Changes in the LDS Scriptures

By Sandra Tanner

---

At the end of February, 2013, the Deseret News featured an amazing article: “LDS Church Announces New Scripture Edition.”¹ Utah was buzzing with people trying to determine what had been changed and why. The article noted that the changes included “revisions to study aids, new photos, updated maps,” “making historical and contextual adjustments to the section headings of 76 sections of the Doctrine and Covenants,” and “adding introductory headings to both official declarations at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants.”

According to the same article the LDS Church began working on this project in 2004. Currently the new edition is only available on the LDS web site, and the print version will be available in August 2013.

While many of the changes seem to be minor, some are obviously being made to counter historical problems raised by church critics.

In 2011 an online survey of about 3,000 disaffected Mormons, conducted by Open Stories Foundation, revealed:

. . . 81 percent [of disaffected Mormons] cited loss of faith in Mormon founder Joseph Smith as a moderate or strong factor in their no longer believing in the LDS Church. Another 84 percent said they studied LDS history and lost their faith. About 79 percent lost faith in Mormonism’s founding scripture, the Book of Mormon.

The survey . . . found that the two historical issues that most negatively affected belief in the faith were “the Book of Abraham”—a Mormon text that Smith said was based on Egyptian papyri he obtained—and polygamy, which the church abandoned in 1890.²

Some of the alterations to the introductory material in the 2013 edition of LDS scriptures seem to be aimed at lessening the tension on these problem areas.

In the following material we will examine some of the major changes in the 2013 edition of LDS scriptures and discuss their significance.

Book of Abraham

In 1835 Joseph Smith arranged for the LDS Church to purchase a collection of ancient Egyptian papyri for $2,400 (equivalent to about $65,000 in 2012). Such a large investment was done despite the severe financial problems of the church, which shows the significance of the papyri in Smith’s mind. He soon announced that one of the papyri contained the actual writings of the biblical Abraham:

. . . I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, . . .³

[Bold in quotations is added for emphasis and does not appear in originals.]

Smith’s translation of the papyri was published first in the 1842 Times and Seasons, in Nauvoo, Illinois, and then in England as part of the 1851 edition of the Pearl of Great Price, although not canonized until 1880.⁴ During this time, as scholars in the nineteenth century developed the ability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics, criticism of Smith’s “translation” grew. Then, in December of 1912, the New York Times printed an article debunking Smith’s translation of the papyri titled “Museum Walls Proclaim Fraud of Mormon Prophet.”⁵

From that point on dozens of articles and publications, quoting current Egyptologists, have demonstrated that the Book of Abraham text is not a translation of the papyri.⁶ This seems to have been the motivation for the recent change in the Introduction to the Pearl of Great Price. In the 1981 Introduction we read:

The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.

The 2013 Introduction to the Pearl of Great Price reads:

The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.

Notice the subtle shift from a direct translation to “inspired” in an effort to distance Smith’s text from the papyri. This seems to be a concession that the Book of Abraham text is not a translation of the papyri, thus alleviating the need to defend Smith’s interpretation.

When we examine the Book of Abraham itself we find that the church has removed the heading at the start of the book:

Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith.

Oddly, they have left unchanged the rest of the heading to the Book of Abraham, which still announces that the text is an actual translation of the papyrus:

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

This uneven editing leaves one wondering what they consider to be the connection between the papyrus and the text? Past leaders clearly believed the Book of Abraham was literally a translation of the papyrus.

The Facsimiles

Even if one were to accept their new explanation that the Book of Abraham was an “inspired translation” (i.e., a product of revelation from God, independent of the actual meaning of the papyri), the problem still remains regarding the drawings that accompany the translation. These facsimiles are clearly based on the images found on the Egyptian material. Smith described Facsimile No. 1 (shown below) as “Abraham fastened upon an altar” and the “idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.”

Below is a photo of the original papyrus from which Facsimile No. 1 was drawn.

Contrary to Smith’s explanations in the Pearl of Great Price, this is a standard Egyptian drawing relating to the embalming of the dead. The standing black figure is actually Anubis, the Egyptian god of the dead.⁷ Smith’s Book of Abraham is clearly dependent on Facsimile No. 1. In Abraham 1:12 we read “that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.” Thus the Book of Abraham claims to be an actual translation with an illustration of Abraham being sacrificed. How can the LDS Church divorce the text of the Book of Abraham from the papyrus yet accept the facsimiles as part of Abraham’s record?

Smith’s explanation of Facsimiles No. 2 and 3 are likewise in error. Yet at the end of the explanation of Facsimile No. 2 we read: “The above translation is given as far as we [meaning Joseph Smith] have any right to give at the present time.” However, nothing has been “translated.” The text describing the illustrations does not conform to any actual translation of the Egyptian characters and appears to be entirely fabricated from Smith’s imagination.

Facsimile No. 2 (left), Facsimile No. 3 (right)

Noted Egyptologist James H. Breasted, Ph.D., gave this evaluation of Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles:

These three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the “Pearl of Great Price” depict the most common objects in the mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrate that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.⁸

Even LDS Egyptologist John Gee appears to see the problems with Smith’s purported translation and seems to downplay the significance of those issues. Speaking at the 2009 F.A.I.R. Conference he stated: “How the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.”⁹ However, many people leaving Mormonism disagree. If Joseph Smith fails as a translator of the Book of Abraham, where his translation can be checked against the papyrus [that does exist], why would anyone believe his “translation” of the Book of Mormon, when there is no evidence that the gold plates ever existed?¹⁰

Book of Mormon

The Introduction to the Book of Mormon has undergone a few significant changes. In the first sentence of the 1981 edition we read:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The phrase “as does the Bible” has been deleted. It is assumed that it was removed to enhance the importance of the Book of Mormon. After all, if the Bible contains the fulness of the gospel why would we need the Book of Mormon?

Lamanites

The Book of Mormon describes the migration of a group of Israelites from Jerusalem to the New World in about 600 BC. A few years after settling in America these people divided into two groups, the righteous Nephites and the wicked Lamanites. In the past Mormonism has claimed that the American Indians are the descendants of the Lamanites but in recent years this claim has been modified. In the Introduction to the 1981 Book of Mormon we read:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

This has been changed to read:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

This change seems to have been made in response to the recent research on Native American DNA,¹¹ which shows that almost all indigenous people of North and South America are Asiatic, not Semitic.

Also in the front part of the Book of Mormon is a section titled “Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith.” In this article Smith recounts the message given to him by the angel who told him of the gold plates containing the text of the Book of Mormon:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

Again we see the Native Americans associated with the Book of Mormon people. Past LDS Church writings repeatedly referred to Native Americans as Lamanites, descendents of the Book of Mormon people. In fact some of the earliest LDS missionary efforts were to the “Lamanites” in New York, Ohio and Missouri (D&C 28:9; 32:2).¹² Now that those people can no longer be claimed as descendents of Israelites, the church has stopped referring to them as “Lamanites.” But this leaves the Mormons with no identifiable group that has descended from the Book of Mormon people. One of Smith’s revelations prophesied:

. . . this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, . . . for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records . . . that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord . . . (Doctrine and Covenants 3:18-20).

This leaves one to wonder how the LDS can take the gospel to the descendants of the Book of Mormon people if they can’t identify anyone as a Lamanite?

Racism

Traditionally LDS Church leaders have explained that the reason Native Americans are dark is that they are descended from the cursed Lamanites.

And he [the Lord] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing . . . wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
(Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 5:21)

In 1981, in an attempt to minimize the book’s racial teaching about people being cursed with a dark skin, the LDS Church changed the Book of Mormon promise that in the last days the Lamanites who converted to the gospel would revert to being “white” (2 Nephi 30:6). This verse used to promise the descendants of Lehi that upon conversion they would become “a white and a delightsome people.” However, this was changed in 1981 to read “a pure and a delightsome people.”

Now they have introduced additional changes to further obscure the Lamanite’s cursed skin color. The heading for 2 Nephi, chapter 5, has been reworded. In the 1981 edition it read:

Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites. (1981 heading for 2 Nephi 5)

It now reads:

Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites. (2013 heading for 2 Nephi 5)

Notice the removal of “skin of blackness.” The heading for Mormon, chapter 5, was also reworked. It used to read:

. . . The Book of Mormon shall come forth to convince all Israel that Jesus is the Christ—The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people—They shall receive the gospel from the Gentiles in the latter days.
(Book of Mormon, 1981 Introduction, Mormon 5)

The 2013 edition has reworded the introduction to this chapter to eliminate the derogatory description of the Lamanites:

The Book of Mormon will come forth to convince all Israel that Jesus is the Christ—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them—They will receive the gospel from the Gentiles in the latter days. (2013 Introduction, Mormon 5)

However, the chapter itself still retains the original racist teaching:

. . . for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
(Mormon 5:15)

In spite of these changes the Book of Mormon continues to promote racism by portraying “white” people as “fair and delightsome” while “dark” people are referred to as “cursed.”¹³

Plural Marriage

It is interesting to see how the Book of Mormon chapter headings have been reworded in relation to plural wives. In Jacob, chapters 2 and 3, are verses dealing with marriage and polygamy. The old heading for chapter 2 read:

Men should seek riches to help their fellow men—Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage—The Lord delights in the chastity of women.

By using the word “unauthorized” the Mormon was still free to promote plural marriage as long as it was “authorized.” This has been reworded to avoid mentioning plural marriage altogether:

Men may seek riches to help their fellowmen—The Lord commands that no man among the Nephites may have more than one wife—The Lord delights in the chastity of women.

Regardless of the headings, Jacob 2:24, condemning David and Solomon’s plural wives, still contradicts Doctrine and Covenants 132:1, 38, 39, where David and Solomon’s wives are approved by God.

In response to criticism of polygamy LDS members will often point out that Jacob 2:30 says men are to have only one wife unless the Lord commands otherwise, thus implying that Smith’s polygamy was approved since it was commanded by God. This verse would not provide a justification of Joseph Smith’s many marriages as the Book of Mormon verse seems to indicate that the reason God might command plural wives would be for purpose of procreation:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:30)

However, there is no clear evidence that Smith produced any children from his 33+ plural wives. (Further discussion of plural marriage will be found in the section dealing with the Doctrine and Covenants.)

Monetary System

One criticism of the Book of Mormon has been the lack of archaeological evidence for coins in the New World. Prior to 2013, Alma 11 contained this chapter heading:

Nephite coinage set forth.

Evidently the LDS leaders recognize the problem of saying the Native Americans used coins. In trying to minimize the problem the heading has been changed to “The Nephite monetary system is set forth.” However just dropping the word “coinage” does not solve the problem. Alma 11:3 states that a day’s wages were “a senine of gold” or “a senum of silver, which is equal to a senine of gold.” Verse 4 speaks of the “names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value.” This certainly paints a picture of a system of coins.

However, there is no evidence that Native Americans ever developed a monetary system based on gold and silver, whether one refers to it as coins or weights. Native American economics were based primarily on trade and agriculture. The Mayans traded quetzal feathers, obsidian, jade, cocoa beans, and other agricultural items, but did not use a “monetary system” based on gold and silver. They truly had a barter system.¹⁴ This would have been true of the early inhabitants in the eastern area of the United States as well.

Maps

The LDS church announced that the new 2013 edition of their scriptures would include more maps. There are 14 maps relating to the Bible and 7 maps for the church history section. Yet there is not one map relating to the Book of Mormon. The fact that they cannot identify a single location demonstrates that they have no concrete evidence that these people ever existed. To date there is not one artifact or sample of writing (independent of Joseph Smith) attributed to Book of Mormon people.

The closest thing to a map in official LDS literature is the illustration below that is in the 2008 edition of Book of Mormon Seminary Student Study Guide entitled “Possible Book of Mormon Sites (in Relation to Each Other).” However, at the bottom of the illustration is this warning:

Possible relationships of sites in the Book of Mormon based on internal evidence. No effort should be made to identify points on this map with any existing geographical location.¹⁵

The illustrator was very careful in making his chart so that one could not correlate it with a map of either North or South America.

“Possible Book of Mormon Sites (in Relation to Each Other),”
from the 2008 edition of the Book of Mormon Seminary Student Study Guide.
(click to view)

Doctrine and Covenants

Smith’s revelations were first published in book form in 1833 under the title Book of Commandments. Then in 1835 a new edition was published under the title Doctrine and Covenants. Smith’s revelations underwent numerous revisions at that time, but other changes have been made since then.¹⁶

Code Names

After the Mormons left New York and settled in Ohio and Missouri in the early 1830’s they developed serious financial problems. Joseph Smith and several other leaders embarked on a number of business ventures. Mormon historians James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard explain:

Administration of these economic affairs was complex, and in April 1832 the Prophet and others attempted to simplify it when they created a new administrative agency known as the Central Council. This council, in turn, immediately created the United Firm (sometimes called the United Order), consisting of Joseph Smith and a handful of other Church leaders in Ohio and Missouri. This was a joint-stewardship in which the members consecrated all their lands and business to the firm. They were to manage “all things pertaining to the bishopric” (D&C 82:12), supervise the establishment of stores in Ohio and Missouri, and use their profits not only for their personal living expenses but also for the economic needs of the Church, including assisting the poor.¹⁷

Fearing possible lawsuits, Smith masked their business plans by using code names for various men and locations (i.e. Zion refers to Independence, Missouri) in several of the revelations printed in 1835. These pseudonyms were used in Doctrine and Covenants, sections 78, 82, 92, 96, 103,104, and 105.¹⁸ While the new heading for section 78 gives some background on the “United Firm,” it does not discuss the code names used in the original printing of the revelation:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, March 1, 1832. On that day, the Prophet and other leaders had assembled to discuss Church business. This revelation originally instructed the Prophet, Sidney Rigdon, and Newel K. Whitney to travel to Missouri and organize the Church’s mercantile and publishing endeavors by creating a “firm” that would oversee these efforts, generating funds for the establishment of Zion and for the benefit of the poor. This firm, known as the United Firm, was organized in April 1832 and disbanded in 1834 (see section 82). Sometime after its dissolution, under the direction of Joseph Smith, the phrase “the affairs of the storehouse for the poor” replaced “mercantile and publishing establishments” in the revelation, and the word “order” replaced the word “firm.” (2013 Doctrine and Covenants, Introduction to Section 78)

Below is an example of the code names used in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants:

The Lord spake unto Enoch, saying: Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, who are ordained unto the high priesthood of my church, who have assembled yourselves together . . . in other words, let my servant Ahashdah and my servant Gazelam or Enoch, and my servant Pelagoram sit in council with the saints which are in Zion.
(1835 D&C 75:1-2)

However, the 2013 edition of the same passage reads:

The Lord spake unto Joseph Smith, Jun., saying: Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, who are ordained unto the high priesthood of my church, who have assembled yourselves together. . . . in other words, let my servant Newel K. Whitney and my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and my servant Sidney Rigdon sit in council with the saints which are in Zion. (D&C 78:1, 9)

The code names were obviously an attempt to keep the public from knowing the leaders’ financial plans.¹⁹ However, even though established by revelation, Smith’s United Firm failed and the church went further into debt.

Civil War Prophecy

Section 87 of the D&C has often been put forward as a proof of Joseph Smith’s prophetic ability, predicting the civil war twenty-nine years before the event.

Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at or near Kirtland, Ohio, December 25, 1832. This section was received at a time when the brethren were reflecting and reasoning upon African slavery on the American continent and the slavery of the children of men throughout the world. (Sec. 87, heading)

However, research has demonstrated that newspapers of the day had already announced the pending secession of South Carolina, making civil war a likely outcome. (See photo below.) Smith was just putting into words the current fears of the nation.²⁰ The new heading for this revelation seems to concede the point:

Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at or near Kirtland, Ohio, December 25, 1832. At this time disputes in the United States over slavery and South Carolina’s nullification of federal tariffs were prevalent. (Sec. 87, heading)

When South Carolina backed down from secession the 1832 revelation was evidently tucked away and not published until 1851 in England as part of the Pearl of Great Price. It was not placed in the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876, years after the Civil War had ended and the Mormons felt comfortable claiming it as a revelation.

Plural Marriage and Section 132

The new introduction to D&C section 132 states:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831. See Official Declaration 1.

Thus the LDS Church now concedes that Smith was teaching plural marriage prior to July of 1843 but doesn’t explain which “principles” were known as early as 1831. At that time Joseph Smith had given a revelation commanding missionaries be sent to convert and intermarry with the American Indians. However, since the men who were sent on the mission were already married, it is obvious that they would have been practicing plural marriage.

While the revelation was not published at the time, it was mentioned in the Ohio Star on December 8, 1831. The purpose of marrying the Native Americans seems to have been aimed at gaining access to the Indian reservations. Ezra Booth wrote:

In addition to this, and to co-operate with it, it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they [LDS missionaries] form a matrimonial alliance with the Natives, and by this means the Elders, who comply with the thing so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the [Indian] agent. It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the state of N.Y. that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at liberty to take him a wife from among the Lamanites.²¹

The 1831 revelation shows that it relates to marrying Native Americans to fulfill the Book of Mormon promise that in the last days the Indians’ skin color would be changed to “white.” The revelation states:

Verily, I say unto you, that the wisdom of man, in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood, but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing. For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.²²

While it does not directly address the issue of plural marriage the fact that married men were commanded to take Native American wives demonstrates that it would have been the logical outcome. W. W. Phelps, early LDS leader, was present when the revelation was given and later asked Smith about it:

About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph [Smith, Jr.] privately, how “we,” that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the “natives”—as we were all married men? He replied instantly “In the[e] same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Katurah [Keturah]; and Jacob took Rachel Bilhah, and Zilpah: by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.”²³

If the Mormons are going to claim that there was some other 1831 revelation on marriage they should produce it. To date, the Native American revelation is the only one known.

The next hint of Smith knowing some of the “principles” of eternal marriage relates to his association with Fanny Alger, a young woman living with the Smiths in Kirtland, Ohio. Historian Todd Compton lists Fanny Alger as Joseph Smith’s first plural wife, giving the time of their marriage as early 1833.²⁴ While there is evidence of an affair between them, proof of an actual marriage ceremony is more sketchy, relying on a late recollection of Levi Hancock.²⁵ If Smith was privately married to Fanny, Oliver Cowdery, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, was not aware of it. He wrote to his brother, Warren, in 1838 accusing Smith of having a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair” with Fanny Alger.²⁶

To calm rumors regarding Fanny’s relationship with Joseph, the church quickly added a section on marriage to the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which declared, “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife . . .”²⁷

Traditionally scholars have listed Smith’s first plural wife as Louisa Beaman, in Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1841. By 1842 rumors were circulating that Smith was secretly taking additional wives. We now know that Smith’s next several wives were already married to other men, which would have provided a cover for his activities.²⁸

In 1842 John C. Bennett, former mayor of Nauvoo and confidant of Joseph Smith, published his exposé, History of the Saints, charging Smith with secretly practicing polygamy. In answer to Bennett’s book, in August of 1842 the LDS newspaper Times and Seasons denounced his charges of plural marriage as “base falsehoods and misrepresentations.”²⁹ However, history confirms Bennett’s charge. Historians now concede that Smith had at least 34 wives by the time of his death in 1844.³⁰

In 1843, after Joseph Smith had secretly married about two dozen women in plural marriage,³¹ and had received strong opposition from his wife Emma, Smith’s brother Hyrum implored Joseph to record his revelation. Hyrum was convinced that he could take it to Emma and convince her that plural marriage was ordained of God.

The first verse of section 132 explains that the purpose of the revelation was to answer Smith’s questions about “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines.” Verse 4 is very emphatic that those who have had this revelation given to them must obey it or be “damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” Verse 52 specifically commands Emma to accept the women Smith had already married:

And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; . . . And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, . . . But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; . . . (D&C 132:52)

When Hyrum returned from showing Emma the revelation he told Joseph “he had never received a more severe talking to in his life.”³² Thus we see that the whole reason the revelation was committed to paper was to convince Emma about plural marriage. While Emma Smith probably did not know the extent of Smith’s plural marriages at the time she was shown the revelation, she was well aware of the issue.

Today the church is trying to present section 132 as mainly dealing with their concept of eternal marriage, with polygamy being only a side issue. History shows that it was just the opposite. For instance, Joseph F. Smith, nephew of Joseph Smith, apostle and later president of the LDS Church, preached in 1878 that the practice of plural marriage was necessary to achieve the highest exaltation in heaven. He also emphasized that Joseph Smith only entered into plural marriage after “an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed.”³³ Lorenzo Snow, fifth president of the LDS Church, gave the following information in an 1869 affidavit:

In the month of April, 1843, I returned from my European mission. A few days after my arrival at Nauvoo, when at President Joseph Smith’s house, he . . . explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw the trouble that would follow, and sought to turn away from the commandment; that an angel from heaven then appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment.³⁴

The early LDS Church leaders understood that section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants commanded plural marriage. It was not just a side issue to eternal marriage, it was the key issue. Emma wasn’t sealed in marriage to Joseph until May 28, 1843, at which time Smith had already been sealed to approximately two dozen women. In order to receive her eternal sealing to Smith, Emma had to accept Joseph’s plural marriages.³⁵

The Manifesto – Declaration 1

In 1890 eighty-three-year-old LDS President Wilford Woodruff issued his famous Manifesto, counseling the Mormons to forsake plural marriage. This is printed in the Doctrine and Covenants as Declaration 1. While the Manifesto is presented as the results of a revelation, no actual revelation has been printed. The new heading for Declaration 1 reads:

The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States Government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.³⁶

This carefully worded statement is misleading in several areas.

1. Not only does the Bible and Book of Mormon teach monogamy, but from 1835 until 1876 the Doctrine and Covenants contained a section that taught monogamy and denounced polygamy as a crime.

Inasmuch as this church of 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.³⁷

In 1876 this section was dropped from the canon and replaced by section 132.

2. The new heading implies that once plural marriage was made illegal the LDS Church gave up the practice. Ironically, polygamy was against the law in Illinois when the early Mormons began practicing it there.³⁸ This was the reason for its great secrecy and the adamant denials of the doctrine and practice by Joseph Smith. Preaching just one month prior to his murder, Joseph Smith gave this denial of polygamy:

What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.³⁹

However, research shows that he had at least 34 wives at that time.⁴⁰

Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner provides the following information about the Illinois law:

Polygamy, a criminal act under the 1833 Illinois Anti-bigamy Laws, was so unacceptable to monogamous nineteenth-century American society that Smith could introduce it only in absolute secrecy. Despite Smith’s explicit denials of plural marriage, stories of “spiritual wifery” had continued to spread.⁴¹

3. The heading for the Manifesto refers to polygamy as a “practice,” not a doctrine. The early Mormons risked prison for plural marriage because they believed it was a doctrine, and failure to practice it would keep one from exaltation. Preaching in 1866, President Brigham Young declared:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.⁴²

Joseph Smith told Heber C. Kimball that if he didn’t enter into polygamy “he would lose his apostleship and be damned.”⁴³

4. The new heading states that the issuing of the Manifesto “led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.” Notice that it says “led to the end,” not that polygamy was actually ended in 1890. What most readers will not know is that after 1890 over two hundred LDS apostles and leaders continued to take plural wives.⁴⁴ LDS scholar B. Carmon Hardy observed:

The total of 262 post-Manifesto plural marriages found and described in the list [at the back of his book] makes it clear that a strong commitment to the doctrine continued past the turn of the century.⁴⁵

Also, the statements following Declaration 1 show that the main reason plural marriage was abandoned was simply due to the fear of legal action against the church and possible arrest of the church leaders, not that it was no longer considered a doctrine.

5. By stating that “monogamy is God’s standard for marriage” and that the Manifesto “led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church” the church seems to be suggesting that plural marriage is no longer a part of LDS beliefs. However, after the death of a wife a Mormon man is able to be married/sealed again in the temple to a new wife. According to LDS statements this would result in plural marriage in heaven as the man had two women sealed to him while on earth.

This doctrine was affirmed in October of 2007 at the funeral for the second wife of President Howard W. Hunter, the fourteenth President of the LDS Church. The Deseret News reported:

President Hinckley affirmed the eternal nature of the marriage between Sister [Inis] Hunter and the former church president, whose first wife, Claire Jeffs, died after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease and is now buried beside him in the Salt Lake Cemetery.

Inis Hunter “will now be laid to rest on the other side,” he said. “They were sealed under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity,” he said, recalling the marriage ceremony he performed for them in the Salt Lake Temple in April 1990.⁴⁶

Another example of plural sealings is Apostle Russell M. Nelson’s marriage in 2006 to a BYU professor. The BYU NewsNet for April 7, 2006, announced the temple marriage of Apostle Nelson, age 81, to Wendy Watson. His first wife died in February of 2005 and this was the first marriage for his new wife. This would mean, according to LDS beliefs, that Nelson has two wives sealed to him for eternity.

Harold B. Lee, the eleventh president of the church, also remarried after his wife’s death and was sealed to another woman and was looking forward to a polygamous relationship in heaven. He, in fact, wrote a poem in which he reflected that his second wife, Joan, would join his first wife, Fern, as his eternal wives:

My lovely Joan was sent to me: So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for eternity.
“O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee”
(Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p. 17)

After being widowed, Apostle Dallin Oaks remarried in the temple and believes he will be married eternally to both women. In 2002 he commented on his second sealing:

When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later—a year and a half ago—I married [in the LDS temple] Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side.
(Dallin Oaks, “Timing,” speech delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, January 29, 2002)

According to LDS doctrine, these men will have their faithful wives and children with them in the resurrection, which would mean they will be living polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom.

Thus we see that the doctrine and practice of plural marriage has not been abandoned, but only delayed until the afterlife.⁴⁷ It seems the LDS Church simply wants to keep it out of the public eye for better public relations and fear of being identified with polygamist splinter groups.

Declaration 2

The new heading for Declaration 2, granting priesthood to blacks, reads:

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

While the church concedes that a few blacks were ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, they do not explain that this did not grant blacks access to the temple rites in Nauvoo. For example, Elijah Abel, one of the earliest blacks to receive the priesthood, was never granted temple access, even though he advanced to the level of a Seventy and went on a mission for the church.⁴⁸ Jane Manning, a faithful Mormon and maid in the Smith household, begged the church leaders to allow her to be sealed in the temple, but the request was denied.⁴⁹

Notice also that the church claims “no clear insights” into why priesthood was denied to blacks. This is a blatant dismissal of over 100 years of racial statements by their prophets and apostles. Prior to 1978 the LDS leaders seem to have been quite clear as to the reason. Preaching in 1859, at the October Conference of the LDS Church, Brigham Young declared:

Cain slew his brother . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. . . . How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed.⁵⁰

Mormon blogger Joanna Brooks gives the following analysis of the new heading:

Church leaders have long maintained public ambiguity about the history of the ban and its end; they have rarely acknowledged the ordination of early African-American Mormons nor have they cited anti-racist teaching in the Book of Mormon in connection with the Church’s own troubled history on race. The new heading historicizes the ban (suggesting the influence of a robust Church History department) and depicts it as a contradiction to the original impulses of the faith, not corrected until 1978. The heading does, some commentators have noted, offer continuing cover to Brigham Young, whose on-the-record racist statements to the Utah legislature suggest his influence in the evolution of a non-ordination policy. Commentators also note the absence of reference to the fact that black women were not historically admitted to LDS temple worship until the 1978 announcement.⁵¹

History of the Church

Other interesting deletions from the Doctrine and Covenants include all the references to the History of the Church whose authorship is attributed to Joseph Smith.⁵²

This leaves the reader with no idea where to find further information on the events that led up to the revelations. On the official LDS web site, in a question and answer section relating to the recent adjustments to the LDS scriptures, we read:

While foundational for our understanding of early Latter-day Saint history, the History of the Church contains historical errors about some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants and is inaccessible to most Church members. In addition, the revised section headings rely on other sources, including the Manuscript History of the Church, early manuscript revelation books, and other sources that are reproduced in the Joseph Smith Papers. Quotations from the Manuscript History of the Church and the History of the Church are collectively referred to in section headings as Joseph Smith’s history.⁵³

First, it should be noted that the reason the History of the Church is “inaccessible” is because the church has discontinued printing it. While copies are still available in various libraries, most members do not have these volumes. Second, by simply citing the information as coming from a collection of writings referred to as “Joseph Smith’s history” one is left with no idea as to the specific source. The Manuscript History of the Church is comprised of about 2,400 pages and the Documentary History of the Church spans some 3,000 pages. To say that a certain statement or quote can be found somewhere therein is like telling a person that the source can be found in the library.

Conclusion

While some of the new headings in the LDS scriptures provide additional information, there is still an obscuring of troubling historical details.

Writing in 2012 reporter Peggy Fletcher Stack commented on the crisis faced by LDS members when they encounter critical information:

Surprised by what they find so easily online, more and more members of the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encountering crises of faith. Some even leave the fold and, feeling betrayed, join the ranks of Mormon opponents.

It’s a growing problem, acknowledges LDS general authority Marlin Jensen, the faith’s outgoing church historian, and one Mormon leaders are working to confront.

“Never before have we had this information age, with social networking and bloggers publishing unvetted points of view,” Jensen said in an interview Monday.

“The church is concerned about misinformation and distorted information, but we are doing better and trying harder to get our story told in an accurate way.”⁵⁴

Unfortunately, the LDS Church is the main culprit in the spread of “distorted information.” As more and more people seek information on the Internet and from books not published by the LDS Church, the leaders will need to do a better job of candidly addressing its problematic history.

---

Footnotes:

1. Joseph Walker, “LDS Church Announces New Scripture Edition,” Deseret News (Feb. 28, 2013). ↩︎
2. “Why Some Mormons Leave,” Salt Lake Tribune (Feb. 3, 2012), [supplemental section at end of article]. ↩︎
3. Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 2, (Deseret Book, 1976), p. 236. ↩︎
4. Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 3, (Macmillan Pub., 1992), p. 1071. ↩︎
5. See also “The Oldest Biblical Text? Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham Examined,” Salt Lake City Messenger, no. 113, (November 2009). ↩︎
6. See “The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 3, no.2, (1968); Tanner, “Fall of the Book of Abraham,” Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? (1987), chapter 22; Charles Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, (1992); Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, (Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2011). ↩︎
7. Ritner, Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri. ↩︎
8. F. S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr. As a Translator (1912), (as reprinted in Why Egyptologists Reject the Book of Abraham, Utah Lighthouse Ministry), pp. 26-27. ↩︎
9. http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-the-larger-issue ↩︎
10. “Book of Mormon Plates: Artifact, Vision or Hoax?” Salt Lake City Messenger, no. 105, (November 2005). ↩︎
11. Simon G. Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church, (Signature Books, 2004). ↩︎
12. “Lamanite Mission of 1830-31,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, pp. 802-803. ↩︎
13. See Racial Statements in LDS Scripture. ↩︎
14. Michael D. Coe, The Maya, (Thames & Hudson, 2005), p. 206. ↩︎
15. Book of Mormon Seminary Student Study Guide, (LDS Church, 2008), pp. 78, 203. ↩︎
16. See H. Michael Marquardt, Joseph Smith Revelations: Text & Commentary, (Signature Books, 1999). ↩︎
17. James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, Story of the Latter-day Saints, second ed., (Deseret Book, 1992), p. 87. ↩︎
18. For an example of code names compare 1835 D&C sec. XCVIII with the current D&C sec. 104. ↩︎
19. For another example of code names, compare sec. 86:4 of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants with the 2013 edition, sec. 82:11. ↩︎
20. See Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pp. 190-192; The Changing World of Mormonism, chp. 14, “Civil War.” ↩︎
21. Letter by Ezra Booth, Ohio Star, Dec. 8, 1831. See Tanner, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 230C; Marquardt, Joseph Smith Revelations, pp. 374-376. ↩︎
22. Tanner, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pp. 230A–230C. ↩︎
23. As quoted in Marquardt, Joseph Smith Revelations, p. 375. ↩︎
24. Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, (Signature Books, 1997), pp. 4, 26. ↩︎
25. Ibid., pp. 28-29. ↩︎
26. Linda Newell and Valeen Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, (Univ. of Illinois Press, 1994), p. 66. ↩︎
27. 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, section CI, p. 251. ↩︎
28. Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 4-5. ↩︎
29. Times and Seasons, vol. 3 (August 1, 1842): p. 869. ↩︎
30. Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 4-7. ↩︎
31. George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, (Signature Books, 2008), pp. 621-623. ↩︎
32. Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Introduction to vol. 5, pp. xxxii-xxxiii. ↩︎
33. Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, pp. 28-29. ↩︎
34. Joseph Fielding Smith, Blood Atonement and the Origins of Plural Marriage, (Deseret News Press, 1905), p. 67. ↩︎
35. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, pp. 178-181; 462;621; Andrew Jenson, Historical Record, 1887, pp. 225, 240. ↩︎
36. Doctrine and Covenants, (2013) Official Declaration-1. ↩︎
37. Doctrine and Covenants, (1835 ) Section 101, p. 251. ↩︎
38. See online: The Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p. 198 (section on bigamy). ↩︎
39. Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 411. ↩︎
40. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, pp. 621-623; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 4-6. ↩︎
41. Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, (Signature Books, 1989), p. 18. ↩︎
42. Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269. ↩︎
43. Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, (1888), p. 336, footnote. ↩︎
44. B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, (University of Illinois, 1992), Appendix 2. ↩︎
45. Ibid., p. 391. ↩︎
46. “Sister Hunter’s humor and cheerfulness remembered as she is laid to rest,” Deseret News, (Oct. 22, 2007). ↩︎
47. See: LDS Leaders Still Believe There Will be Polygamy in Heaven. ↩︎
48. Armand Mauss, All Abraham’s Children, (Univ. of Illinois Press, 2003), pp. 215-216. ↩︎
49. See Jerald & Sandra Tanner, Curse of Cain: Racism in the Mormon Church, (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 2004), pp. 41-42. ↩︎
50. Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 290-291. ↩︎
51. “Significant Changes to LDS Scripture Reflect Shifting Church Views on Racist History,” (March 2, 2013). ↩︎
52. See Tanner, Falsification of Joseph Smith’s History; and “Falsifying History,” Salt Lake City Messenger, no. 65 (November 1987). ↩︎
53. About the Scriptures, “Adjustments to the Scriptures,” (churchofjesuschrist.org). ↩︎
54. Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Mormons Tackling Tough Questions in Their History,” Salt Lake Tribune, (Feb. 3, 2012). ↩︎

---

---