Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 8

Chapter 7: The Bible

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 9: The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price

Index of Claims in Chapter 8: The Book of Mormon

Claim

• The authors construct a straw man of LDS deception by first noting the (unidentified) paintings of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon plates by leaning over them in a prayerful position.3 They then proceed to destroy their straw man by claiming that "testimony from his contemporaries paints another picture."4 The authors then point to the evidence that Joseph Smith used a "seerstone" for at least part of the translation process. They present this information in a manner that implies that the LDS Church has been concealing this fact.

Response

• A study of early Mormon sources reveals that the LDS Church has discussed this issue for years.
• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Seer stones, Church history/Accuracy of Church art, and Church history/Censorship and revision

Claim

• The authors suggest misinformation by Latter-day Saint because of the aforementioned "paintings" as well as a comment by Joseph Fielding Smith who said, "there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation." ^[1] While President Smith claimed that he "personally" did "not believe that this stone was used for this purpose." ^[2] The authors claim that he "denie[d] that such a rock was used."

Author's source(s)

• n9
• n10
• n11

Response

• Joseph Fielding Smith continued his comments by noting that although a seerstone "may have been" ^[3]

used, he didn't believe that it was. Of course this portion of Joseph Fielding Smith's quote was omitted (which helps the authors's straw-man claim that Joseph Fielding Smith "denie[d]" the use of a seerstone).

• The reason that some less-informed LDS seem to be unfamiliar with Joseph's use of a "seerstone" stems, in part, from a confusion in the historical record as to what is meant by the "Urim and Thummim." Generally, the Urim and Thummim referred to the Jaredite interpreters that Joseph Smith received with the plates. At other times, however, it referred to the seerstone. ^[4] The authors even seem to recognize this when they note that William Smith referred to the seerstones as a Urim and Thummim.
• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Seer stones

Claim

• In an endnote to this chapter the authors claim that the Bible tells us that the Urim and Thummim was used to "receive revelation" from God not "for translation purposes" in contrast to Mormon claims.

Response

• Are the authors really arguing that Mormons believe that the Urim and Thummim was some sort of automatic language translator done by means that excluded "revelation?" Perhaps they need to re-read LDS history. In the History of the Church, for example, we read that God told the three witnesses: "These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God." ^[5] It is telling that the claim was put in a footnote rather than the main body of text, where it would be less likely to be noticed.

Claim

• The authors attempt to poison the well and disqualify the credibility of the Three Witnesses by quoting D. Michael Quinn's comments that all the witnesses were involved at one point or another in divining or the use of rods and/or seerstones.

Author's source(s)

• D. Michael Quinn n12

Response

• While this might be true (and the issue is far from settled), it is not apparent how this relates to their credibility. Many people in the early nineteenth century were involved in divining rods and seer stones. If they had read Quinn's entire section on this topic, they would have seen many more examples of non-LDS clergy who were involved in the same thing.

Claim

• The credibility of the Three Witnesses has been dealt with on numerous occasions by many competent authors, all of whom demonstrate that not one of these three men ever denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon even in spite of hardships, threats, excommunication, bad feelings, and persecution. The authors even note that "David Whitmer claimed that none of the three witnesses ever denied the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon."

Response

• To the authors credit, they never attempt to show that they did deny their testimonies. However, instead, they try to impugn the integrity of the witnesses by questioning their character as reliable witnesses.

Claim

• Oliver charged Joseph Smith with having an affair with Fanny Alger.

Author's source(s)

• n13

Response

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith and polygamy/Fanny Alger and William McLellin

Claim

• Oliver Cowdery, the authors charge, was excommunicated after accusing Joseph of "adultery, lying, and teaching false doctrines." They also claim that following Cowdery's excommunication he was accused of "'denying the faith,' 'persecuting the brethren,' 'urging on vexatious lawsuits,' 'falsely insinuating [Joseph Smith] was guilty of adultery,' and dishonesty."

Author's source(s)

• n14

Response

• You would think, that had Cowdery been a victim of fraud, he would have turned on Joseph and denounced his testimony, but he never did.

Claim

• The authors point out that Cowdery later joined the Methodists--a denomination, they claim, which "had been supposedly condemned by God."

Author's source(s)

• n15

Response

• What LDS source do they cite for such a view of Methodism?

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were corrupt; that "they draw near me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." (Joseph Smith History 1:19)

• This is a straw man argument. Nowhere does this verse state that Methodism, or any other denomination, is "condemned of God." Anti-Mormons love to claim Mormons have somehow attacked "Christianity" (of course since Latter-day Saints are Christian, the charge is ludicrous); What the verse above refers to, quite clearly, is the "creeds" which are abominations, and (somewhat more ambiguously) "those professors were corrupt."
• A serious look at the "creeds" of historic Christianity will reveal that they indeed are abominations (or "polluted" per Webster's 1828 dictionary)--that they are heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. ^[6]
• Who were the "professors" which were "corrupt"? And what does it mean to be "corrupt?" The 1828 Webster's dictionary number one definition for professor is:

One who makes open declaration of his sentiments or opinions; particularly, one who makes a public avowal of his belief in the Scriptures and his faith in Christ, and thus unites himself to the visible church.

• It's possible that the "professors" refers to those who formulated the "creeds" or perhaps to those who, in Joseph Smith's day, proclaimed these creeds. In either case, the "professors" seems to be tied to those who supported the "creeds." Of the many 1828 definitions for "corrupt," the ones which make the most sense based on "creeds" which were "abominations" are the following: "tainted; unsound; lose purity; infected with errors or mistakes; polluted." In other words, those who proclaimed the (polluted) "creeds" are themselves "infected with errors or mistakes" for proclaiming such creeds. The Lord's statement in Joseph Smith History 1:19 is a condemnation of the creeds and the teaching of such false doctrine--not an objurgation against any denomination.
• For a detailed response, see: Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Oliver joined the Methodists  ^{[needs work]}

Claim

• The authors acknowledge that David Whiter claimed that none of the three witnesses ever denied the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

Response

• For a detailed response, see: Book of Mormon/Witnesses/David Whitmer testimony of the Book of Mormon  ^{[needs work]}

Claim

• Whitmer, like Cowdery, was excommunicated from the Church, and Whitmer (unlike Cowdery and Harris) never returned. Whitmer, these critics correctly point out, believed that Joseph Smith was once a true prophet who had fallen. The authors attempt to besmirch Whitmer's credibility by quoting something he had written in his An Address to All Believers in Christ:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting, and for my labors I received only persecutions. (p. 27)

Author's source(s)

• n19

Response

• Is Whitmer's testimony of the Book of Mormon suspect because he later claimed that God told him to separate himself from the Mormons?
• For a detailed response, see: Book of Mormon/Witnesses/David Whitmer told to leave

Claim

• The authors claim that Joseph became upset with Harris when he declared that (quoting from History of the Church), "'Joseph drank too much liquor when he was translating the Book of Mormon,' and that he knew more than Smith did."

Author's source(s)

• n21, n22, n23

Response

• The next paragraph in the History of the Church, however, states:

Brother Harris did not tell Esq. Russell that Brother Joseph drank too much liquor while translating the Book of Mormon, but this thing occurred previous to the translating of the Book; he confessed that his mind was darkened, and that he had said many things inadvertently, calculated to wound the feelings of his brethren, and promised to do better. The council forgave him, with much good advice. ^[7]

• The authors omit this information. Did they really not read past the paragraph that suited their argument, or did they purposefully fail to inform their audience as to the rest of the story?

Claim

• The authors claim that the witnesses testimony of having "'seen the plates' is suspicious."

Author's source(s)

• Marvin Hill n29

Response

• It should be noted that the authors' quote from former BYU instructor, Marvin Hill, on this topic appears to be direct "cut and paste" from the Tanners' The Changing World of Mormonism—ellipses and all. ^[8]
• The authors base this charge on a statement by Martin Harris who claimed to have seen the plates with his "spiritual eye" rather than his "naked eyes." Does the belief that the experience had visionary qualities contradict the claim that the plates were real?
• Consider this: On separate occasions Harris also claimed that prior to his witnessing the plates he held them (while covered) "on his knee for an hour and a half" ^[9]and that they weighed approximately fifty pounds. ^[10] It seems unlikely--from his physical descriptions as well as his other testimonies and the testimonies of the other two witnesses--that the entire experience was merely in his mind. For example, on one occasion, critics charged that Martin (and the other two witnesses) had merely imagined he saw an angel--that he was deluded. Martin responded by extending his right hand:

Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates. ^[11]

• For a detailed response, see: Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris  ^{[needs work]}

Claim

• The authors assure us that "while Mormon leaders have insisted that virtually millions of Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites existed during the Book of Mormon era, the LDS Church has no tangible evidence to support this claim."

Response

• In a pre-emptive strike to diffuse the evidence that might be mustered for the Saints, that authors attack Book of Mormon geography by pitting contrasting statements of LDS authorities against each other. While precise locations for Book of Mormon cities are debated, nearly all informed Book of Mormon scholars agree that Book of Mormon events would have taken place in Mesoamerica. The authors try to poison the well of information that might be gleaned from this territory by citing earlier LDS views on Book of Mormon geography. For example, they point out that James Talmage and Ezra Taft Benson believed that Book of Mormon peoples occupied North and South America (known as the "hemispheric model" of Book of Mormon geography). In their quote of Benson, they claim:

President Ezra Taft Benson insisted that not only did the alleged Nephites live in the area of the United States, but that Adam and the "Jaredites" lived there as well.

• The source they use for this claim is a quote from The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson. The astute reader will find that Benson made this claim in 1978 seven years before Benson became President. There is no argument that Benson presented such an opinion, and it's possible that he continued to believe it even after he became President, but for the authors to imply that Benson made this claim while he was President demonstrates at best shoddy scholarship or an appeal to authority--the President said so, so it must be official LDS doctrine.

Claim

• The authors also quote from Joseph Fielding Smith (who was not President at the time he recorded his views), who disagreed with the early proposals suggesting that Mesoamerica was the land of Book of Mormon activity. To further bolster their claim that the LDS should accept the early LDS views of Book of Mormon geography in North America, the authors quote a 1930 First Presidency statement wherein the Presidency quoted (in part) 3 Nephi 20:21-22 while adding some parenthetical comments. The portion in question reads:

And behold, this people (the Nephites) will I establish in this land, (America) and it shall be a new Jerusalem. ^[12]

Author's source(s)

• Joseph Fielding Smith n31, n32
• James Talmage n33
• Ezra Taft Benson n35

Response

• The authors imply that since the First Presidency signed the statement, that it must represent the official position of the Church. Clever. However, the First Presidency's statement was not a doctrinal exposition on the location of the Nephites and Book of Mormon geography, but rather it was an address on the Church's Centennial Conference--they were celebrating one hundred years of LDS conferences. The quote from 3 Nephi was included to recall the Lord's promise of the gathering of Israel and the establishment of His Kingdom in the last days. The parenthetical reference to America is secondary to their point and was simply included for explanatory purposes based on their early understanding of Book of Mormon geography.

Claim

• The authors claim that modern LDS scholars "have since abandoned the idea that the Book of Mormon lands include areas of North America," and that previous Church leaders were "misinformed."

Author's source(s)

• n36

Response

•  ^{[needs work]}

Claim

• The authors quote from Michael Coe, a Yale professor (emeritus) and a specialist in Mesoamerican history who wrote:

The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of the early migrants to our hemisphere.

Author's source(s)

• Michael D. Coe n42, n43

Response

• While Coe is a respected expert in New World studies it is possible that his scholarly views on the Book of Mormon are based on assumptions that might inaccurately reflect what the Book of Mormon actually says. If, for instance, Coe rejects the historicity of the Book of Mormon based on the previously popular LDS assumption that the Book of Mormon was a record of the Hebrew origins of the American Indians, he would be correct in doing so. This is simply another instance of a straw man--and perhaps an unconscious one at that. It is guaranteed that Coe has not paid as close attention to what the text of the Book of Mormon actually says as someone like Brant Gardner or Dr. John Sorenson who are also respected New World researchers and believers in the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. Without knowing what assumptions influenced Coe's comments it is impossible to judge the accuracy of his claims.

Claim

• The authors reference the supposed Nephite altar north of Gallatin, Missouri.

Response

• Had the authors done a little homework, they would have found that some LDS scholars suggest that Joseph Smith never claimed that the location in question was the site of a Nephite altar. ^[13]

Claim

• In 1993, L. Ara Norwood made the following observation of James White's use of the same quote from Coe in his Letters to a Mormon Elder:

So we have a non-Latter-day Saint archaeologist who does not believe in the supernatural claims of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon due to the lack of "scientific evidence"? Is that significant? If a non-Latter-day Saint individual were to come to believe in the supernatural/spiritual claims of the Book of Mormon, would not that person then in all likelihood join the Latter-day Saint church? And if that were to occur, would not that same individual lose credibility with the likes of Mr. White? It seems that Mr. White operates with standards that are impossible to satisfy: the only credible persons, in his view, are non-Latter-day Saints, who are, by definition, nonbelievers. As soon as any of the several hundred thousand non-Latter-day Saints become believers (which happens each and every year), he feels they now lack the balance and perspective that only a non-Mormon can have. ^[14]

• The authors criticize Norwood's explanation thus:

Norwood seems to miss the point. Coe is not basing his conclusion on the spiritual significance of the Book of Mormon but on the lack of historical significance.

Response

• What the authors (and actually Coe as well) fail to understand is that it is the spiritual nature that verifies the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Can the truth of the Book of Mormon be tested spiritually? Yes. Can the historicity of the Book of Mormon be tested by empirical means? Technically, yes. Is there enough information available today, with which to test the Book of Mormon by empirical means? No.

Claim

• The authors claim that scholars "have been disciplined for exposing information that can be damaging" to the Church's image.

Author's source(s)

• Stephen Thompson, Dialogue: A Journal of Mromon Thought. n46

Response

• For a detailed response, see: Church discipline/Scholars

Claim

• The authors over-exaggerate the archaeological support for the Bible.

Response

• For instance, William Dever--a leading authority on Biblical archaeology--has written:

After a century of modern research neither Biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personalities, of the patriarchal or Mosaic era. ^[15]

• Likewise, Mesoamerican researcher Brant Gardner points out:
  • Why is there no archaeological or textual information placing Israelites in Israel during the time period the Bible says they should be there in large numbers?
  • Why is there no evidence for the Exodus, when science suggests that such a large migration over that period of time would leave some discernable trace?
  • Why is there no evidence for a military conquest of Canaan? All indications from archaeology are for a peaceful and gradual immigration rather than the Biblical story of invasion.
  • Why is there nothing in the archaeology of Jericho that suggests fallen walls during the appropriate time period?
  • Why are the stories of the patriarchs in the Bible full of camels when the camel is now known to have been introduced well after 1000 BCE,67 or 1000 years too late for the Biblical stories?
  • Why is it that virtually nothing prior to the reign of Josiah can be seen to have any archaeological corroboration?
• You may check the validity of the questions in Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed, which is a recently published account of the current state of Biblical archaeology. Older accounts that have been found to be wrong may not be cited as evidence. There are a number of non-Bible-believing scholars who reject the Bible, in part, because of lack of evidence to support the historical claims made by the Bible. Yet McKeever and Johnson find fault with the Saints for not rejecting the Book of Mormon because non-Book-of-Mormon-believing scholars do not accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon for the same reasons. Such criticisms apply a double set of standards.

Claim

• Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

Author's source(s)

• n49

Response

•  ^{[needs work]}

Claim

• The authors claim that "the Book of Mormon should contain everything Latter-day Saints need to guide them into the presence of God," yet it does not include the temple endowment, eternal marriage, tithing, the Word of Wisdom, and baptism for the dead. Unbelievably, After citing Ezra Taft Benson's comments on the witness provided by the Book of Mormon, the authors write, "In other words, whatever is necessary in order to achieve complete salvation should be found in the pages of the Book of Mormon." If these critics had stopped here, there would not have been a problem. They don't stop with the general understanding of the relationship between salvation and the teachings of the Book of Mormon, however. Instead, they try to create a new straw man by quoting Matthias F. Cowley in the April 1902 conference.

As we live near to God in all aspects, so shall we be entitled to the companionship, and according to our faithfulness, a greater measure of the Holy Spirit, that will give us a better understanding of the things of God, qualify us to live nearer unto God, and consequently too secure unto ourselves a greater exaltation in His presence. ^[16]

Response

• McKeever and Johnson read into Cowley's quote that, "getting nearer to God is the same as exaltation." They also quote Joseph Smith's statement that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its [Book of Mormon] precepts, than by any other book." ^[17] By juxtapositioning different truths, McKeever and Johnson are able to construct a straw man that, although unrecognizable as actually LDS theology, meets the requirements of their claim. Based on this straw man they can charge that "the Book of Mormon should contain everything Latter-day Saints need to guide them into the presence of God." Ironically, this last sentence is correct. The Book of Mormon does "contain everything Latter-day Saints need to guide them into the presence of God [the Celestial Kingdom]." McKeever and Johnson are unable to make a coherent argument because they either don't know enough about their subject matter or because they are simply grasping as straws (or in this case, a "straw man").
• How is "nearer to God" used in LDS discussion? It is used in much the same way that the phrase is used in non-LDS discourse. It usually means that someone is becoming more spiritual, more Christ-like, and perhaps more in-tune with the will of the Lord. Ezra Taft Benson, for instance said: "I have a vision of the whole church getting nearer to God by abiding the precepts of the Book of Mormon." ^[18]
• Bishop C.A. Madsen wrote in the Improvement Era (the official LDS periodical of the day) that the beauty of God's creations (such as the flowers) "bring you nearer to God" as a witness to God's "wonderful workmanship." ^[19]
• The editors of the Improvement Era tell their LDS readers that prayer, offered in unselfish, and humble inquiry to the Lord "brings man nearer to God and helps him to conquer his baser self, by creating in his heart love for others." ^[20] According to McKeever and Johnson such prayers must mean sudden exaltation! And using McKeever and Johnson's definition of "nearer to God," the highest level of the celestial kingdom must be full of musicians, for J. Reuben Clark said, "A man can get nearer to God by music than any other method except prayer." ^[21]

Claim

• Typical of anti-Mormon inbreeding, McKeever and Johnson are not the first anti-Mormons who have claimed that the Book of Mormon does not contain the fulness of the Gospel. They quote, in fact, Dr. Daniel Peterson who has responded to this charge from other Mormon critics. Dr. Peterson pointed out that "in its most basic sense" the word gospel "represents a six-point formula including repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, faith, endurance to the end, and eternal life." ^[22] McKeever and Johnson respond by claiming that contrary to Peterson's "opinion," Bruce McConkie taught that the gospel "embraces all of the laws, principals, doctrines, rites, ordinances, acts, powers, authorities, and keys necessary to save and exalt men in the highest heaven hereafter." ^[23]

Author's source(s)

• Peterson n53
• McConkie n54

Response

• It's amazing as to what lengths our critics will go in redefining LDS theology in order to suit their arguments. Peterson and McConkie are both correct. There is no conflict. As Dr. Peterson had written (which was quoted by McKeever and Johnson), the Book of Mormon uses the term "gospel" in "its most basic sense." McConkie, on the other hand, is speaking of the gospel in its more complete sense.

Endnotes

1. [note] Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 3 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954 ), 225-226, as quoted in McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 108.
2. [note] Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 3 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954 ), 225-226, as quoted in McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 108.
3. [note] Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:226-226, italics added.
4. [note] D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View: Revised and Enlarged (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 57; 174-175.
5. [note] Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 54-55.
6. [note] See for example: Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Ben Lomond, California: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999).
7. [note] Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 26.
8. [note] See McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 111 and Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 108. With the exception of one deleted sentence, McKeever and Johnson appear to copy the Hill quote, ellipses and all, directly from the Tanners. Thanks to Kevin Graham for pointing this out.
9. [note] The Contributor 1879-1892, Vol. 5 (August 1884) No. 11, 406 and George Reynolds, "Myth of the Manuscript Found," Juvenile Instructor, 1883, as cited in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Case Against Mormonism, Vol. 2 (Salt Lake City, 1968), 40. George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1955), 435-436.
10. [note] Tiffany's Monthly 5, no. 2 (New York: Published by Joel Tiffany, 1859), 166.
11. [note] Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 116.
12. [note] B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 6 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1930), 572.
13. [note] See for example, Leland H. Gentry, "Adam-Ondi-Ahman: a Brief Historical Survey," BYU Studies, Vol. 13, Number 4 (Summer 1973), 564.
14. [note] L. Ara Norwood, "Ignoratio Elenchi: The Dialogue That Never Was," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon Vol. 5 (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1993), 329.
15. [note] William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1990), 24.
16. [note] Conference Report (April 1902), 28; as quoted in McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 119.
17. [note] Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City; Deseret Book Company, 1976), 94; italics added.
18. [note] General Conference, October 1988, as in Ezra Taft Benson, "Flooding the Earth with the Book of Mormon," Ensign, (November 1988), 4.
19. [note] Bishop C.A. Madsen, "Beauty and Harmony in Organic Creations," Improvement Era, 1900, Vol. IV (December, 1900), No 2.
20. [note] Editors Table, Improvement Era, 1923, Vol. XXVI (July, 1923), No. 9.
21. [note] "Cemetery Dedication a Fulfillment of Dreams," LDS Church News (10 August 1991).
22. [note] Daniel C. Peterson, review of John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Mormonism, in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 5 (1993), 57; quoted by McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 121. McKeever and Johnson would have benefited greatly from reading Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ as Taught by the Nephite Prophets," BYU Studies 31:3 (Summer 1991), 31-47. In this paper, Reynolds explains that, "the gospel of Jesus Christ is not synonymous with the plan of salvation (or plan of redemption), but is a key part thereof. Brigham Young stated that the 'Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son.' While the plan of salvation is what God and Christ have done for mortals in the creation, the fall, the atonement, the final judgment, and the salvation of the world, the gospel contains the instructions--the laws and ordinances--that enable human beings to make the atonement effective in their lives and thereby gain salvation (p. 33; italics added).
23. [note] Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 52,quoted in McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 121.