Lying for the Lord

I found an link to this article on RFM / recovery from mormonism
http://www.exmormon.org/

Go into the Bulletin Boards and read damnit!!

I am glad that I am no longer a part of this deceitful church,
from the very beginning it has been lying and deceiving to it's own People and to theWorld!!

I was only brought into the church because of the big push to "help" the american indians during the 1960's, 70's, 80's.

Sure, good things came of that experience, but I have to wonder why I was selected to be a part of that student placement program.

My full, rich life since then means a lot to me, but still,
I have to find out why we Natives were used in such an manner.

And I have to find out why we Natives were just as quickly dropped from any programs of the church,

just as quickly, they forgot about us Natives and no longer help us.

I'm sure that even though times may have changed,
that the modern day Church / corporation still follows tactics immortalized by it's early founders.

To lie, to decieve, to cover up, to threaten church members and to kill and murder people.

To that end, I have been quietly built up by the church to defend it from the "enemy". But now that I see what the church truly was, and still is,

an Fraud, an manMade organization, a greedy corporation,
I see that in essence, theEnemy was me.

But I am out now. I am free.

Know this, that God would not change things from the beginning.
Know that God would not lie, nor would he let his Prophet on earth deceive.

Would any of you trust someone who wasn't completely honest with you?!
Remember that.

I'm theSam!! and I am no longer a Mormon.
I am just an Native American, an hunkpapa lakota,
I have my own spirituality, I have my own connections to theCreator,

Gifts that most Native Americans have as part of being born to such an noble race.

always,
samuel l flyinghorse
anchorage, ak


-------------------------
http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm

The following essay was written by Ken Clark for MormonThink. Ken worked for the Church Education System (CES) of the LDS Church for 27 years. He also served as a bishop; a calling he enjoyed as much as full time instructor and Coordinator for the Church Education System. He loved (and still loves) the students and the ward members. His story can be found here Contact information is located at the end of the story.

Lying for the Lord

“The right to lie in the service of your own interests is highly valued and frequently exercised”—Nero Wolfe



I began this exercise when I was a full time employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). I worked as a Seminary Principal/teacher, Institute teacher/Director, and CES Stake Coordinator of CES Programs from 1975 - 2002. (I signed a Letter of Agreement with CES to serve as the Director of the Pullman, Washington LDS Institute of Religion adjacent to Washington State University in July 2002. I resigned on August 7, 2002.) I continue to cherish the students, ward leaders and others I grew to respect in the LDS Church. I still write to a few beloved former students. I started this list in an effort to defend the church from its detractors. I was insulted to hear detractors accuse LDS church leaders of dishonesty, or other embarrassing actions. I “knew” because of my testimony the criticisms could not be true.



As an informal defender, I noted that those charging the church with dishonesty had the facts on their side from time to time. I defended the leaders in these cases by pointing out that (1) all organizations are run by humans and of course you’ll find unrepeated instances of deception by its leaders; and (2) the leaders of the LDS church are working out their salvation too as they gain wisdom and experience; of course they will err from on occasion. I created other ways to deal with the cognitive dissonance, but these were the most frequent rationalizations. It was a way of saying that while there may have been isolated instances of a leader here and there telling a lie. But I saw no evidence that church leaders engaged in a pattern of premeditated deceit.



Sometimes I caught myself and other member missionaries telling less than the whole truth, or embellishing in order to defend the church. I gave myself permission to be slightly dishonest because I was trying to achieve a higher moral purpose; or so I reasoned. I resolved not to be dishonest when defending the church. I decided to let the lives and sermons of the church leaders speak for themselves. They would have to represent the church so I could be more honest with myself and others. If detractors were right some of the time, the church and I would have to deal with it.



I began keeping a list of documented prevarications. I wanted to prove that deceit was not an established practice. Instead it was sometimes a misunderstanding, a remark out of context or an innocent mistake. As I read more church history the list began to grow, and I recognized that an institutional practice had been established by Joseph Smith and carried on by church leaders; including those who serve currently. It indicated an accepted practice and pattern. When the church or its leaders sought protection, it was acceptable to fib, deceive, minimize, exaggerate, prevaricate or outright lie. As you will read below, church leaders have admitted that deception was a useful tool used to protect the church and its leaders “when they are in tight spot,” or “to beat the devil at his own game.” They confess that lying for the Lord constitutes a greater good – and that God approves of deception – it’s lying for a superior cause; a higher law. I was devastated at first to learn these uncomfortable truths. I had not expected to find that lying for the Lord was a common and acceptable method for avoiding embarrassment. I had naively believed that when church leaders erred, they followed the steps of repentance the church taught to all its members. I believed they had the courage to face their mistakes with humility and confess or admit their shortcomings; no matter what the consequences; to live the same standards they set for the members. I believed they were honest in all their dealings with their fellow men/women.



D. Michael Quinn called the practice of deceit by church leaders “theocratic ethics.” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, page 112) It was an ethos established by Joseph Smith to protect the church or its leaders by lying if necessary. Dan Vogel in his excellent work, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, described Smith’s philosophy. Smith used deception if it resulted in good – as he saw it. Smith had Moroni, an ancient American prophet and custodian of gold plates say, “And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. (Moroni 4:11-12). This translated into the following ethic. If deception was necessary to do good, or bring a soul to Christ, then it was worth it.



Smith also raised lying to higher moral ground when he rationalized both lying and murder in 1 Nephi 4. Nephi was inspired by God to dress in disguise and alter his voice to deceive and capture a servant and then murder Laban in order to secure an ancient historical record on plates of brass. God, according to Smith, not only approved of lying, but also murder if it brought about the greater good – however Smith defined it. In Missouri Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon threatened to kill Mormon’s who disagreed with Smith’s policies and initiatives (Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Chapter 3, “Theocratic Beginnings,” 79-103).



Smith lied in order to convince others that he could see subterranean treasure by pulling a hat over his face and peering into a magic rock placed inside (Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 82-86). Smith determined that God had ordered the prophet Abraham to lie to protect himself and his wife Sarah from harm (Abraham 2:23-25).



Smith’s arrest, trial and conviction in Bainbridge, NY for fraud in 1826 is well documented. He was found guilty for glass looking. Our modern term for Smith would be a con artist. Smith’s conscience permitted him to lie when he thought it was necessary to earn a living, though it meant conning the gullible out of their money. He claimed to see buried treasure in a rock placed in the bottom of his hat (pulled over his face) and charged a fee to locate the riches. The moral ethic at work was that if he could deceive and get away with it, and if some good could might come from it (making a living wage), then there was no harm in it. Modern scams operate on the same principle.



Smith was comfortable with lying and deception and wove it in the fabric of Mormonism as a way of dealing with undesirables, unwanted publicity, tattlers, and others who disagreed with Smith’s deception. Some excellent sources that record Smith’s deception (and the deception of others) who are nevertheless charitable to Smith are: Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady”, Polygamy’s Foe. Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2004. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1994. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1997. Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, Vintage Books, NY, 1995. B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, University of Illinois Press, 1992. (The essay on Lying for the Lord in the Hardy appendix is masterful and yet compassionate.) Also, Will Bagley’s, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK 2002, offers insight into the minds of other church leaders who used deception effectively too.



The following is a list or prevarications that I compiled as I read church history. Some rate higher on the “deceit-scale” than others. It’s not exhaustive, and only lists a sample of some of the well known incidents of deception on the part of LDS church leaders. I referenced each of the numbered incidents with the secondary source. It’s easier for the normal reader to locate the incidents and additional information in a secondary source. The excellent footnotes provided in the secondary sources will provide you with the primary sources if you wish to review them.



At the end of the list is a brief review of recent research on lying.



1. Knowing that the official version of the First Vision by Joseph Smith was unknown to the members of the church during the 1830s, the church leadership kept Joseph’s original handwritten version of the First Vision hidden in the church historian’s office for over a century after the church was organized. The 1832 account, in Joseph’s own handwriting does not mention God the Father as a visitor, or the religious excitement around Smith’s home, or require him to remain aloof from other churches; and he was not called to restore the true church of Christ on earth. The “vision” resembles a common Christian epiphany rather than an extraordinary, literal visitation and call to be a special servant of the restoration. (James B. Allen, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45. See also Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, pp.24-25)



2. The Church consistently describes in words and paintings, the visitation of Moroni to Joseph on September 21, 1823. Moroni is pictured floating above Joseph or next to his bed, alone in his bedroom. The pictures do not portray Joseph’s five brothers that slept in the same room with him. A restored Smith house is used for LDS tours showing the small room and only two beds for six brothers. Nothing resembling the actual sleeping arrangement is hinted at in the church’s official literature and pictorial recreations of the scene. It would seem inconceivable to most investigators (and perhaps many members) that Joseph’s brothers sleeping in the same room and bed would not have been awakened by the events as described by Joseph. The inaccurate depictions and lessons tell a different story to make it seem more believable. This is also an example of the deceptive “milk before meat” principle used to suppress questionable historical stories about Mormon origins. http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm



3. Joseph Smith never finished the history of the church he was dictating prior to his death. The Joseph Smith History was completed in August 1856 by historians that tried to make the history appear as if it was written by Joseph. They wrote approximately sixty percent of the history after his death. The church failed to inform its members of this fact, preferring to let them believe that the official history was written by Joseph Smith. (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, pp.466, 469, 470, 472). In the middle of the 20th century, after the deception was pointed out by critics, the church admitted to the practice. When something in History of the Church proved embarrassing, such as the account of the Kinderhook Plates, which is written in the first person by Smith, the practice was for LDS apologists to claim that a scribe or someone else must have written that section. (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Shadow or Reality? Chapter 7, “Changes in the Joseph Smith History,” pages 126-142)



4. The famous Rocky Mountain Prophecy was a later addition to the official church history and not uttered by Joseph Smith as a prediction that the Mormons would inhabit the Salt Lake Valley. Despite the fact it is not authentic; the church presented it as such for more than a century. The ‘Rocky Mountain Prophecy’ was added at a later time to the history after the Mormons arrived in Utah. (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, online at the utlm website, p. 406) The church had no intentions of giving this information to members, in order to make their history appear more faith promoting. The deception was exposed by Jerald and Sandra Tanner.



5. Related to changes in the history of the church, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published the following in The Changing World of Mormonism, “One of the most interesting changes in the history is concerned with the name of the angel who was supposed to have appeared in Joseph Smith's room and told him about the Book of Mormon plates. In the history, as it was first published by Joseph Smith, we learn that the angel's name was Nephi: "He called me by name and said ... that his name was Nephi" (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p.753). “In modern printings of the History of the Church, this has been changed to read "Moroni": "He called me by name, and said ... that his name was Moroni ..." (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.11).

a. “The original handwritten manuscript shows that the name was originally written as "Nephi," but that someone at a later date wrote the word "Moroni" above the line (see photograph in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p.136). In the book Falsification of Joseph Smith's History, page 13, Tanners showed that this change was made after Joseph Smith's death. An examination of the duplicate copy of the handwritten manuscript, Book A-2, provides additional evidence that the change was not made during Joseph Smith's lifetime. This manuscript was not even started until about a year after Smith's death. Like the other manuscript (Book A-1), it has the name "Nephi" with the name "Moroni" interpolated above the line.

b. “It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith lived for two years after the name "Nephi" was printed in Times and Seasons and he never published a retraction. In August, 1842, the Millennial Star, printed in England, also published Joseph Smith's story stating that the angel's name was "Nephi" (see Millennial Star, vol. 3, p.53). On page 71 of the same volume it reads that the message of the angel Nephi ... opened a new dispensation to man...." “The name was also published in the 1851 edition of the Pearl of Great Price as "Nephi." Walter L. Whipple, in his thesis written at BYU, stated that Orson Pratt "published The Pearl of Great Price in 1878, and removed the name of Nephi from the text entirely and inserted the name Moroni in its place (reprinted in The Changing World of Mormonism, Chapter 13, pages 409-410).

6. Official Mormon histories have omitted references to Joseph Smith’s drinking and use of tobacco in order to preserve the image of their prophet, who if living today (2007) would be unworthy and unable to qualify for a temple recommend in the church he founded. (Changing World of Mormonism, pages 413-414 and Chapter 18 of the same online book). “Joseph tested the Saints to make sure their testimonies were of his religion and not of him as a personable leader. Amasa Lyman, of the First presidency, related: 'Joseph Smith tried the faith of the Saints many times by his peculiarities. At one time, he had preached a powerful sermon on the Word of Wisdom, and immediately thereafter, he rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar. Some of the brethren were tried as was Abraham of old'" ("Joseph Smith as an Administrator," Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, May 1969, p.161) (Quotation from The Changing World of Mormonism, page 31).

7. The LDS Church has engaged in a cover up of history since its origin. In 1972 Leonard Arrington was appointed to serve as the church historian. Writing six years previously, Dr. Arrington had said: "it is unfortunate for the cause of Mormon history that the Church Historian's Library, which is in the possession of virtually all of the diaries of leading Mormons, has not seen fit to publish these diaries or to permit qualified historians to use them without restriction." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Spring 1966, p.26). Leonard Arrington was demoted in 1980 and sent away from the church historians office to BYU because he was a threat to the faith promoting history the church insisted he support (Deseret News, Church Section, July 5, 1980). The church does not report accurate unflattering historical facts about its origins and leaders to the membership or the world, unless forced to by critics’ revelations of deception.

8. Joseph Smith claimed that God revealed certain doctrines to him and he planned on publishing them in the Book of Commandments before Missourians destroyed the printing press. He later published a revised version with additional revelations and called it the Doctrine and Covenants. Apologists claim that added material was only to help the revelation seem clearer to the reader. "Many words were added to the revelations in order to more clearly state what Joseph Smith intended to write.... Many times phrases were added to increase the ability of the reader to get the meaning of the verse" (Melvin J. Petersen "A Study of the Nature of and Significance of the Changes in the Revelations as Found in a Comparison of the Book of Commandments and Subsequent Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants," Master's thesis, BYU, 1955, typed copy, p.147).

Joseph significantly altered and changed the meaning of many of the original revelations. David Whitmer was perhaps the most vocal opponent to the revisions – all of which gave more authority and power to Joseph. (Letter written by David Whitmer, published in the Saints' Herald, February 5, 1887). To this day, LDS members are unaware of the significant revisions; that the meaning of some of the “revelations” was reversed. This raises a question about the honesty of Joseph and the current church leaders. It also raises the question whether Joseph Smith received revelations from God or whether they originated in his own mind. If Mormons continue to insist that JS was inspired by God, critics might ask, “Which God? – the one who revealed the first revelations of the one who revealed the later ones that contradicted the first?” For a fuller treatment by David Whitmer see An Address To All Believers in Christ.

9. La Mar Peterson explained, “The important details that are missing from the "full history" of 1834 are likewise missing from the Book of Commandments in 1833. The student would expect to find all the particulars of the Restoration in this first treasured set of 65 revelations, the dates of which encompassed the bestowals of the two Priesthoods, but they are conspicuously absent.... The notable revelations on Priesthood in the Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 2 and 13, are missing, and Chapter 28 gives no hint of the Restoration which, if actual, had been known for four years.

More than four hundred words were added to this revelation of August 1829 in Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants; the new material added the names of heavenly visitors and two separate ordinations. The Book of Commandments gives the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons and refers to Joseph's apostolic calling but there is no mention of Melchizedek Priesthood, High Priesthood, Seventies, High Priests, nor High Councilors. These words were later inserted into the revelation on Church organization and government of April, 1830, making it appear that they were known at that date, but they do not appear in the original, Chapter 24 of the Book of Commandments three years later. Similar interpolations were made in the revelations known as Sections 42 and 68 (Problems In Mormon Text, by LaMar Petersen, pp.7-8. See also D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Chapter 1, “The Evolution of Authority.” The online book, The Changing Story of Mormonism, Chapter 16 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner also contains the story of the evolution of the Mormon priesthood with which most Mormons are unfamiliar.

10. Joseph Smith and the Mormons’ official publications remove all references to Joseph Smith’s con artist activity referred to as money digging or treasure seeking. Documents discovered in 1971 by Dr. Wesley Walters in Norwich, New York, verify that Joseph Smith was a "glass looker" and that he was arrested, tried and found guilty by a justice of the peace in Bainbridge, New York, in 1826.

Dr. Francis W. Kirkham, refusing to believe charges that Joseph Smith was a con man, who bilked people out of money with promises to find buried treasure through use of a peep stone in a hat said, “if such a court record confession could be identified and proved, then it follows that his believers must deny his claimed divine guidance which led them to follow him.... How could he be a prophet of God, the leader of the Restored Church to these tens of thousands, if he had been the superstitious fraud which 'the pages from a book' declared he confessed to be? (A New Witness For Christ In America, vol. 1, pp.385-87 and pp.486-87; and The Changing World of Mormonism, Chapter 4, “Joseph Smith and Money Digging. See also Shadow or Reality? pp 35-36).

Hugh Nibley, famous dissembling LDS apologist also stated, “"...if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith." Dr. Nibley's book also states that if the authenticity of the court record could be established it would be "the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered" (Hugh Nibley, The Mythmakers p. 142).

In the court record Joseph Smith confessed that "for three years" prior to 1826 he had used a peep stone placed in his hat to find treasures or lost property, placing his money-digging activities from 1823 to 1826. Mormon histories indicate that a heavenly messenger revealed the presence of gold plates on September 21, 1823. Joseph Smith was engaged in money-digging (conning the gullible out of their money) at the very time the messenger told him of the gold plates and he was still involved in these practices for at least three of the four years after God was supposed to be preparing him to receive the gold plates for the Book of Mormon. These facts seem to undermine the credibility of Mormonism’s first prophet and founder. (Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, Signature Books, 2004, pp. 80-86) Extensive efforts to cover up this embarrassing segment of their history and origins by apologists are ongoing.

11. The church teaches members and investigators that Joseph Smith used a sacred instrument mentioned in the Old Testament called the Urim and Thummim to translate gold plates Smith claimed to possess. This is not true. In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints’ Herald, asked David Whitmer if Joseph Smith had used his peep stone to translate the plates. Whitmer replied that Smith gave the Interpreters back to an angel and used a peep stone or “Seers Stone” to translate the Book of Mormon; one that he had found while digging a well. It looks like a rock with no magical properties, though Smith claimed otherwise. Smith claimed it gave him the ability to see buried treasure, receive revelations, and translate ancient records. This helps clarify some confusion caused by the church’s refusal to be forthright.

Joseph first announced the discovery of gold plates with strange engravings, and claimed he was also given special spectacles called "Interpreters." However, after Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation, Smith claimed that the angel Moroni took back both the plates and the Interpreters as punishment. He claimed that the angel later returned the gold plates, but not the Interpreters. He used his special rock placed in a hat, pulled over his face, elbows resting on his knees, dictating to a scribe to produce the present-day Book of Mormon. To see actual photographs of Smith’s favorite, magical, peep stones, see pages 324-325 of D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Revised and Enlarged, Signature Books, SLC, 1998.)

William W. Phelps suggested in 1833 that perhaps the seer stones were the Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament (The Evening and Morning Star, Jan. 1833). This lent more credibility to Smith’s story. The term was never used by Joseph or anyone else before. Historians for the church rewrote the historical accounts to make it appear that from the beginning, the Interpreters or Smith’s peep stone were referred to as the Urim and Thummim. This is more tasteful in the minds of some than referring to the instruments used to translate the Book of Mormon as “the peep stone Joseph found while digging a well.”

LDS historian B.H. Roberts wrote, "The Seer Stone referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum,... It possessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of it — as described above — as well by means of the Interpreters found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates." (Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 1, page 129)

12. Official Mormon histories are not forthcoming about the statement by three and eight witnesses respectively, who claim to have seen the gold plates and handled them. The official histories fail to inform interested students of Mormon origins that in both cases, their experience was one that took place in their imaginations or as they called it, “spiritual eyes,” “eyes of our understanding,” “a supernatural vision,” or “visions of the mind.”

Martin Harris (one of the 3 witnesses) testified publicly on March 25, 1838 that none of the signatories to the Book of Mormon saw or handled the actual physical plates.” He also indicated that Joseph had prepared an affidavit beforehand and asked the witnesses to sign it, but because they had not seen a physical object, only a vision of them, some hesitated to sign; but were finally persuaded by Joseph. David Whitmer also told Zenas Gurley Jr. on January 14, 1885 when asked if the witnesses actually touched “the real metal,” “We did not.” The witnesses handled “the plates” in vision rather than actual physical plates, according to Whitmer. (Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Chapter 6.) There are other significant problems with the story of the 3 and 8 witnesses described by Palmer.

The witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time as the church leads people to believe. The plates were seen in two groups of four not all eight together as popularized in church paintings. (Deseret Evening News, 6 August 1878, Letter to the editor from P. Wilhelm Poulson, M.D., typed transcript, p. 2) Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until some three days later. (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71) Info From: http://www.exmormon.org/file9.htm

13. The LDS Church misrepresents the method by which Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon. Quite unlike the explanations and images offered to members in official church publications, Joseph Smith never had any “gold plates” in view when “translating,” nor did he use an Old Testament instrument called the Urim and Thummim.

His “translation” method was the same used to earn money to locate subterranean treasure for money. He put his favorite peep stone in a hat, pulled the hat over his face, and rested his elbows on his knees, to read the English words and sentences that God caused to appear on the stone, according to Smith’s faithful scribes. He never used the plates and according to eye-witnesses. They were never in view, in the same room or often never in the vicinity of the house. (Emma Smith, The Saints' Herald, May 19, 1888, p.310; and Saints' Herald, November 15, 1962, p.16. Martin Harris, Historical Record, by Andrew Jensen, p.216. David Whitmer, An Address To All Believers In Christ, p.12)

This may explain why nothing ancient appears in a book that is supposed to be of ancient origin, or why faulty King James texts appear in the book, and why virtually nothing described in the book about the ancient inhabitants of America is correct. Despite Apostle Russell M. Nelson’s talk in conference admitting that Joseph used the stone-in-the-hat method to translate the Book of Mormon, he failed to give salient details such as the fact that the plates were often never in the same room as Smith; and he never consulted the plates during his supposed translation. This begs the question which the church still avoids: Why all the fuss about a set of golden plates – including death to anyone who saw them without permission - if he never used them or needed them? (Russell M. Nelson, "Adapted from an address given 25 June 1992 at a seminar for new mission presidents, Missionary Training Center, Provo, Utah", can be found at http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_russellmnelson.html#pub_-777766216)



Polygamy instigated an almost constant stream of untruths, lies, prevarications; in order to protect the leaders of the church who introduced the practice. Following are instances where lying became a common institutional practice. Some have sought to excuse the leaders and members’ dishonesty, praising them for their dedication to a principle they believed was revealed from God – a higher law. This form of apologetic logic would also praise those who strap bombs to their bodies or fly airplanes into skyscrapers for their extreme dedication to religious beliefs.

14. Joseph Smith’s first recorded secret experimentation with adultery began with a 19 year-old named Fanny Ward Alger who worked in the Smith home in 1835 as a maidservant. William E. McLellin, Mormon apostle, indicated that Emma Smith “looked through a crack and saw the transaction” in the barn. (Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 2nd Edition, Signature Books, 1989, pages 4-11) This marked a beginning to a long history of prevarication and deception about polygamy. It also led to a severe rift between Oliver Cowdery and Joseph. Cowdery referred to the Fanny Alger affair as “A dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” Church leaders attempt to evade linking Smith with adultery by calling it an authorized “plural marriage.” Todd Compton, author of In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 2nd edition, notes that in February or March of 1833, when Joseph was 27 and Fanny Alger 17, he had sexual relations with her. After Emma found out about Joseph’s secret love affair, she turned Fanny out of their house, where she had been working as a servant. (pages 34-36)

15. The LDS Church fails to adequately explain why they once believed in monogamy as God’s marriage arrangement and then later did an about-face, adopting polygamy as God’s recommended form or marriage. Rumors about the Fanny Alger affair as well as another affair between Vienna Jacques and Joseph, who lived in his family for awhile, led to an “Article on Marriage” that was penned by William W. Phelps. It was presented to the general assembly of the church on August 17, 1835. It was included in the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture binding on the church where it remained until 1876. It acknowledged that the church (Joseph Smith) had been “reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy” and declared that “we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband. . . “Joseph was out of town when the Article was read and accepted by the church membership. (Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady,” Polygamy’s Foe, Doubleday & Co. Garden City, NY, 1984, p. 67)

16. In Nauvoo, Illinois (1842-1844) Joseph established an institutionalized system of lying, so that leaders of the church could publicly deny the practice of polygamy, while living it privately—to enable them to deceive members and nonmembers alike with a clear conscience. An article from the 1886 Deseret News listed the code words and the rationale for their use. When accused of practicing “polygamy” Joseph and Hyrum denied it because it was different than “celestial marriage” and “a plurality of wives.” Polygamy was after all, a doctrine of men and the devil. God gave the doctrine of “celestial marriage”. In Joseph’s mind, the two were entirely different. Other code words were, “eternal marriage,” “the divine order of marriage,” “Holy order of marriage,” “living up to your privileges,” “new and everlasting covenant,” and “a different view of things.” If accusers did not frame their accusations in exactly the right terminology, the leaders felt justified in prevaricating. In fact, even if the accusers had framed their words perfectly, leaders still felt justified in lying. Their view was that it was more important to live the higher law of loyalty to the Prophet, than to expose the truth to Gentiles. (Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, p. 113. See also B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, University of Illinois Press, 1992, p. 365)

17. 15. Vienna Jacques of Nauvoo heard rumors about “spiritual wifery.” She asked Emma to inquire of Joseph if the rumors were true, that “spiritual wifery” was a doctrine of the church. Emma asked. Vienna reported, “he, [Joseph] had told her [Emma] to tell the sisters of the society . . . “the whole idea was absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing.” Joseph was in fact secretly practicing plural marriage at the time. (Mormon Enigma, p. 114)



18. Contrary to the traditional belief that a first wife must give her consent in order for her husband to take another wife, Emma was unaware of nearly all of Joseph’s “marriages” to other women. For example, Eliza Snow, the secretary to Emma in the Relief Society organization, as well as Sarah Cleveland, Emma’s counselor, who was legally married to John Cleveland, were married to Joseph, though Emma knew nothing about the marriages. According to Newell and Avery, “To live as a secret wife to a friend’s husband demanded evasion, subterfuge, and deception.” (Mormon Enigma, p. 119)



19. Joseph Smith secretly married 17 year old Sarah Ann Whitney in August 1842 without Emma’s knowledge or consent. He wrote to Sarah and warned the Whitney’s, who approved of the marriage, “The only thing to be careful of, is to find out when Emma comes, then you can not be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety. . . Burn this letter as soon as you read it.” (Mormon Enigma, p. 125)



20. The Times and Seasons, August 1842 published a defense of Joseph and quoted the D&C. “ . . . We declare that we believe, that one should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, We know of no other rule or system of marriage.” The purpose of the article was to deny that Joseph had taught John C. Bennett the concept of spiritual wifery, after Bennett seduced several women in Nauvoo. The fact is that many of those who signed the article were practicing polygamy. Joseph indeed had taught Bennett the principle, and they all knew it. (Mormon Enigma, p. 128) In fact, Mormons used the term spiritual wife before and after their exodus to Salt Lake. By denying that Bennett had been taught the concept of false practice of spiritual wifery, but not the true concept of eternal marriage church leaders felt justified. It’s a weak defense and constitutes prevarication. (B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, University of Illinois Press, 1992, p. 365)



21. Joseph deceived Emma again when he married two other women (probably Martha McBride Knight and Ruth Vose Sayers) without her knowledge or consent in the winter of 1842-43. (Mormon Enigma, p. 134 and note 13)



22. Joseph secretly proposed to 19-year-old Nancy Rigdon in Nauvoo. He wanted to take her as a plural wife. She declined, so Joseph dictated a letter and sent it to her. In it he tried to convince her that it was God’s will to practice polygamy. Part of the letter read, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another . . . . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” Nancy showed the letter to her father, Sydney Rigdon. When Sydney questioned Joseph about it, he denied the whole affair. Joseph admitted to it only when Sydney showed Joseph the letter he had dictated and sent to Nancy. (Mormon Enigma, p. 119, and Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, p. 32-33)



23. On March 4, 1843 Joseph deceived Emma when he secretly married 19 year old Emily Partridge. She was urged to keep the marriage a secret and said, “Of course I would keep his secret.” At some point, Emma weakened and gave Joseph, Emily and Eliza Partridge as plural wives. It is unclear whether or not she understood that the marriages would be consummated. Joseph participated in the ceremony, but neglected to tell Emma that he had already secretly married the two sisters some time before. (Mormon Enigma, p. 138)



24. On May 1, 1843, Joseph deceived Emma and others when he married 17 year old Lucy Walker while Emma was in St. Louis. Lucy admitted that Emma was not present and she did not consent to the marriage; “she did not know anything about it at all.” (Mormon Enigma, p.139)



25. Without Emma’s knowledge or consent, Joseph secretly “slept” with young Emily Partridge according to her own testimony under oath. She testified that she “roomed” with Joseph while Emma was somewhere else in the house on the night of their second marriage. It is likely that Emma did not understand that Joseph would have sexual relations with the two sisters Emma presented to him. (Mormon Enigma, p. 144)



26. According to Benjamin F. Johnson, living in Ramus, Illinois, on May 16, 1843 Joseph shared a room with the “daughter [Eliza] of the late Bishop Partridge.” This was without the knowledge or consent of Emma. (Mormon Enigma, p. 145)



27. Joseph deceived Emma again when he approached 14 year old Vilate Kimball and her parents without her knowledge and consent. She agreed to marry Joseph because he told her that it “will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that . . . of your fathers household and all of your kindred.” She continued, “I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.” She later admitted that she may have been deceived by her parents as well as Joseph. She stated, “I would have never been sealed to Joseph, had I known it was anything more than a ceremony.” (Mormon Enigma, pp. 146-147)



28. Joseph’s polygamous activities were unknown to the vast majority of the saints in Nauvoo. He publicly denied that he ever practiced plural marriage, showing the ability to consciously mislead his devoted followers without remorse. (Mormon Enigma, p. 147, and Mormon Polygamy, pp. 20-21) When Joseph was confronted about being married to other wives in Nauvoo he protested, “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” In fact, he was sealed to dozens of women at the time. (Solemn Covenant, p. 365)



29. Cyrus Walker defended Joseph in court after being arrested. In exchange, Joseph promised to deliver “the Mormon vote” to Cyrus (a Whig) when he ran for Congress. Later however, Joseph reneged on his promise by stating that Hyrum had received a revelation to vote for the opposition party (Mr. Hoge, a Democrat). Joseph stated that Hyrum had never received a false revelation, and in essence directed the church to vote for the candidate that Hyrum supported instead of Cyrus Walker. Joseph betrayed Cyrus and he did not forget it. Cyrus and others in the party (the Whigs) vowed to drive the Mormons out of the state. (Mormon Enigma, p. 148, 151. also An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, George D. Smith editor, Signature Books, 1995, p. 114)



30. Joseph privately told William Clayton to keep a particular plural wife but that some of the membership would be troubled about it if they found out, since most of the saints believed Joseph’s repeated denials that plural marriage was being practiced by the Mormons. Joseph cautioned Clayton that if “they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful scourging and probably cut you off from the church and then I will baptize you and set you ahead as good as ever.” (An Intimate Chronicle, p. 122)



31. Official Mormon histories fail to inform readers of the competition to get as many plural wives as one could. William Clayton, close associate of Joseph Smith wrote on August 11, 1843 that with regard to marrying additional wives, Joseph told him, “You have a right to get all you can.” (An Intimate Chronicle, p. 115)



32. After receiving a promise from Joseph that he would cease the practice of polygamy (a lie), Emma began to reaffirm the traditional standards of Christian marriage—one husband and one wife—as stated in the Doctrine & Covenants in Relief Society meetings. Joseph secretly confided to some he had no intention of keeping his promise to Emma. (Mormon Enigma, p. 175) William Clayton recorded in his journal that “Joseph told me that since E[mma] came back from St. Louis she had resisted the P[riesthood] in toto and he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake. . . .He however told me he should not relinquish anything.” (An Intimate Chronicle p. 117; Emma had apparently threatened Joseph with divorce and in order to keep her, Joseph lied.



33. In August 1843, Emma discovered that sixteen-year-old Flora Woodworth possessed a gold watch given to her by Joseph. She realized the implications and demanded that Flora give him the watch. He reprimanded her, but Emma refused to be quiet in the carriage ride home. William Clayton said, that Joseph had to employ “harsh measures” to stop her complaining about his lies and activities. (Mormon Enigma, p. 159) It raises the question of whether or not Joseph employed physical force in addition to lies to keep Emma “in line.” (An Intimate Chronicle, p. 118)



34. The official history of the church states that the Relief Society was disbanded in 1844 shortly after being organized, “due to the various calamities that befell the saints.” Those writing the official history as well as the leaders of the church knew it was actually disbanded because Emma Smith was a vigorous opponent of polygamy. (Mormon Enigma, p. 175) Joseph’s public discourses and written ones (a letter from the presidency and an article entitled, “The Voice of Innocence,” (written by W. W. Phelps with Joseph’s supervision) denied that polygamy was part of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints. These documents were read in Relief Society meetings in Nauvoo as the standard by which saints should conduct themselves. Joseph needed to silence Emma and take away her forum. She quoted his denials as evidence that polygamy was not a true principle and not practiced by Smith. (Mormon Enigma, p. 175)



35. Official Mormon histories, knowing of the marital arrangements, have withheld information about Joseph’s polygamous marriages—namely that nearly a dozen of his first polygamous wives were legally married to other men at the time of their marriage to Joseph (polyandry). They have never admitted that Joseph practiced polyandry. (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Signature Books, 1997 Introduction)



36. Official Mormon histories may deceive readers by failing to point out that at times Joseph exercised poor judgment, to say it most kindly, in choosing his friends and other church leaders. William Clayton’s journal entry for May 16, 1843 records the following: “President J[oseph] said that the way he knew in whom to confide, God told him in whom he might place confidence.” Many of Joseph’s closest associates brought damage to him and the church. John C. Bennett of Nauvoo was a classic example, yet Mormon histories reject the opportunity to fully investigate these inconsistencies, choosing instead to portray Joseph as the noble prophet who could discern the feelings of peoples’ hearts. (Intimate Chronicle p. 102)



37. Official Mormon histories have publicized plural marriages as being as normal and as full of affection as monogamous marriages. Some may have been. However, Zina Diantha Huntington, when interviewed by a journalist from the New York World, in 1869, drew a distinction between romantic love and plural marriage. Commenting on women who were unhappy in their polygamous marriages, she said they “expect too much attention from the husband and . . . become sullen and morose. . .” She insisted that the successful polygamous wife, “must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy.” Lucy Walker, who had been sealed for time to Heber C. Kimball, after the death of Joseph Smith said, “There was not any love in the union between myself and Kimball, and it is my business entirely whether there was any courtship or not. . . It was the principle of plural marriage that we were trying to establish, a great and glorious true principle.” (In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 108, 466-467)



38. Joseph lied about lying when the Expositor was published in Nauvoo, accusing him of lying. During the city council debate over some allegations made in the Expositor, Joseph declared that he had not kept the doctrine of polygamy secret but had taught it openly. William Clayton recorded that Emma told him “it was the secret things which had cost Joseph and Hyrum their lives.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 367)



39. Lying became such an integral practice with the Latter-day Saints, church leaders instructed members how to lie about polygamy, according to the testimony of members given under oath. (Solemn Covenant, p. 365)



40. Loyalty was more important than honesty in the early church. Joseph’s instruction to the Twelve in 1839 was that above all else, “do not betray your Friend.” He frequently reminded members that they should honor friendships above all else even to death. While the Danites were active in Missouri (1838) Justus Morse described how he and others were directed to help out a friend by lying—to “do it with such positiveness and assurance that no one would question our testimony.” The greatest of evils according to Joseph in an 1839 address to the 12 were “sinning against the Holy Ghost and proving a traitor to the brethren.” Smith confided that he deceived the saints by keeping secrets from them because they were “little children” unable to “bear all things now.” Joseph counseled the Relief Society Sisters not to be overzealous in their search for wrongdoing and to be charitable toward the accused, after counseling them to seek out evil-doers months earlier. Stories about adultery and spiritual wifery especially aggravated him. (Solemn Covenant, pp.365-366)



41. In a well-publicized debate between John Taylor and a Protestant minister in 1850, John Taylor denied that the church practiced polygamy. In fact, at the time, he was the husband of multiple wives. (Solemn Covenant, p. 367) In a public discussion in Boulogne-Sur-Mer, France, he claimed, “ . . . I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants," page 330 ... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again (Tract published by John Taylor in 1850, p.8; found in Orson Pratt's Works, 1851 edition. Found in The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 261-262).



42. Orson Pratt admitted that when called upon to defend the practice of polygamy, he deliberately misled his listeners regarding the practice of polygamy. He did not consider this to be lying. It was done to protect a law higher than man’s misguided laws. (Solemn Covenant, p. 367)



43. Charles W. Penrose admitted that after Joseph’s death, certain facts about him were purposely withheld from church publications “for prudential reasons.” Expediency became more important than honesty; deception was accepted as a necessary tool, while grass roots members were commanded to be honest. (Solemn Covenant, p. 367)



44. At the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857, 120 innocent men, women and children as young as eight years, in an Arkansas wagon train party were murdered by Mormons. Amasa Lyman and George A. Smith, Mormon apostles, accused members who wanted to honestly testify to the facts of the case of seeking “to betray and expose their brethren into the hands of their enemies.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 367) Members were threatened if they “betrayed” those who took part in the murders. (Will Bagley, The Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, pp. 157, 176-177



45. Lying was so prevalent as an institutionalized tactic among church members during the 1860’s-1880’s, that John D. Hicks alleged that when “polygamists were prohibited from voting, the Mormons promptly swore that they were not polygamists; when those who taught polygamy were discriminated against, everybody immediately became silent on the subject; and when members of organizations which advocated polygamy were denied the ballot, they withdrew. . . from the Mormon Church,” to become eligible to vote (Solemn Covenant, p. 368)



46. Mormon “children in theocratic, territorial and polygamous Utah were taught to lie about family relationships, their parents’ whereabouts, and even their own last names.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 368)



47. In a letter to President John Taylor in 1887, Charles W. Penrose expressed concern that “the endless subterfuges and prevarications which our present condition impose . . . threaten to make our rising generation a race of deceivers.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 368)



48. While lobbying on behalf of the First Presidency in Washington, in 1887, for statehood for Utah, Franklin S. Richards and John T. Caine prevaricated consistently with such statements as, polygamy was a “dead issue” in Utah and it wouldn’t be revived. They attempted to explain away the church’s position on polygamy by saying that plurality was not a commandment and that “celestial” and “plural” marriages were not the same thing. This was wholly untrue yet their conduct received approval from the First Presidency. Apostle John Taylor admitted to church members in Nephi, Utah that the statements made in Washington were a “d----d lie.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 369)



49. When explaining whether recommends were being issued to members to marry polygamously, one church authority said that “he no longer gave recommends for marrying plural wives but gave them for obtaining whatever blessings the Lord might bestow." He used these code words to subtly affirm that indeed recommends for plural marriage were still being issued, after assuring the American public that they were no longer being issued. (Solemn Covenant, p. 370)



50. The Manifesto of 1890 was in fact another attempt to dupe the U.S. government and to some extent, the church members into believing that the LDS church intended to comply with the mandate of the government to abandon the practice of polygamy. Members at that time generally fell into two groups: those who believed that the leaders only pretended to give in to government pressure to obtain statehood, and those who believed that the Manifesto was necessary as a hedge against discovery of the true facts about polygamy in Utah. Church leaders believed that if once given statehood, Utah could write polygamy into the state constitution as legal. They believed in a strict interpretation of states’ rights. (Solemn Covenant, p. 370)



51. Thomas J. Rosser was a missionary in Wales in 1908. He asked his mission president Charles W. Penrose, if the Manifesto was a revelation from God. Penrose answered, “Brethren, I will answer that question, if you will keep it under your hats. I Charles W. Penrose wrote the manifesto with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White. . . Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the devil at his own game.” The Manifesto, authored by Penrose, was submitted to a committee – Judges Charles S. Zane, C.S. Varian, and O.W. Powers, (nonmembers). The wording was changed slightly and the document was recopied by a clerk named Green. (Samuel Taylor, The Rocky Mountain Empire, New York, NY, MacMillan, 1978, p. 35) Members are led to believe that the Manifesto was a sacred communication from God to church president Wilford Woodruff.



52. In 1903 Wiley Nebeker of Afton, Wyoming wrote to apostle John Henry Smith complaining that the church made use of deceit and duplicity to further the practice of polygamy, while assuring the government that leaders no longer condoned the practice. He wrote, “To be plain, while I am fully converted to the belief that this is a true principle, I am not converted to the idea that the Lord justifies deceit and falsehood.” He did not believe saints ought to be forced into “apologizing to our own consciences.” In response, apostle Smith perpetuated the dishonesty by spreading more disinformation. Rather than address the central issue of lying, Smith told Nebeker that the doctrine was true but no longer being practiced. This was a calculated lie. (Solemn Covenant, p. 371)



53. Florence, a daughter of Anthony W. Ivins asked her mother why her father seemed so upset following a meeting of the apostles and the First Presidency. Her mother told her that President Smith had said something in the meeting that greatly disturbed her father. President Smith said, he “would lie any day to save [his] . . . brother.” Florence said that it was her opinion that her father was troubled over the remark for the rest of his life. (Solemn Covenant, p. 372)



54. Because the practice of deceit was discussed in the leading councils of the church, leaders were counseled not to write notes from meetings in their personal diaries. President Joseph F. Smith was afraid that someone might read the diaries of George Q. Cannon and Abraham H. Cannon and use the information against the church. The leaders were told not to keep a private record of what transpired in the meetings at all. To this day, the church steadfastly refuses to allow researchers to examine the diary of George Q. Cannon because of damaging evidence, indicating that Church leaders did engage in institutionalized, systematic deceit. (Solemn Covenant, p. 372)



55. After the Manifesto, it appears that at least 250 plural marriages were performed, despite repeated denials on the part of the church leadership that plural marriage continued as an official doctrine and practice. The church’s propaganda is so effective that church members today are still more likely than not to believe that the Manifesto was a good faith effort on the part of church leaders to cease the practice of polygamy. John Henry Smith is alleged to have remarked that the Manifesto was only “a trick to beat the devil at his own game.” Smith viewed lying for the Lord as justified and honorable. (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 4, p.13. Solemn Covenant, p. 392)



56. During the 1890s the church tried to answer the criticism of opponents that a theocracy existed in Utah and church leaders controlled all elections. Leaders instructed members to pretend to align with different political parties. George Q. Cannon was asked about the degree of honesty in this strategy. He said that the potential political gains that could be achieved made sincerity irrelevant in this case. (Solemn Covenant, p. 372) The church motto seems to have been, “act sincere even if you don’t mean it.”



57. Matthias F. Cowley stated in a hearing before the Quorum of the Twleve in 1911 that he had been chastised for asking for permission to pre-date post-1890 plural marriages to make them appear to have occurred before the Manifesto. He said he was trying to illustrate the “training I have had from those over me,” which was to simply act with duplicity without asking for permission in order to preserve the concept of plausible deniability. Ironically, after claiming that he had been taught to lie by previous leaders, he also claimed “I am not dishonest and not a liar and have always been true to the work and to the brethren. . . We have always been taught that when the brethren were in a tight place that it would not be amiss to lie to help them out.” He quoted a member of the First Presidency who had taught him that “he [the member of the First Presidency] would lie like hell to help the brethren.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 373)



58. Despite consistent denials that church leaders demanded complete and blind obedience, as well as the cloak of infallibility, members were told that when confronted with doubt, they should always subordinate their judgment to that of their priesthood leaders. Leaders indeed dictated matters from the most trivial to the most profound and far reaching. In fact, men refusing to go on missions were once told that they should anticipate relinquishing their wives for refusing to obey the Brethren. This is at odds with the claim by modern leaders and apologists that members of the LDS Church have always been admonished to exercise their own agency and think for themselves. (Solemn Covenant, p. 373) The same tension exists currently between one’s individual agency and the church’s demands for obedience, loyalty and conformity.



59. Though members were occasionally told to exercise their individual moral conscience and beware of blind obedience to their leaders, most often in common practice they were ordered not to question the judgment of their leaders. Brigham Young put it this way, “sheep must follow the Shepherd, not the shepherd the sheep.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 374)



60. Modern leaders of the church have used general conference as a platform to condemn the practice of situational ethics. Yet Joseph Smith’s letter to Nancy Rigdon sent to convince her to become a plural wife is the epitome of situational ethics. It said, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another . . .. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire . . .. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted.” Mormons often translate teachings about unquestioning obedience, and treating leaders as infallible into: “You don’t question things. If the church says it, you don’t say yes or no, you go along.” This principle and practice tends to relegate honesty to a lower priority than blind obedience to Church leaders. (Solemn Covenant, p. 374. Mormon Polygamy, p. 32)



61. Henry S. Tanner explained that when he was forced to lie to protect himself or the church then the word he spoke (lies he told to civil authorities under oath) had no binding power. He believed that the Mormons would be regarded by God as having made no promises nor be accountable for lies told to protect the church. Tanner and others blamed the government for making them lie. It was elevated from degraded communication to a religious duty. (Solemn Covenant, p. 374-375)



62. Carl A. Badger, who was not a member, acted as a friend and counselor to the church during the Smoot hearings. During those hearings it was discovered that the church leaders had lied and deceived the federal government about its intentions to rid the church of polygamy. He concluded that the church had decided that some things were more important than honesty. He said that the result was moral confusion. George D. Kirby, writing in the Improvement Era in 1910, admitted as much when he answered charges that Mormons were deceitful. He wrote that there might be “truth in the charges.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 376)



63. United States Senators participating in the Smoot hearings where church leaders repeatedly and systematically lied under oath, determined that the decision to lie to protect polygamy and church leaders’ practice of it, ultimately led to charges of casuistry, secrecy, and moral contradiction. Many concluded that Mormon leaders consistently stood for honesty as long as their own affairs were not involved – when it was convenient. A gentile expressed it this way, “When any of us [non-members] sin . . . we sin for our own sakes.” But when a saint lied, it was done “for Christ’s sake.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 376)



64. The Salt Lake Tribune was at odds with the church in the late 19th century because of polygamy and the Church’s control of civil government. Adding to the disgust of Tribune editors was that the church claimed to be the Lord’s special vessel of truth, but so often refused to honor it. Tribune editors rejected the claim that institutionalized lying and deception was necessary to protect the Lord’s church. The paper claimed something hard to refute, that it was impossible “for a Mormon Elder to be a new polygamist without at the same time being a liar.” Of course, church leaders, compounded the problem by claiming that they had always been honest. (Solemn Covenant, p. 377)



65. Mormons were inventive in their ability to distort the truth to preserve polygamy and feel that they were still being honest. Carmon B. Hardy has written, “In addition to semantic usages such as union and sealing, thus permitting denials of plural marriage, reference has also been made to instances involving the marrying of two wives on the same day; reliance on the fact that women were always sealed to men, allowing their husbands to deny that they had married polygamously; use of proxies; marrying a new wife legally, after the death of a prior legal spouse, while maintaining relationships with earlier plurals; the performance of ceremonies at sea or in foreign countries; and resort to concubinage. The variety of ruses employed will never fully be numbered.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 377)



66. John Taylor received a revelation in 1886 wherein he declared that those wishing to inherit the highest degree of the celestial kingdom must continue to live the principle of plural marriage, no matter what pressure was brought to bear against them. Ironically, modern polygamists point to the same revelation as their commission to carry out the dictate of the Lord’s anointed, in order to keep plural marriage alive until the millennium. They still use lies, deception and codes to mislead law officers. Dorothy Allred Solomon confessed, “Although we were reared to treasure truth and cling to the light, our way of life was filled with secrets.” This readiness to deceive has been referred to as “Mormon logic.” Sometimes they “disobey a lesser law to keep a higher one.” Another irony is that modern members are highly critical of the tactics of the modern polygamists, who borrowed the tactics from Mormon polygamists in the 1800’s. (Solemn Covenant, p. 378)



67. One subtle way of deceiving government agents was for members to say that the church had abandoned polygamy. The idea was that the church was an organization that ceased the practice. But individual priesthood leaders might still take new wives. Thus the idea was that though the church had abandoned the practice, the priesthood had not. This allowed church leaders to act in a dual role—either as corporate spokesman or individual priesthood holder. At least as far back as President John Taylor, the concept was extended to members that the responsibility for encouraging plural marriage had been taken from the church and extended to everybody “upon his own responsibility.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 378-379)



68. Apostle John W. Taylor married Janet Maria Wooley as his third wife only four days after the Manifesto was presented and accepted in general conference. They married in a carriage in Liberty Park at night in Salt Lake City. The family intentionally backdated the marriage date to 10 October 1889. Apostle John W. Taylor married Rhoda and Roxie Welling on 29 August 1901 (11 years after the Manifesto). The ceremony was performed at the Taylor home in Farmington, Utah. Joseph F. Smith, who was acting as a counselor in the First Presidency, gave permission. The subterfuge was regarded as virtuous by church leaders. (Solemn Covenant 206-207)



69. Apostle Brigham Young Jr. took a plural wife in August 1901, despite President Woodruff’s insistence in the Manifesto that no such marriages were solemnized. He must have known better, because Young was president of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles. Later, during the debate over B.H. Roberts attempt to take his seat as an elected representative to the House of Representatives, Young publicly asserted that President Snow’s denials regarding the continued practice of polygamy in the church after the Manifesto were true. Ironically, Young was quoted as teaching that he had “naught but contempt for all forms of hypocrisy or deceit.” In fact, his half-sister said of him, “He can keep still but must not deceive.” Mormon leaders developed a blind spot when it came to their own dishonesty. (Solemn Covenant, pp. 207-208)



70. Apostle Marriner W. Merrill took a plural wife in the Logan Temple in 1901, well after the Manifesto was accepted as binding upon the church. He denied under oath in front of the Senate committee investigating Reed Smoot that he had married Hilda after 1890. Though the committee possessed solid evidence that he was lying he continued to insist that he was telling the truth. (Solemn Covenant, p. 208)



71. The son of Wilford Woodruff, Abraham Owen Woodruff married 18 year-old Eliza Avery Clark as a plural wife in 1901 (11 years after his father presented the Manifesto). She was previously engaged to a young man living in Wyoming where she resided with her family. After apostle Matthias F. Cowley persuaded her to marry Woodruff, she broke her engagement and consented to marry Woodruff. Cowley performed the ceremony in Preston, Idaho. (Solemn Covenant, p. 209)



72. Apostle Rudger Clawson married a plural wife in 1904 (14 years after the Manifesto had been accepted as binding on the church). He married Pearl Udall as a second wife with his wife’s consent. Apostle Marriner W. Merril spoke directly to younger members of the Quorum of the Twelve and advised them not to neglect the opportunity to build up a kingdom for themselves (a euphemism for polygamy). Clawson took the command from his superior seriously, though it meant contradicting the Manifesto. After the marriage, Merrill counseled young Clawson to mislead those looking for evidence of post-Manifesto plural marriages by writing misleading entries in his diary, or simply neglecting to record them. (Solemn Covenant, p. 211)



73. Abraham Hoagland Cannon married Annie Cannon after President Woodruff gave him consent to do so, in 1894, four years after the Manifesto declared an end to all plural marriages. What adds interest to this form of deceit is that Annie was taken as a concubine. Apparently church leaders had considered this practice from 1843 on when the revelation to Joseph about plural marriage mentioned that the Lord approved concubinage.



Members usually denied that they practiced concubinage, and insisted that they only married honorable wives. George M. Cannon suggested the concubinage method to Abraham and said, “I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married.” He insisted that such relationships must be kept secret until the government changed its laws. He added that concubinage would open up a way to take care of “our surplus girls” as well as fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth. Despite protests by contemporary Mormons that polygamy established high standards of decency and morality, it appears that some church leaders rationalized the use of concubinage. Abraham H. Cannon did. Fifteen lines are cut out of his diary for October 1894, three days after his visit with Annie and Uncle George Q. Cannon, where the suggestion regarding concubinage was made. Though Annie lived to be 79 years of age, there is no record of her having been married. She is said to have accompanied Abraham Cannon on numerous excursions and she refused a proposal for marriage from prominent LDS member, Heber Bennion. (Solemn Covenant, pp. 214-215)



74. President George Q. Cannon appears to have entered into a concubinage-like relationship with Amelia Madsen one year before his death and well after the Manifesto was presented. She was past child-bearing age. (Solemn Covenant, p. 215)



75. Joseph F. Smith performed a secret marriage for Abraham H. Cannon and Lilian Hamlin. The four; Abraham and Lilian, and Joseph F. and a wife, traveled by train to California. On the way to Catalina Island by boat, the marriage was solemnized on the vessel. LDS Leaders believed that solemnizing marriages on water permitted them to say they had not performed marriages “in” the U.S. – or “on U.S. soil.” Abraham contracted an ear infection on the trip and after returning home to Salt Lake died. Before expiring he confessed to Wilhelmina, his first wife that he had married Lilian Hamlin and she presumed that Joseph F. Smith had performed the ceremony since he was the only authority of the church present. Nevertheless, during the Smoot hearings Joseph F. Smith consistently denied having performed the marriage. Those who have investigated the facts have little trouble dismissing Joseph F. Smith’s denials as pure prevarications. To further confuse those who might be interested in the marriage, Joseph F. Smith traveled under the assumed name Orson Smith, a code name for his own person. It allowed Smith to deny that he (Joseph F. Smith) performed the ceremony. (Solemn Covenant, 219-220)



76. Apostle George Teasdale married a plural wife, Marion Scoles secretly in October of 1897. His diary entries for the 23rd to the 28th are missing. These are the dates when the couple traveled together and were married. He later married another wife, Letitia Dolly Thomas on 17 May 1900. Teasdale divorced Lillias Hook, a former wife to try avoid scandal, because the Salt Lake Tribune had begun to investigate the matter. President Joseph F. Smith told the Smoot committee that Lillias had never been a real wife to Teasdale—only an elderly housekeeper. She had been sealed to Teasdale in name only as a favor to her, Smith told the committee. To the contrary, Lillias was only 35 when she was married to Teasdale, hardly elderly. She was 8 years younger than Teasdale. Teasdale’s divorce complaint from Lillias stated that she was unable to have sexual intercourse. Yet he remained married to her for decades before divorcing her. Incongruously, the records of the Twentieth Ward in SLC where Lillias lived, list one George Vivian Teasdale, born on 11 June 1896, and name George and Lillias Teasdale as the parents. (Solemn Covenant, 221-226)



77. Bogus divorce in order to mislead authorities was a ploy sometimes used in Mormon polygamous families. (See George Teasdale in item #72) The logic was that if a fake divorce was necessary to live the higher law of polygamy it was acceptable. Also, Mormons believed that earthly divorce was not binding in heaven anyway. In the eyes of the Lord, the couple was still married. (Solemn Covenant, 226-227)



78. Ninety year-old President Wilford Woodruff took a new plural wife in 1897 one year before his death. He married Lydia Mamreoff von Finkelstein Mountford who was a 49 year-old. She was a guest lecturer in Salt Lake City, having been invited by James E. Talmage. President Woodruff was captivated by her. She was baptized in February 1897. They traveled together to California and used assumed names when registering in a hotel in Portland, Oregon. Most likely, between 20 and 22 September 1897, they were married while sailing back to Portland from California. Mountford was the legal wife of Charles Edwin Mountford. This would not be the first instance of a plural marriage to woman still legally married. Joseph Smith practiced that concept nearly at least 11 times (In Sacred Loneliness). It has always been postulated that whatever others did after the Manifesto, President Woodruff had honored the document. But the marriage was solemnized by proxy in the Salt Lake Temple in 1920. (Solemn Covenant, 228-232)



79. The LDS leaders’ constant use of prevarication turned friends against them. Theodore Schroeder, once friendly to the Mormons became a bitter enemy when he discovered the extent of the deceit used by church leaders and members alike. In 1897 he wrote essays exposing the continuing practice of polygamy, despite denials issued by the church. He set out to prove that the church had consistently lied about its involvement with polygamy since the Nauvoo period. (Solemn Covenant, 246)



80. B. H. Roberts admitted taking plural wives as late as April 1890 during the Smoot Hearings, contradicting President Woodruff’s statement in the Manifesto that no such marriages had taken place in the year preceding the Manifesto. Roberts was probably lying about the year he married his last plural wife, Dr. Milford Shipp. She was still legally married and lived with her husband until 1892. The marriage to Roberts most likely occurred in 1894. Roberts managed to expose both he and President Woodruff as deceivers at the same time. (Solemn Covenant, 247)



81. When B.H. Roberts was elected to the House of Representatives after Utah became a state, the House voted to exclude him because an investigation revealed that Roberts was engaged in polygamous marriage and that one of his wives had married him after the Manifesto. Since it was a clear violation of the law of the land, and he and the LDS leadership had flouted the society’s legal code, he was declared unfit for office. A petition was circulated demanding that B.H. Roberts be denied a seat in Congress. Seven million citizens signed it and it was presented to Congress. Those considered enemies by church leaders were now given a national platform from which to trumpet their evidence of dishonesty on the part of church leaders and members. (Solemn Covenant, 249, 250)



82. Reed Smoot was elected to the United States Senate and lawmakers protested immediately. The government authorities feared that Smoot was a polygamous sympathizer, though he was not a polygamist himself. It was also a well established fact that the church had engaged in deception for decades to evade the law. Because of the church’s reputation for dishonesty, the Smoot investigation lasted more than 3 years (1904-1907) and resulted in over 3,000 pages of sworn testimony. The scope of the inquiry broadened to include the history, theology and culture of Mormonism itself. If the citizens of the U.S. doubted the honesty and veracity of the Mormon leaders and their people before the hearings, afterward they did not doubt (it was a slam dunk) thanks to mountains of testimony and documented evidence; the Mormons were guilty of unending prevarication, that did not phase their clear consciences. (Solemn Covenant, 251)



83. President Joseph F. Smith was the first witness called and placed under oath to tell the whole truth before the Smoot investigation. His testimony may have been the most damaging of the whole investigation. He pled incredible ignorance concerning the polygamous activities that he personally permitted and encouraged. Yet he admitted to fathering children by 5 wives since 1890, after the Manifesto had been issued. He categorically denied that Presidents Woodruff and Snow had authorized polygamous marriages after the Manifesto. He knew that to be false. He went on to say that he had not heard anyone “advocate, encourage or recommend” plural marriages since the Manifesto. This was false. U.S. leaders and citizens joined with the LDS members in disbelief that President Smith would blatantly lie under oath—denying what others plainly knew to be true. One witness suggested tongue in cheek that President Smith was using his words differently than the way most people use them. (Solemn Covenant, 253)



84. Mormon apologist histories complain about the “persecution” heaped upon President Smith at the hearings, and describe his dignified responses. The truth is deception and lies caused increased hostility toward Mormons. Most were disgusted with the Mormon Prophet, Seer, and Revelator who refused to come forth with a degree of honesty while under oath before the Senate hearings. (Solemn Covenant, 253-254)



85. George Reynolds antagonized hearing participants when he lied about knowing that his own daughter had married Benjamin Cluff (president of the Brigham Young academy) as a plural wife. He made the fantastic claim that since the Manifesto was issued 13 years prior, he had never spoken to anyone either for or against the practice. Reynolds had to be persuaded by Smoot to refrain from testifying that though his daughter was married, he knew nothing about it. (Solemn Covenant, 253-254)



86. Under oath at the Smoot hearings, Hyrum M. Smith, son of President Joseph F. Smith testified that he had no recollection of the subject of polygamy being discussed in any of the meetings of the Quorum of the Twelve. Then he contradicted himself by assuring the committee that if the subject was discussed, the Twelve were urged to stamp out the practice. Both statements were lies. (Solemn Covenant, 254)



87. Francis M. Lyman lied under oath when he told investigators that although everyone else in Utah was aware of continued cohabitation with plural wives, Senator Smoot was unaware of the practice. The interrogator followed that response and inquired if Smoot was uninformed about the state he was supposed to represent. Lyman contradicted himself by stating that Smoot was probably better informed than anyone else about domestic practices in the state he represented. To make matters worse, Lyman claimed that he was being guided by the Spirit of the Lord in his responses. When the interrogator asked Lyman if he was blaming the Lord for the contradictions (lies) within his testimony, Lyman had no reply. He added later that polygamy was a mystery of the kingdom. (Solemn Covenant, 254)



88. Under oath, Apostle John Henry Smith testified that he couldn’t remember his own birth date, as well as other easily recalled facts about his life that he claimed he could not recollect. (Solemn Covenant, 254)



89. Apostle Marriner W. Merrill swore that he had taken no plural wives since the Manifesto, though it was widely known that he had taken one in 1901 (eleven years after the Manifesto). (Solemn Covenant, 254)



90. Senator-to-be Reed Smoot, testified that he had no knowledge that “any apostle or any member of the Presidency” had taken a plural wife since 1890, except for the cases he learned of at the hearings. This was demonstrably false as later testimony by Smoot illustrated, when he contradicted himself. (Solemn Covenant, 255)



91. Under oath at the Smoot hearings, President Joseph F. Smith testified that church inquiries into polygamous marriages or the arrangement of plural marriages by church leaders in Salt Lake was an issue delegated to the local units to investigate. He did this despite being the one, along with other church leaders, to orchestrate the marriages. (Solemn Covenant, 255)



92. President Smith promised under oath to arrange for church leaders from Salt Lake to cooperate and appear before the Smoot hearings to testify about the issue of polygamy in Utah. Yet, after returning to Salt Lake, he wrote to Senator Burrows that several apostles could not travel to the hearings on account of ill health. He wrote that he could not persuade apostles Taylor and Cowley to appear. These excuses qualify as pre-meditated deceit. President Smith had the power to require the apostles to appear. To compound the deception, Teasdale and others who supposed to be suffering from fragile health took several long journeys (Mexico, Arizona and Canada), and the trips had no ill effects on their health. In fact, Teasdale traveled to Mexico and Canada to run beyond the grasp of the interrogators at the Smoot hearings. (Solemn Covenant, 256-257)



93. Church leaders attempted to persuade Anthony W. Ivins to sign an affidavit that they knew to be categorically untrue. Being a man of clear conscience, Ivins refused to sign it. The purpose of the document was to certify that no plural marriages occurred in Mexico after the Manifesto. Most members are unaware that church leaders pressured members to lie rather than tell the truth. (Solemn Covenant, 257)



94. Because of the damaging testimony at the Smoot hearings, public perception of the Mormons was that they and their leaders were liars. Smoot wanted the leaders to take steps to repair the damage they had caused at the hearings by giving false testimony. Consequently, President Smith read a statement that compounded the problem of negative perception. The statement denied that plural marriages had been performed in the church after the Manifesto, and denied that new plural marriages were being performed currently. Both statements were false. In fact, he had sanctioned many marriages since the Manifesto. He also stated that those who had had marriages solemnized since the Manifesto were subject to excommunication from the church. This was also a lie. Finally, Smith blasted the committee for accusing church leaders of being dishonest. (Solemn Covenant, 259-260)



95. Apostle Francis M. Lyman sent a message to Apostle Teasdale and admitted that plural marriages performed after the Manifesto (supposedly bringing a stop to the practice) had shaken the confidence of the members in their leaders. He also admitted to Teasdale that church leaders were perceived to be dishonest and untrustworthy because of their deception in the Smoot hearings. (Solemn Covenant, 261) Current LDS apologists refuse to admit dishonesty on the part of their leaders, or find creative ways to characterize their behavior as noble and praiseworthy.



96. After the statement (1904) denying that plural marriages were being performed currently, and that those participating in them would be excommunicated, church leaders ordered Anthony W. Ivins in Mexico, to quickly marry at least two couples who had intended to marry polygamously before word of the statement was officially taken personally to outlying Mormon settlements. This action contradicted the letter as well as the spirit of the statement read by President Smith in the April 1904 conference. (Solemn Covenant, 261)



97. When many in the federal government became weary of the church’s lies, deception and cover-up of the true facts involving polygamy, Democrats considered placing an anti-polygamy plank in the 1904 national platform; to propose an amendment to the constitution prohibiting polygamy. Church leaders scurried to placate the leaders of the nation. It was suggested that apostles Taylor and Cowley be offered as sacrificial lambs, to create the idea in Washington that the church was finally serious about stamping out the practice of polygamy.



Both men were assured that the action was only a temporary separation from the quorum of the Twelve, in order to appease lawmakers in Washington. After being told President Smith himself would quickly reinstate them, they finally agreed to be cut off and were separated from the quorum on October 28, 1905. The two apostles were not the only two leaders who had participated in the practice after the Manifesto. This deceptive maneuver made losers of both the brethren and the church leaders.



The leaders did not keep their word to the two apostles. They were never reinstated due to the public pressure to convince lawmakers that their punishment was real. Taylor was excommunicated from the church in 1911, because the church leaders finally made up their minds to abandon polygamy, and he disagreed with the action. Some church members thought that the authorities had gone too far to placate the government while others were relieved. Lies and deception about polygamy caused church members to contend for one side or the other: (1) maintain the practice despite government penalties, or (2) rid the church of the practice. (Solemn Covenant, 261-266)



98. After the Smoot hearings, and the excommunication of Elders Taylor and Cowley from the Quorum of the Twelve, the leaders of the church finally became serious about stopping the practice of polygamy. When members were caught, the church councils began to discipline them (as they claimed they had been doing decades earlier). Joseph W. Summerhays was apprehended and charged with illegally entering the practice. He identified President Joseph F. Smith as the church leader who gave him permission to practice polygamy. President Smith denied the charge. Those leaders eager to excommunicate Summerhays were stunned that President Smith likely gave his consent so it was decided to drop Summerhays from his church position rather than excommunicate him. Smith refused to admit his considerable role in keeping the practice alive. (Solemn Covenant, 291)



99. President Smith addressed the practice of polygamy in the April 1911 conference and once again affirmed that the church was keeping its word regarding the cessation of plural marriages, including the punishment of those found practicing it. Senator Reed Smoot knew differently however. He tried to persuade President Smith to actually do what the church told the government it was doing—take action against those who were engaging in the practice. He wrote, “If there is another investigation I do not know how [our] present position will be justified . . .. We are in a bad position for an examination or investigation.” Contrary to what the leaders were telling the government, they were still reluctant to stop the practice or bring action against those who engaged in it. (Solemn Covenant, 294)



100. Church leaders did not hesitate to deceive when they engaged in Post-Manifesto marriages well after 1904. While members resided in Mexico, their leaders promised them eternal rewards for taking other wives and refusing to be intimidated by government threats. When they moved to the United States, they were treated with humiliation and disgust by fellow members who were embarrassed to be associated with those breaking the law. One member took his wives into New Mexico from Texas and was accused of white slavery. Another member attended a church meeting in the states with his plural wives and quickly became the object of scorn. The double tongued approach to plural marriage on the part of church leaders led to confusion and disillusionment on the part of all its members. Practicing polygamous fundamentalists learned that deception is no sin from the mainstream LDS Leaders. (Solemn Covenant, 296-297)



101. Church leaders deceived members when they redefined the term “celestial marriage.” Until the 1880’s it had referred exclusively to plural marriage. To mislead government authorities, leaders claimed that “celestial marriage” meant only a marriage that survived death; though they never subscribed to this meaning themselves. During the Smoot hearings leaders used this deceptive maneuver to mislead investigators. This deception proved helpful in Idaho where the constitution prohibited those practicing or teaching “celestial marriage” from voting. Yet, as late as 1904, leaders privately used the term “celestial marriage” to refer to polygamy. In order to distance itself from polygamy, the church finally adopted the new meaning of “celestial marriage.” Modern members in the mainstream of the church do not understand that “celestial marriage” originally referred to polygamy alone. Current church leaders perpetuate the deception. (Solemn Covenant, 297-298)



102. A member of the First Presidency organized a legislative strategy committee to influence legislation in 1896. It informed member legislators that the committee’s action “must be obeyed.” Newspapers later informed its readers that the committee was operational. Ed Ivins, reporter for the Salt Lake Herald, questioned each member of the committee, trying to confirm the existence of the committee. “Every Mormon General Authority told partial truths and downright misrepresentations” during this episode. In other words, they denied the existence of a committee that they knew existed. (Edward Leo Lyman: Mormon Leaders in Politics, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 24, No. 2, Fall 1998, pp. 46-49)



103. The church’s official position on Blacks and the priesthood was that it was a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith by the Lord. Missionaries issued this standard message when answering investigators’ questions. In point of fact, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever received a revelation denying black Africans the priesthood. On the contrary, Elijah Abel, a black man, was ordained a Seventy, and Joseph permitted the ordination of at least one other black member to the Mormon priesthood.



Brigham Young instituted the ban on priesthood. In an address before the territorial legislature on January 16, 1852, Wilford Woodruff recorded that Brigham said that persons having “one drop of the seed of [Cain] . . . in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now. . .” Young also went further and declared that if a white person should marry a black person, they would both be required to give their lives in blood atonement (including any offspring that resulted in the union) in order to be forgiven by God for their sin (equal to murder in seriousness). (Lester Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss Editors, Neither White nor Black, `“Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,” Signature Books, Midvale, UT, 1984: 68, 89-90) The church has never admitted that Brigham Young invented the policy based on Young and others’ personal prejudices, common to that era.



104. The church’s doctrine and practice of denying African Americans the priesthood until 1978 resulted in a negative public image for the church and its members. To defend themselves, church leaders claimed that the doctrine was never the result of racial prejudice. This is contradicted by numerous statements of its leaders. Brigham Young taught that blacks were created to be slaves, they “were naturally designed for that purpose, and [their] capacities are more befitting that, than any other station in society.” He reiterated that they “are naturally designed to occupy the position of ‘servant of servants’.” He cautioned that members should not “elevate them, as some seem disposed, to an equality with those who Nature and Nature’s God has indicated to be their masters, their superiors . . .” Brigham Young signed into law acts legalizing Negro and Indian slavery, in his capacity as Territorial governor. While it can be argued that many whites felt this way during the 1800s, one is reminded that the Mormons claim that God inspires their leaders. Brigham Young’s statements do not reflect God-inspired ideals that are more compassionate than the ignorant, prejudice demonstrated by 19th century mortals.



105. Further evidence of Mormon prejudice against African Americans can be found in the Utah legislature’s refusal to pass public accommodation and fair employment bills on at least four occasions between 1945 and 1951. Utah joined the nation in discriminating against blacks in hotels, restaurants, movie theaters and bowling alleys—they were not allowed to associate with whites. In Washington DC some Relief Society sisters objected to being seated beside “two colored sisters who are apparently faithful members of the church.” The First Presidency responded to the situation by suggesting that the two “colored sisters” be “discretely approached” and told to sit in the rear of the chapel or far on the other side away from others. (Neither White nor Black, edited by Lester Bush and Armand Mauss, 68, 89-90)



Apostle Mark E. Petersen made these racist statements. “It isn’t that he [the Negro] just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace.” (Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954. Found in Shadow or Reality? page 279.) LDS apologists insist that Petersen was not offering official views of the LDS leadership. Evidence that he was not, is not forthcoming. Nor have LDS leaders ever offered an official repudiation of Petersen’s statement.



106. Telling the truth in the church’s official histories has been branded as disloyal by more than one LDS leader. In 1976 Elder Ezra Taft Benson defined true historical accuracy as “slander and defamation.” He warned CES employees and historians about trying to “inordinately humanize the prophets of God.” He further commanded CES employees, “If you feel you must write for the scholarly journals, you always defend the faith.” The same employees were instructed not to buy journals and books and periodicals from “known apostates, or other liberal sources.” Finally, he commanded CES employees to keep those same materials off their office bookshelves. (Lavina Fielding Anderson, “The LDS Intellectual Community and Church Leadership: A Contemporary Chronology.” Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 11)



107. On February 26, 1980, Apostle Ezra Taft Benson gave a talk at BYU entitled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.” In it, he taught that the prophet “is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything,” and “the living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works,” and The prophet will never lead the church astray,” etc. When asked if Elder Benson’s speech was an accurate reflection of church doctrine, public communications spokesman, Don LeFevre, said that it was accurate. Yet, he denied a newspaper report that stated that the president of the Church “is God’s prophet and his word is law on all issues—including politics.”



Related are the standard denials that members are taught to repeat when they are asked if the LDS Prophet is infallible. But President N. Eldon Tanner of the First Presidency wrote a message in the August 1979 Ensign that stated emphatically, “When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” The editors of the Ensign neglected to mention that when a church magazine made a similar statement in the late 1940’s, President George Albert Smith denied that it was a true statement (in a private letter to a Protestant minister). (Lavina Fielding Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 11, 13)



108. Boyd Kirkland wrote Building the Kingdom with Total Honesty. It’s found in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Volume 31, Number 3, Fall 1998 "Letters to the Editor." In it he recounted his experience with deception about the Adam-God doctrine when Spencer W. Kimball was the church president. He learned that lying was the method the church used as standard operating procedure to keep from losing its members. After discovering that the leaders of the church were deliberately deceiving him he asked, “Wasn't there concern that some might be dismayed and disillusioned by their church leaders' lack of candor? Their response was very similar to President Hinckley's statement mentioned earlier about losing a few through excommunication: they said, in essence, ‘If a few people lose their testimonies over this, so be it; it's better than letting the true facts be known, and dealing with the probable wider negative consequences to the mission of the church." (http://www.lds-mormon.com/boyd.shtml)



109. D. Michael Quinn published an article that documented approximately 250 plural marriages that occurred after the Manifesto, with the authorization of the leaders of the church (“LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages,” 1890-1904), Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1985, pages 9-105). His stake president confiscated Quinn’s temple recommend. He admitted to Quinn that he had been told to say that it was a local decision, though Elder Paramore (a Seventy), who gave the instructions to the stake president, was acting on instructions from several apostles. He also warned Quinn that it probably was a first step to having him fired for not holding a valid temple recommend. (Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 25)



110. After publishing their award winning book about Emma Smith, Valeen Tippetts Avery and Linda King Newell were blacklisted from speaking in church meetings. The instructions to local leaders came by telephone from church headquarters. Many misrepresentations include the charge that the authors were peddling their book at sacrament meetings and firesides. In fact, only one author had spoken at one sacrament meeting after the publication of the book and never sold a book herself. She even asked those introducing her NOT to introduce her as the co-author of the new book. The charges though untrue were never recanted. (Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 25)



111. Former BYU professor David Knowlton, in a television interview airing August 16, 1992, (KXVS, Channel 4) in Salt Lake, said, “I’m ashamed, frankly, of a church that doesn’t want to tell the truth. I’m ashamed of institutional lying.” His comments stemmed from the church’s denial, then admission that a committee existed within the church that keeps files on the activities on its members. It sends the files to local church leaders with instructions to interrogate them about their commitment to the church. The committee is active currently (Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 46-47).



112. Despite assurance from Elders James E. Faust and Russell M. Nelson that files kept on members of the church are not secret, requests by several members to see their own files are denied. (Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 50) This is a perfect example of dissembling General Authority Mormon-speak.



113. President Gordon B. Hinckley stated to journalist and authors, Richard and Joan Ostling that he didn’t know very much about God existing once as a mortal; and “I don’t know that we teach it.” He stated that his remarks to the reporters, which appeared in print, were taken out of context and that he was misquoted. Richard and Joan Ostler wrote Mormon America, and included in their book Hinckley’s denials as well as the transcripts of the interview with President Hinckley. The taped transcripts clearly indicated that President Hinckley’s remarks were not taken out of context nor was he misquoted. (Richard and Joan Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, Harper One, Revised Edition, 2007, p. 301 ) This is reminiscent of denials offered by professional athletes and politicians who regret making statements to the press.



114. In a press conference referring to the newly constructed monument at Mountain Meadows in October 1999, President Hinckley made the following statement regarding the tragedy: “Indians and white settlers accompanied by a few Mormons participated in a massacre of the Fancher Wagon Train.” His remarks failed to accurately summarize the events and he knew it. Mormon settlers led the attack and murdered all men and older children by shooting them at point blank range after deceiving them, disarming them and promising them safe passage and protection. There were no non-Mormon white settlers, as Hinckley’s intentional nebulous statement led his audience to believe.



Hinckley also failed to mention that Brigham Young and others organized a massive cover-up to evade prosecution. They destroyed or hid documents that would undoubtedly have led to the truth. They ordered members who had knowledge of the gruesome affair upon pain of death, to keep quiet and not cooperate with investigations of the murders. Church leaders and archivists to this day reserve the right to deny access to records they consider embarrassing because they reveal too much. Hand wringing and statements by church leaders expressing regret because, “we will never know what really happened here,” are not credible. We will never know the whole truth because the church will never permit unfettered access to the historical records.



115. Helen Radkey is a genealogical researcher devoted to issues associated with LDS Church. She is also an author. “Since 1999, Ms. Radkey has reported on the failure of the agreement signed by LDS leaders and Jewish organizations in which the Church promised to halt its proxy baptisms for deceased Jews. The practice continues, despite denials by the Mormon leadership. . . In 1995 the Mormon Church signed an agreement to cease its practice of baptizing deceased Jews who were not “direct ancestors” of members of their faith and listing them in the IGI. Despite the agreement, Ms. Radkey learned in 2005 that the LDS church had not kept its word. LDS leaders indicated that they were trying to define the term, “direct ancestor.” (http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_helenradkey.html)



116. The LDS church continues to deceive the public about vicarious baptisms performed in behalf of Adolf Hitler and Eve Braun. “Current IGI TM Addendum temple ordinance entries for Mr. [Adolf] Hiedler (Hitler) show that Hitler was "baptized" by Mormons on September 30, 1993, and "endowed" on April 27, 1994, in the Jordan River Temple, Utah. . . . . Eva Anna Paula Braun, born in Munich, Bavaria, Germany, on February 7, 1912, was "baptized" by Mormons on October 16, 1964, and "endowed" on February 5, 1965, in the Los Angeles Temple. She had been "sealed" to her parents some time prior to 1970. This information is current and is easily accessible in the IGI TM Addendum, in which file Ashton stated that no information was available for either Hitler or Braun.” (http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_helenradkey.html)





More examples of deception could be added to the list of 100 plus. But it already meets the definition of overkill. This is due to the artful dodges and denial of Mormon polemicists. It’s necessary to paint an unmistakably clear picture, which leaves one open to the charge of being insensitive. You can’t win. Either you don’t present enough facts to establish your case, or you present too many and your documentation constitutes cruelty. It’s a fine line. The LDS Church engages in deceit and dishonesty when it feels the need to protect its image, but complains when their deceit is made public.



Do I mean to imply that a “fibs list” indicates that the Mormon Church is the only religious institution who has engaged in lies and deceit? No. History tells us a different story. However, not many other religious organizations claim to be Christ’s only true and restored church on the face of the earth, with God-chosen living prophets, seers, and revelators who will never lead the church astray.



Research on lying indicates that everybody fibs. University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert Feldman researches lying. He has found that lying “boils down to the shifting sands of the self and trying to look good both to ourselves and others. Feldman says, “It’s tied in with self esteem. . . . . We find that as soon as people feel that their self-esteem is threatened, they immediately begin to lie at higher levels.” (Robin Loyd, “Why We Lie.” Live Science, Posted 15 May 2006. http://www.livescience.com/health/060515_why_lie.html)



Those who describe themselves as the most moral, lie too. A new study finds that a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts, such as cheating. “In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats. For example, somebody could rationalize cheating on a test as a way of achieving their dream of becoming a doctor and helping people. In the new study, detailed in the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers find that when this line between right and wrong is ambiguous among people who think of themselves as having high moral standards, the do-gooders can become the worst of cheaters.” (Jeanna Bryner, “Oddly, Hypocrisy Rooted in High Morals,” LiveScience Staff Writer, LiveScience.com, Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007, 7:55 am EST)



The purpose of this exercise is to point out the pretense of LDS leaders and members who sometimes insist, probably as a result of overzealousness, that Mormons are more moral than the rest of “the world.” Contrast the moral indignation expressed by Mormons about dishonesty and immorality in “the world,” with the behavior of their leaders. It places them neatly in the “pot calling the kettle black” category. When the Mormon Church portrays itself as “the” moral authority because it is the “only true church on the face of the earth,” then it will be monitored closely to see if it lives up to its claims. Mormons might be better off to admit that their church is a man-made institution and their leaders are merely mortals doing the best they can - flying by the seat of their pants like the rest of us. Sometimes we lie to avoid uncomfortable situations or maybe we just want to look good. This includes LDS leaders and members. The rest of us admit to it.



Excuses such as, “the church leaders are only human,” will be ignored because we will recall Church President Gordon B. Hinckley’s article for the October1990 Ensign, entitled, “We Believe in Being Honest.” In it he warns readers that lies can spread “like a disease that is endemic” even when one uses deception for a worthy cause. Hinckley proclaimed, “How cheaply some men and women sell their good names!” He is included on this list as a member of the “Deceivers Club” (as are the rest of us in the human race). He authored the book called, Standing for Something. I used to joke about a book that should have been written titled, Sitting for Nothing. If you condemn those who lie, and then lie to LDS members and the public at large, it opens you up to this kind of sophomoric amusement.



Noted LDS historians D. Michael Quinn and B. Carmon Hardy have written compassionately and humanely as they describe the history of Mormonism, and the use of deception as a useful tool to manage the minds of its adherents and public perception.



Hardy, recognizing that LDS public discourse routinely used fake denials and deception called it “pretzled language.” He quoted Apostle Matthias Cowley who said, “I am not dishonest and not a liar and have always been true to the work and to the brethren.” Cowley later admitted, “We have always been taught that when the brethren were in a tight place that it would not be amiss to lie to help them out.” (Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 373,374)



In my effort to defend the church from detractors I learned that ironically, members get excommunicated precisely because they publish the truth, and refuse to adopt lying, deception, or suppression of facts as an ethical standard. Loyalty is more important in the LDS church than honesty. I found this out the hard way while teaching for the Church Education System. Honesty was referred to as undermining the testimonies of the youth, or undermining the authority of the prophets.



D. Michael Quinn, excommunicated in 1993 said, "The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials. Elder [Boyd K.] Packer and others would justify this because "we are at war with the adversary" and must also protect any Latter-day Saint whose "testimony [is] in seedling stage." But such a public-relations defense of the Church is actually a Maginot Line of sandy fortifications which "the enemy" can easily breach and which has been built up by digging lethal pits into which the Saints will stumble. A so-called "faith-promoting" Church history which conceals controversies and difficulties of the Mormon past actually undermines the faith of Latter- day Saints who eventually learn about the problems from other sources." (On Being a Mormon Historian, A Lecture by D. Michael Quinn, Associate Professor of History at Brigham Young University, Before the Student History Association, Fall 1981; Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History. Edited by George D. Smith.1992.) See also http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/onbeingamormonhistorian_ub057.htm)

Back to Top

HOME PAGE
--------------------------