“Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

“I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects–all united to persecute me.

“It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself” (Joseph Smith–History 1:21-23).

“I, William Stafford, … first became acquainted with Joseph, Sen., and his family in the year 1820. They lived, at that time, in Palmyra, about one mile and a half from my residence. A great part of their time was devoted to digging for money: especially in the night time, when they said the money could be most easily obtained. I have heard them tell marvelous tales, respecting the discoveries they had made in their peculiar occupation of money digging. …When they found that the people of this vicinity would no longer put any faith in their schemes for digging money, they then pretended to find a gold bible, of which, they said, the book of Mormon was only an introduction.”

“I [Willard Chase] became acquainted with the Smith family, known as the authors of the Mormon Bible, in the year 1820. … In the month of June, 1827, Joseph Smith, Sen., related to me the following story: That some years ago, a spirit had appeared to Joseph his son, in a vision, and informed him that in a certain place there was a record on plates of gold, and that he was the person that must obtain them.”

“At length he determined to call upon the Lord until he should get a manifestation from him. He accordingly went out into the woods and falling upon his knees called for a long time upon the Lord for wisdom and knowledge. While engaged in prayer a light appeared in the heavens, and descended until it rested upon the trees where he was. It appeared like fire. But to his great astonishment, did not burn the trees. An angel then appeared to him and conversed with him upon many things. He told him that none of the sects were right; but that if he was faithful in keeping the commandments he should receive, the true way should be made known to him; that his sins were forgiven, etc. A more elaborate and accurate description of his vision, however, will be found in his own history” (William Smith on Mormonism, 8-9).

“The next day I was at work in the field together with Joseph and my eldest brother Alvin. Joseph looked pale and unwell, so that Alvin told him if he was sick he need not work; he then went and sat down by the fence, when the angel again appeared to him, and told him to call his father's house together and communicate to them the visions he had received, which he had not yet told to any one; and promised him that if he would do so, they would believe it. He accordingly asked us to come to the house, as he had something to tell us. After we were all gathered, he arose and told us how the angel appeared to him; what he had told them as written above; and that the angel had also given him a short account of the inhabitants who formerly resided upon this continent, a full history of whom he said was engraved on some plates which were hidden, and which the angel promised to show him” (Ibid. 9-10).

“According to Joseph Smith, he told the story of the vision immediately after it happened the early spring of 1820. As a result, he said, he received immediate criticism in the community. There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830's Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it . . . The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830's, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days . . . as far as non-Mormons were concerned there was little, if any, awareness of it in the 1830's . . ."As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith's first vision in any publishedmaterial in the 1830's . . . From all this it would appear that the general church membership did not receive information about the first vision until the 1840's and that the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 30-34).

As that year [1837] wore on, a spirit of apostasy grew among some of the Saints in Kirtland. Some members became proud, greedy, and disobedient to the commandments. Some blamed Church leaders for economic problems caused by the failure of a Kirtland financial institution established by Church members.

She explained that the women had met to lend their collective voice to a proclamation that countered Orsimus Bostwick's slander of Hyrum Smith. Emma read the "Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo" aloud to the group. ... Emma received a unanimous positive vote from the women, who were willing to "receive the principles of Virtue, keep the commandments of God, and uphold the Prest. in putting down iniquity." With a remark that may have seemed pointed toward Elizabeth Whitney and Vilate Kimball, whose young daughters had married Joseph, Emma told the women, "It is high time for Mothers to watch over their daughters and exhort them to keep the path of virtue" (Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, p 173).

We therefore warn you, and forwarn you ... we do not want anyone to believe anything as coming from us contrary to the old established morals and virtues, and scriptural laws. ... All persons pretending to be authorized by us ... are and will be liars and base imposters and you are authorized ... to denounce them as such ... whether they are prophets, Seers, or revelators, patriarchs, twelve apostles ... you are alike culpable and shall be damned for such evil practices" (Ibid., 173-174).

[Emma] then presented both the "Voice of Innocence" and the presidency's letter, stating that the two documents contained the principles the society had started upon, but she "was sorry to have to say that all had not adhere'd to them." Referring to Joseph's original charge to search out iniquity, Emma reminded the women that she was the president of the society by the authority of Joseph. The minutes record, "If there ever was any Authority on earth [to search out iniquity] she had it--and had [it] yet." Emma urged the women to follow the teachings of Joseph Smith as he taught them "from the stand," implying that his private teachings should be disregarded. Reminding them that "there could not be stronger language than that just read," she emphasized that those were Joseph's words" (Ibid., 174).

Although at that time Latter-day Saint women had to apply to become members, the Relief Society was very popular and grew rapidly. Membership had grown to over thirteen hundred women at the time of Joseph Smith’s death. Because of the crisis created by the Martyrdom and the exodus to and settlement in the West, there were few Relief Society meetings until the organization was revived in 1867.

Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander, emeritus LDS Church general authority, is one who points to the Freiberg Temple as the catalyst for not only spiritual opportunities but what he calls "cataclysmic change across Europe."

All in a half-dozen years.

And the result: "Communism overthrown without war, without destruction, without bloodshed, really," he said.

The four key dates he lists:

• June 29, 1985, the dedication of the Freiberg Temple in the German Democratic Republic, the result of nearly two decades of efforts in East Germany by President Thomas S. Monson, then a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

• July 1, 1987, the creation of the church's Austria Vienna East Mission, with its missionaries not serving in Austria but scattered throughout neighboring countries where Mormonism and most other religions had been quashed

• Nov. 8 and 9, 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the symbol of Soviet authority

• Throughout 1991, the dissolution of the Soviet Union following Mikhail Gorbachev's push for glasnost (Russian for "openness" or "transparency") and perestroika ("restructuring") in the USSR.

"Not many people think of that incremental development, but for me it's quite fascinating," said Elder Neuenschwander, a former BYU and University of Utah professor of Russian languages who was later hired by the LDS Church to assist in arranging the microfilming of genealogical records in central and Eastern Europe.

In 1985, the Berlin Wall and the area's communist-dominated powers seemed absolute.

Elder Neuenschwander said the introduction of the temple coincided with increased information flowing to previously isolated and closed-off European countries, an increased desire by the people to have the freedoms they were just then learning about, and grass-roots developments striving for more political and religious freedoms.

"But the temple became a standard, a light," he said. "And whenever there is a temple, there is additional power and enlightenment and spirituality."

"I try and try, and fail and fail, to take their perspective. 'So, what are you afraid is going to happen if you watch an R-rated movie?'

"'Those images go in and you can’t get them out. It affects the way you think. It will desensitize you to the real thing.'

"'The real thing?'

“'Sex!'

“'Do you all read romance novels and watch romantic movies?'

Oh, yes, they do!

“'Does that desensitize you to romance?'

“'It’s not the same thing!'

1. The First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles "establish doctrine."
2. This doctrine "is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."
3. The doctrine "resides" in the standard works of scripture, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. (Technically, the Articles of Faith are part of the standard works because they are published as part of the Pearl of Great Price, but to point out this error would evince a spirit of apostasy, so never mind.)

Even in areas of the world where animals lived in abundance, we sometimes have problems finding archaeological remains. The textual evidence for lions in Israel, for example, suggests that lions were present in Israel from ancient times until at least the sixteenth century AD, yet no lion remains from ancient Israel have ever been found.

John Tvedtnes, "The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy" (unpublished, 1994), 29-30 (copy in author's possession); Benjamin Urrutia, "Lack of Animal Remains at Bible and Book-of-Mormon Sites," Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology, 150 (August 1982), 3-4.

The fauna of the country [Palestine] is almost unchanged from the earliest historic times. The lion and the wild ox have become extinct; the former is noticed by an Egyptian traveller in Lebanon in the 14th cent. B.C., and is even said to have survived to the 12th cent. A.D.; its bones are found in caves and in the Jordan gravels. (Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, 1900).

The largest faunal collections and most intensive archaeo-zoological research for [the Chalcolithic] period have been carried out in the northern Negev. This biological data provides us with a detailed picture of human/animal relations during this formative period. ... If Shiqmim is taken as a representative sample for the valley, sheep ... and goat ... make up over 90 percent of the faunal assemblage with the remaining 10 percent consisting of cattle, ... dog, equid and ca. 3.8 percent of wild animals (gazelle, hartebeest, hippopotamus, lion, small cat, fox, hare, ostrich, bird and fish). (The Archeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. Thomas Levy, New York, Continuum, 1998, pp. 231-32)

The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication [L. Martin. "The Faunal Remains from Tell es Saidiyeh," Levant 20 (1988): 83-84] of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region. (Robert R. Bennett, "Horses in the Book of Mormon," Maxwell Institute, 2000).

"The press release reveals just how far the LDS Church has moved from its American roots. The statement acknowledges that the Church is dealing with complex issues around the world. Mercy (compassion) is emphasized over justice and the press release gives the distinct impression that the Church is moving to the left and closer to a social justice position."

Quantitative scientific methods can now test the claims of an Israelite genetic presence in ancient America. So far, they have demonstrated that nearly all Native Americans can trace their lineages to migrations from Asia sometime between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago. Latter-day Saints who prematurely pointed to haplogroup X as the best hope to salvage Mormon claims were mistaken–indeed, the timing and destination of that migration is inconsistent with either a hemispheric or limited Mesoamerican geography for the BoMor. Moreover, the most recent studies have identified haplogroup X in Siberian populations which share a common ancestry with Native Americans. While molecular anthropologists have demonstrated a technological capability to use DNA to identify descendants of ancient Hebrews, no such evidence has turned up in Central America or elsewhere among Native Americans. Ultimately, as Sorenson has noted, these findings may not matter to Latter-day Saints who have a spiritual witness of the "truth" of the BoMor, yet they caution against confusing a spiritual witness with scientific evidence. Spiritual witnesses may reach beyond science but they should never be confused with it.

Lamanites could not possibly be “the principal ancestors of the American Indians” as claimed in the current introduction to the Book of Mormon.

Over 98% of Native Americans tested to date carry mitochondrial DNA haplogroups A, B, C, or D. Outside of the Americas, these haplogroups are most commonly found in Mongolians and south Siberians, and are rarely found in modern Jews. Another 1% carry haplogroup X, which is found in south Siberian, European, and Near Eastern populations.

Murphy's arguments are based on the assumption that modern Jewish mtDNA accurately represents the mtDNA of ancient Israel.

Researchers have uncovered distinctive genetic markers on the Y-chromosome that can be useful in establishing linkages between ancient Hebrew and contemporary populations. Within the modern Jewish religion there are three patrilineal castes that genetic anthropologists Neil Bradman et al. describe thus: "the Priests (Cohanim, singular Cohen), non-Cohen members of the priestly tribe (Levites) and Israelites (non Cohanim and non-Levites)." As they use the term Israelite, it constitutes a subgroup of Jews "who are neither Cohanim nor Levites." While Cohanim and Levites are present in most Jewish communities, one becomes a Jew through matrilineal heritage (being born to a Jewess) or through conversion. Thus "Israelite" haplotypes are very diverse, with only the Cohen modal haplotype appearing more frequently than 0.1 (14 out of 119). The Cohen modal haplotype is much more frequent in both Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohanim (0.509, n = 54) and relatively rare in Levites (0.037). Despite different understandings of the terms Jew and Israelite than those commonly held among Mormons, Bradman and colleagues date the origin of the Cohen modal haplotype to 2,100 to 3,250 years ago (putting it within the historical range of alleged Lehite and Mulekite migrations to the New World). They conclude that it may "be useful for testing hypotheses regarding the relationship between specific contemporary communities and the ancient Hebrew population."[68] Markers on the Y Chromosome are not the only genetic linkages between descendants of ancient Hebrews. Numerous nuclear DNA polymorphisms and various types of mtDNAs have been used to cluster and chart genetic relationships among Jews in Europe, Asia, and Africa. They have even provided evidence of Jewish connections among probable Spanish American descendants of conversos (Spanish Jews forcefully converted to Christianity in the 15th century).[69] Yet, they consistently fail to produce the linkages one would expect to find if Native Americans descended from ancient Hebrews as the BoMor suggests.

Previous low-resolution RFLP studies of the maternally inherited mtDNA of Jews, using five or six restriction enzymes, have also revealed patterns interpreted both in terms of common origin and local admixture. Ritte et al. (1993b) found that genetic distances among seven Jewish communities and Israeli Arabs were comparable to those found among five globally dispersed populations, with Ethiopian Jews appearing more as an outgroup than Israeli Arabs. Tikochinski et al. (1991) and Ritte et al. (1992) found that genetic diversity within Jewish populations was generally lower than in populations with a geographically extensive distribution, such as whites, Asians, Australians, and Africans, but was greater than that found in geographically restricted populations such as New Guineans, a pattern they attributed to an unusually polymorphic ancestral Jewish population, a high rate of growth in Jewish populations, or introgression events from neighboring populations. Ritte et al. (1993a) compared mtDNAand Y-chromosome haplotypes in six Jewish communities and found consistently lower genetic diversity in the mtDNA than in the Y-chromosome haplotypes, although differences in mutational processes between these two marker systems make it very difficult to ascribe such differences with certainty to demographic effects.

The University College London study found that that while separate Jewish communities were founded by relatively few female ancestors, this "process was independent in different geographic areas" and that the female ancestors of different communities were largely unrelated.

Nicholas Wade wrote: "A new study now shows that the women in nine Jewish communities from Georgia... to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories from the men.... The women's identities, however, are a mystery, because...their genetic signatures are not related to one another or to those of present-day Middle Eastern populations."

We have analyzed the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA from each of nine geographically separated Jewish groups, eight non-Jewish host populations, and an Israeli Arab/Palestinian population, and we have compared the differences found in Jews and non-Jews with those found using Y-chromosome data that were obtained, in most cases, from the same population samples. The results suggest that most Jewish communities were founded by relatively few women, that the founding process was independent in different geographic areas, and that subsequent genetic input from surrounding populations was limited on the female side.

The men came from the Near East, perhaps as traders. They established local populations, probably with local women. But once the community was founded, the barriers had to go up, because otherwise mitochondrial diversity would be increased.

1. The study shows that these diaspora communities were founded by men, who intermarried with local women, thus the lack of Middle Eastern mtDNA, but
2. The Book of Mormon emigrants were both male and female, and there are three separate migrations from the Middle East mentioned. Thus, unlike the diaspora communities studied, there should be both mtDNA and Y-chromosome evidence of Middle Eastern ancestry among Native Americans.

Dr. Mark Thomas and colleagues reported: "In no case is there clear evidence of unbroken genetic continuity from early dispersal events to the present....Unfortunately, in many cases, it is not possible to infer the geographic origin of the founding mtDNAs within the different Jewish groups with any confidence." (MG Thomas, ME Weale, AL Jones, et. al. "Founding mothers of Jewish communities: geographically separated Jewish groups were independently founded by very few female ancestors." American Journal of Human Genetics, 70:6 (June 2002), 1411-1420.)

Before the Second World War (1939–1945) and the founding of the modern state of Israel (1948), there were many long-standing separate Jewish communities in Europe, North Africa, and Asia. All of them claimed an origin in one or another dispersal from Israel and Judea.However, the origins of small minority communities founded before the 16th century are rarely well documented. For some Jews (e.g., the Babylonian Jews and modern Iraqi Jews), evidence exists of ancient Jewish communities in the same locations as in present times, but gaps often exist in the records of intervening centuries (Rejwan 1985, p. 143). In no case is there clear evidence of unbroken genetic continuity from early dispersal events to the present (de Lange 1984, p. 15; Encyclopaedia Judaica 1972).

Dr. Shaye Cohen of Harvard University observed, "The authors are correct in saying the historical origins of most Jewish communities are unknown.

Most of those founding narratives do not have strong historical support. Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffman, professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, said the new genetic data could well explain how certain far-flung Jewish communities were formed. But he doubted that it would account for the origin of larger Jewish communities that seemed more likely to have been formed by families who were fleeing persecution or making invited settlements.

Dr. Shaye Cohen, professor of Jewish literature and philosophy at Harvard, said the implication of the findings and the idea of Jewish communities' having been founded by traders, was ''by no means implausible.''

''The authors are correct in saying the historical origins of most Jewish communities are unknown,'' Dr. Cohen said. ''Not only the little ones like in India, but even the mainstream Ashkenazic culture from which most American Jews descend.''

In a recent book, ''The Beginnings of Jewishness,'' Dr. Cohen argued that far-flung Jewish communities had adopted the rabbinic teaching of the matrilineal descent of Jewishness soon after the Islamic conquests in the seventh, eight and ninth centuries A.D.

One part of the Goldstein team's analysis, that matrilineal descent of Jewishness was practiced at or soon after the founding of each community, could fit in with this conclusion, Dr. Cohen said, if the communities were founded around this time.

Even close mtDNA homologies would not necessarily prove an Israelite origin, but the conspicuous absence of such homologies provides strong circumstantial evidence of non-Israelite origins for the mtDNA and much of the other genetic makeup of most modern Jews. With no evidence that modern Jewish mtDNA constitutes a valid control of the genetics of ancient Israel--and considerable evidence to the contrary--claims of Israelite lineage cannot be either confirmed or denied based on mtDNA data.

The Jewish communities of Iraq and Iran constitute the oldest non-Ashkenazi Jewish communities outside the Levant and were established during the 6th century B.C.E. For the Iranian (Persian) Jewish community sample set, we found that 41.5% of the mtDNA variation can be attributed to 6 women carrying mtDNA genomes that belong to sub-branches of Hgs H6a1b1, H14a1, T2g, T2c1, U1a1a, and J1b1 (Table 2), all known to be present in West Eurasia. In this regard, it is noteworthy that though Hg H is the dominant European mtDNA Hg (40-50%), its sub-Hgs H6 and H14 are largely restricted to the Near East and the South Caucasus [12]. Similarly, we found that about 43% of the Iraqi Jewish community can be traced back to 5 women whose mtDNA belongs to Hgs T2c1, J1b'e/J1e, U3b1a, H13a2b and W1d (Table 2), all frequent in the Near and Middle East. Again, Hg H13 is typically the Near Eastern, not European variant of Hg H [12]. Consistent with our findings, an independent sample of Iraqi Jews reported in a previous study [7], contained eleven out of 20 individuals who carry mtDNA variants, that can be assigned to the five founding lineages identified in the current study. (Behar et al., Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish Diaspora, Molecular Medicine Laboratory, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel, 2008).

Joseph's wife Asenath, daughter of Potipherah priest of On, is the ancestral mother of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 46:20). While her genealogy is unknown, there is no reason to believe that her mitochondrial lineage or that of her descendants, including the Lehites, would have matched that of the tribe of Judah. The presence of mtDNA types in Native Americans that do not match those found in modern Jewish groups is fully consistent with both Book of Mormon and Bible accounts.

Two weeks ago, Salt Lake County Republicans held a convention of delegates. On the agenda was a proposed resolution calling for the repeal of HB 116, the immigration reform bill passed by the Utah Legislature creating a permit system that would allow illegal immigrants to work legally within the state.

The repeal resolution was introduced late in the evening, after many delegates had gone home. The remaining delegates tended to be anti-immigrant, and the measure passed.

• A few days later, the LDS Church issued a formal statement on its website stating clearly that it approved of the philosophical underpinnings of HB 116. It went on to say that its position on immigration reform was being “distorted” by opponents of the bill, and that it would speak further if necessary.

We suppose the church thought its position had been made clear enough by the attendance of Presiding Bishop H. David Burton at the signing ceremony.

• Two days after the church’s statement was released, the executive committee of the Utah County Republican Party considered the repeal resolution. It failed by a 2-1 margin.

• Shortly thereafter, Republican delegates in Davis County met in convention. The repeal resolution failed by roughly the same margin.

• Then Republicans in Weber County met in convention. They refused to allow the repeal resolution to be introduced.

Now the word on the street is that Republicans in Salt Lake County desperately want a redo. Their timing in passing the repeal resolution was, well … awkward.

In Provo on Tuesday night a town hall meeting was held for delegates of Senate District 16 – Sen. Curt Bramble’s district. Many delegates were in attendance, including a number who have opposed the LDS Church’s stand – Keri Witte, Rep. Chris Herrod of Provo and others. Given the opportunity to learn details of the new law by asking questions of Bramble (HB 116?s chief architect), not a single question was asked.

The silence was deafening. Up to now, the anti-immigrant agitators have held that the LDS Church had left plenty of philosophical room for good Mormons to oppose HB 116.

Herrod, an ardent advocate of an “enforcement” approach, has stood in opposition to the LDS Church on a regular basis and in fact was the point person for repeal at the Utah County executive committee meeting. But not Tuesday. On Tuesday he was silent.

"Even in areas of the world where animals lived in abundance, we sometimes have problems finding archaeological remains. The textual evidence for lions in Israel, for example, suggests that lions were present in Israel from ancient times until at least the sixteenth century AD, yet no lion remains from ancient Israel have ever been found."

"John Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy” (unpublished, 1994), 29-30 (copy in author’s possession); Benjamin Urrutia, “Lack of Animal Remains at Bible and Book-of-Mormon Sites,” Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology, 150 (August 1982), 3-4."

"The largest faunal collections and most intensive archaeo-zoological research for [the Chalcolithic] period have been carried out in the northern Negev. This biological data provides us with a detailed picture of human/animal relations during this formative period. … If Shiqmim is taken as a representative sample for the valley, sheep … and goat … make up over 90 percent of the faunal assemblage with the remaining 10 percent consisting of cattle, … dog, equid and ca. 3.8 percent of wild animals (gazelle, hartebeest, hippopotamus, lion, small cat, fox, hare, ostrich, bird and fish). (The Archeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. Thomas Levy, New York, Continuum, 1998, pp. 231-32)"

"The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication [L. Martin. "The Faunal Remains from Tell es Saidiyeh," Levant 20 (1988): 83–84] of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region. (Robert R. Bennett, “Horses in the Book of Mormon,” Maxwell Institute, 2000)"

I work in [western city] as a family therapist, and historically have received the brunt of my clients from LDS family services (LDSFS). Over a year ago, the LDSFS here began a pilot program for the church where all in-house therapists were gradually let go, and all counseling was done by referring out to community counselors. As such, the church could eliminate the costs of maintaining family services (except adoption services, which will stay intact). However, under new direction, the Welfare Program is now attempting to serve globally, instead of only (for the most part) in North America; with family services, anyway. To accomplish this, a new system is being put in to play, and all of the [western city] area therapists who are on the referral list for LDSFS were called in to a meeting to learn about this today.

We were instructed by the director of family services who is now moving into a supervisory position over a large area of N. America states. The change is this: Bishops will now be instructed that they are to work on a local level to solve ward problems. This is to include that Bishops should find ways to solve members’ problems in lieu of referring them to therapy. This is not to say that counseling should never be recommended, but other solutions should be attempted by bishops FIRST. Previously, training about how to assist ward members was occasionally provided for area bishops, but that will cease to occur. A 24-hour hotline will exist for Bishops to call and receive suggestions to try with their ward members’ issues, instead. As well, it is expected that they will be able to receive text messages with suggested helps, and that there will be phone apps developed; i.e. an app for how to assist a member with a “porn problem”. But the clear and basic pressure (instruction) is for Bishops to solve the problem,and try to avoid sending them to counseling. As well, we were informed that Bishops are being strongly discouraged from financially supporting therapy for their ward members as they have in the past. How that will shake out on an individual basis, is to be left to the Bishop to decide.

Naturally, this will mean less referrals for therapists, and that’s not good news for a room full of counselors; so let me concede the bias that suggests, right now. But I think it’s a poor move for greater reasons than just “it gives me less clients”; there were/are understandable concerns about the burden this places on a Bishop. In my limited experience (essentially a case study of one – me) of 8 years in practice, I’ve had multiple Bishops, multiple times request counseling assistance because they literally didn’t have time to even visit with all the ward members that wanted appointments. This could put sensitive-personality Bishops in the grave, and make dismissive asses out of the more Type-A leaders. In other words, I find it scary. Undeniably, It is financially genius on the part of the church, and while I don’t know if this will be different in a fairly LDS saturated place like Utah, I would also say it does place the world as a whole at an equal level; sort of like “if everybody doesn’t get LDSFS, then nobody does”. Also, essentially forcing Bishops to become capable of helping people better (albeit without any training) isn’t a bad thing. Ultimately, however, I would guess that this will mean better services and assistance for ward members who only need ecclesiastical counsel, and much greater harm done to those who really are in need of professional services.

So I’m trying to say there are obvious positives to this change in system. But my personal disgust came from the clearly stated reason for this change in the welfare system (and I quote): “We’re talking about a church that has infinite needs, and finite resources”. While that is objectively true, all I could think about was the multi-billion dollar mall. Ugh, and gross.

We were further informed that if we wanted to be beneficiaries of the much fewer referrals for counseling that would now be sent out from Bishops, we essentially needed to be buddies with the Bishops. It was made very clear that this could be accomplished by our finding a way to offer free consultation services and phone assistance for said Bishops in dealing with their ward members, so that they would want to use our services if needed for actual counseling. Again- financially brilliant on the part of the church, and rather common as a business model, I suppose. But it kind of feels gross.

I’ve been thinking about some of [other friend's] statements that the church could be better at using its professional and educated resources. I’m not sure if this qualifies as a move towards or fully away from that…?

In any case, there you go.

"A few of you may have felt or been told that you were born with troubling feelings and that you are not guilty if you act on those temptations. Doctrinally we know that if that were true, your agency would have been erased, and that cannot happen. You always have a choice to follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost and live a morally pure and chaste life, one filled with virtue."

1. God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.
2. Church members can harmonize evolution and doctrine.
3. Temple marriage assures us of an eventual exaltation.
4. The doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.
5. There is progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds.
6. Adam is our father and our god, ... he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and ... he is the one we worship.
7. We must be perfect to gain salvation.

LDS apologist Brian Hales has done some pretty thorough work on Joseph's practice of polygamy, but he believes that the polyandrous relationships were not sexual. I won't go into detail about his support for this belief, as it can be found on his web site, but Michael Quinn has delivered a devastating response to Hales's presentation on this subject at the Mormon History Association's conference in June of 2012. Some highlights:

There is strong evidence for sexual polyandry in the case of Mary Heron Snider, a married LDS woman living in Nauvoo. Mary's son-in-law Joseph Johnson testified in 1850 before a council of apostles that he "was familiar with the first frigging " that was done in his house with his mother in law " byandnbsp;Joseph." Hales suggests that the statement was a fabrication to justify Johnson's own sexual behavior. Quinn refutes that statement by noting Johnson's statement just before the "frigging" sentence:andnbsp;"I never heard anyandnbsp;conversation to say it was right to go to bed with a woman if not found out–I was aware theandnbsp;thing [with Mrs. Snow] was wrong."

Johnson's testimony was given before a council of apostles, presided over by Brigham Young. Although at least one member of the council said the statement had "taken me by surprise," no one denounced Johnson for saying what he did. Quinn notes that in June of 1841, Mary Isabella Horne stated thatandnbsp;"the prophet with Sister Snyder called in his buggyandnbsp;upon Sister Clev[e]land" in Quincy, Illinois." This statement is significant for a couple of reasons: First, Sarah Cleveland, one of Joseph's wives, had "served as [Joseph's] "intermediary" in the spring ofandnbsp;1842 for introducing the idea of polygamous marriage to Eliza R. Snow." At that time Mrs. Snider was living alone with her son. This visit does not definitively corroborate Johnson's statement, but it does refute Hales's statement, "Despite intensive research, Iandnbsp;have found no additional evidence linking Mary Heron Snider with Joseph Smith." Later that year Joseph Smith sent John Snider to England, as he done with other polyandrous husbands, who may or may not have been aware of their wives' relationships with Joseph Smith.

Another polyandrous wife was Flora Ann Woodworth Gove, who married Joseph Smith at age 16 and then married Carlos Gove. Smith's secretary, William Clayton, notes that Joseph met with Flora alone at Clayton's house "while Clayton was intentionally absent." Flora regretted marrying Gove and as Quinn puts it, "two subsequentandnbsp;trysts with the 37-year-old Prophet in Clayton's house onandnbsp;consecutive days showed how much she regretted marrying a younger man earlier in the week."

A third wife Quinn mentions is Esther Dutcher Smith, who married Joseph Smith in 1843. Although married for 10 years, Esther had not conceived a child by her husband, but at the time of Joseph Smith's death, she was six months pregnant with a son, Joseph Albert. Her marriage to Joseph was noted by Brigham Young's counselor Daniel Wells in 1877, who wrote that Esther "nearly broke his heart by telling him [her legal husband] of it, and expressing her intention ofandnbsp;adhering to that relationship" with the prophet. Wells further wrote that Albert Smith "got to feeling better about it" seven years later. Wells's wording shows that Esther was married to Joseph without Albert Smith's knowledge, and had this been an "eternity only sealing," Albert would not have been upset about the relationship, and her plans to "adhere" to it would not make sense. (Quinn further notes that there is no record of any "eternity only" sealings performed in the LDS church throughout the entire nineteenth century.andnbsp;

A fourth wife Quinn mentions is Philo Dibble's wife, Hannah Ann Dubois Smith Dibble, who is mentioned in an 1857 anti-Mormon book as having been Joseph's wife. Quinn notes that in 1843, Joseph was accused of "improper conduct" with Hannah Dibble and Agnes Smith, who was Don Carlos Smith's widow. Agnes Smith was later acknowledged as Joseph's plural wife, and Benjamin Johnson's autobiography states, "At this time [May 1843,] I knew that the Prophet had as hisandnbsp;wives … Sisters Lyon and Dibble."

Finally, Hales states that evidence was "ambiguous" for Joseph's marriage to Elvira Ann Cowles Holmes, wife of Jonathan Holmes, although Hales cites the following statement from Elvira's daughter Phebe:"I heard my mother [Elvira Ann Cowles Holmes] testify that she wasandnbsp;indeed the Prophet Joseph Smith's plural wife in life and lived with him as such during hisandnbsp;lifetime." That doesn't sound ambiguous to me (or to Quinn). And, as Quinn puts it, "I find it difficult to believe that Elvira's 37-year-oldandnbsp;widower-husband Jonathan stopped having sex with her only six months after their civilandnbsp;wedding, simply to accommodate the Prophet's sexual relations with her (which in June 1843andnbsp;seemed likely to continue for many years)." This is an important point. If we are to believe that there was no sexual polyandry in this case, there are only two options: Jonathan Holmes stopped having sex with his wife, or Joseph "lived with" Elvira as a wife but did not have sex with him. I'm with Quinn on this one.

Regrettably, Quinn's paper is not available online so far as I know, but I have a copy in my possession and can provide citations as needed. For me, there is no question that Joseph's marriages included sexual polyandry, as the evidence is quite clear.

Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire.
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies,
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies:
'Tis an aim for the noblest desire.

"To those who humbly seek, there is no need to stumble or falter along the pathway leading to truth. It is well marked by our Heavenly Father. We must first have a desire to know for ourselves. We must study. We must pray. We must do the will of the Father. And then we will know the truth, and the truth will make us free" (Thomas S. Monson, "Great Expectations," CES fireside for young adults, Jan. 11, 2009).

"Clear declaration of truth makes a difference in people's lives. That is what changes hearts. That is what the Holy Ghost can confirm in the hearts of God's children" (M. Russell Ballard, "Pure Testimony," Ensign, Nov. 2004, 41).

1. Find non-destructive ways to vent your emotions.
2. Recognize that what you see as truth will likely be seen as an attack by your Mormon friends and family.
3. Choose your battles wisely. Don't be Aunt Helen.
4. Have a purpose for the information you share.
5. Focus on strengthening the non-church parts of your relationships. Don't make the church the 800-lb. gorilla in the room.