some quotes (emphasis is mine):

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to HAVE THEIR BLOOD SPILT upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an OFFERING FOR THEIR SINS; and the smoking incense would ATONE for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world."
- Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54)

" I will say further; I HAVE HAD MEN COME TO ME AND OFFER THEIR LIVES TO ATONE FOR THEIR SINS."
- Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54)

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet MEN CAN COMMIT SINS WHICH IT CAN NEVER REMIT. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be ATONED for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but THEY MUST BE ATONED FOR BY THE BLOOD OF THE MAN."
- Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54)

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the AFRICAN RACE? If the WHITE man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the PENALTY, under the LAW OF GOD, IS DEATH ON THE SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO."
-Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)

“In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. “I replied, I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I WILL SHOOT HIM, OR CUT OFF HIS HEAD, SPILL HIS BLOOD on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so.”
- Joseph Smith (History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 296)

“Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and PUT A JAVELIN THROUGH BOTH OF THEM, YOU WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, AND THEY WOULD ATONE FOR THEIR SINS, AND BE RECEIVED INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would DO IT WITH CLEAN HANDS... “There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, YOUR OWN BLOOD MUST ATONE FOR IT;...”
- Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 247)

Thankfully, we no longer subscribe to these beliefs. At least, I don't think we do.


8. Apparently the Book of Abraham was inspired by papyri rather than translated from papyri.

A few decades ago there was no doubt that Joseph Smith had translated the Book of Abraham from a collection of papyri that he had purchased in Kirtland. There was no doubt of this. But then we found the papyri, which were thought to have been burned in a museum fire years ago. We were excited to get the papyri translated so that we could prove that Joseph Smith could be vindicated by modern egyptologists.

There was one problem though. We came to discover that the papyri did not contain the Book of Abraham. This was what really brought Hugh Nibley into the spotlight as the foremost Mormon apologist. He spent the rest of his life making excuses and defending the Book of Abraham. Since his death, John Gee has picked up the torch. Sadly, things don't look good. The debate on this issue is very extensive, so I will leave you with two links by which interested parties can research the state of affairs. The first is from FAIR (link). The other is from a person who does not believe that the Book of Abraham is inspired (link). These two sites are in no way comprehensive.


9. There are many, many prophecies given by various prophets that failed to come true. People believed them at the time but no longer do.

Now this is a topic that could be discussed endlessly. There have been so many prophecies, but we only hear about the ones that come true. I have a personal one from my patriarchal blessing that had a timeline associated with it and everything that did not come true (no, it had nothing to do with marriage). Let's look at some.

"I will state as a prophecy, that there will not be an unbelieving Gentile upon this continent 50 years hence; and if they are not greatly scourged, and in a great measure overthrown, within five or ten years of this date, then the Book of Mormon will have proved itself false."
- Parley P. Pratt (Truth Vindicated, 1838)

Clearly this prophecy did not come true, unless he was actually trying to prophecy that the Book of Mormon was false (just kidding).

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.
6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
- Joseph Smith (D&C 87:3-6)

Here's the famous scripture where Joseph Smith prophesied the Civil War. We rarely look past the first verse though. Although he was right about the Civil War and South Carolina, he was wrong about a lot of other things in his prophecy. He was wrong about the slaves rising up against their masters. He was wrong about the "end of all nations."

“The ten tribes shall come; they are not lost unto the Lord; they shall be brought forth as hath been predicted; and I say unto you there are those now living—aye, some here present—who shall live to read the records of the Lost Tribes of Israel, which shall be made one with the record of the Jews, or the Holy Bible, and the record of the Nephites, or the Book of Mormon, even as the Lord hath predicted”
- James E. Talmage (Conference Report, Oct. 1916, page 76)

I first read this prophecy on my mission. It made me very excited because I looked at the 1916 date and realized that there aren't too many people who would have been in attendance in 1916 that are still alive. I think we have pretty much reached the point when we can discount this prophecy. True, it's still possible, but I can't imagine a lot of people are holding their breath.

Joseph sent some people to Canada, instructing them that he had received a revelation that someone would buy the copyright to the Book of Mormon. They were unable to find a buyer. Joseph response was, "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." Sadly, we aren't generally privileged to know from whence the revelations come until after the fact.

There are plenty of other prophecies that have not come true. Just do a search on Google. There are plenty which are cases of people taking prophecies out of context, but there are plenty of other legitimate examples.


Well, hopefully I have adequately dealt with each of the issues presented previously. Let me know if you have any other questions or if I have misrepresented some of the facts above.