This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
Wikipedia’s errors highlighted in red:
Almost every time I read about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on Wikipedia, I find the article is saturated with lies, bias, and hateful rhetoric. Clearly Antimormon bias is in control of Wikipedia’s content, and this may encourage readers to make hateful assumptions about members of the church. The article about patriarchal blessings is filled with a high concentration of falsehoods, and it uses a narrative that progressively attacks the church.
1. “Also called an evangelist’s blessing”
There are four errors in the very first sentence:
“In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), a patriarchal blessing (also called an evangelist’s blessing) is a blessing or ordinance given by a patriarch (evangelist) to a church member.”
The first error is saying a patriarchal blessing is “also called an evangelist’s blessing.” This is what the RLDS splinter-sect (now known as “Community of Christ”) calls their equivalent of Patriarch–as the Wikipedia article later briefly explains–but this sentence makes it sound like the Church uses this label as well, and that is incorrect.This opening paragraph does not clarify that it is a splinter-sect using this label for their equivalent. This splinter-sect apparently changed it to “evangelist blessing” to avoid “gendered” language, and this opening sentence makes it sound like the Church likewise uses “un-gendered” labels. It is a colossal mistake to compare all blessings or combine them into the same thing.
2. “(Evangelist)”
Wikipedia suggests “evangelist” is equivalent to “patriarch.” But this is not a term that the church uses today. The May 1842 Times & Seasons used the term “Evangelist” to refer to a member of Evangelical sects, rather than anything having to do with Patriarch. But, it is true the label Evangelist is closely related to Patriarch, and church records refer to evangelists as patriarchs. There is a 1839 document attributed to Joseph Smith which defines “an Evangelist” as: “a patriarch even the oldest man of the Blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham.” But today there are multiple patriarchs who give patriarchal blessings, not just one, and it doesn’t have to be the oldest man of a certain blood lineage. D&C 107 explains that the patriarchal priesthood position “came down by lineage” from Adam father to son, and that in the Latter-Day church, because of our large population, there needs to be multiple ordained “evangelical ministers” to perform the same kind of role. A “patriarch” is someone who holds the keys and acts with ministering authority as Evangelist for the general church. It isn’t exactly the same thing.
3. “LDS Church”
To their credit, Wikipedia does give the full name of the church at the beginning of this first sentence, but then they add “(LDS Church)” right after it. The current naming policy of the church does not accept this as a nickname and it is inappropriate to use it in a scholarly or non-scholarly article. But the Wikipedia article uses this nickname eight times, avoiding the correct and appropriate label “Church of Jesus Christ.” The article also uses the terms “Mormonism” and “Latter Day Saint” inappropriately to refer to the church.
4. “Blessing or ordinance”
The patriarchal blessing is a “blessing and ordinance,” not “blessing or ordinance.” The patriarchal blessing is both. This is a small difference but it is important. A blessing is the conferring of divine favor upon someone, and an ordinance is a sacred formal act performed with priesthood authority. A patriarchal blessing is not one or the other. It is also not one and possibly the other. It is both together. Otherwise, it could be a formal priesthood act that does not bless, or it could be a blessing that is not performed with priesthood authority.
5. “Modeled after the blessing given by Jacob”
The next sentence in Wikipedia’s article claims: “Patriarchal blessings are modeled after the blessing given by Jacob to each of his sons prior to his death.” Jacob indeed gave patriarchal blessings to his sons, but these were not the first patriarchal blessings ever given. Joseph Smith taught that Adam gave patriarchal blessings to his children: “I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman. He called together his children and blessed them with a patriarchal blessing. The Lord appeared in their midst, and he (Adam) blessed them all, and foretold what should befall them to the latest generation.” So it was the first man Adam who first performed the ordinance we perform today.
6. “Modeled after…”
It is also incorrect to say that the ordinance is “modeled after” what these first prophets did. Perhaps it was, but it is more likely that the ordinance was “modeled” by God and explained to Adam and Jacob as they received their priesthood authority. Joseph Smith said: “Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints, as it was with Jacob in giving his patriarchal blessing unto his sons.” It sounds like the position of patriarch was the intention from the beginning and not something one of the prophets decided to start doing one day.
7. “They are gifts of knowledge and strength”
The next sentence in Wikipedia is grammatically incorrect so I can only guess what it is supposed to mean: “It is taught that they are gifts of knowledge and strength of one’s coming challenges and blessings.” It is possible for a patriarchal blessing to promise gifts of knowledge and strength, yes, but there are plenty of patriarchal blessings that do not do this. This is not the fundamental purpose of the blessing. The purpose is to give admonition and inspired statements about what is to come in a person’s life.
8. “The first Latter Day Saint patriarchal blessings were performed by Joseph Smith Sr., the father of Joseph Smith.”
False. Joseph Smith Sr. was the first “ordained” patriarch in the modern dispensation, but Joseph Smith Jr. his son performed patriarchal blessings prior to him. As the president of the church holding all the keys and rights of the priesthood for the church, Joseph Smith held the keys and had the ability to give patriarchal blessings. Joseph Smith Sr. was ordained patriarch for the church soon after Joseph Smith Jr. gave blessings to him and his wife.
9. “Joseph Smith, who ordained his father to the role of patriarch”
D&C 107 clarifies that it is “the duty of the Twelve” apostles to “ordain evangelical ministers.” This is not a duty for the president of the church to perform alone, as Wikipedia may make it sound like, and it is not something Joseph Smith did alone in this first ordination. “On December 18 1833, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and Fredrick G. Williams ordained Joseph Smith Sr. to the office of Patriarch to the Church.” Not just Joseph Smith.
| See also: | 14 Antimormon Hoaxes On Wikipedia |
10. “With a mission to provide ‘father’s blessings’ to those in the priesthood without fathers.”
Wikipedia falsely claims Joseph Smith Sr.’s mission as patriarch was to provide “father’s blessings” to people without fathers. The original patriarch of Old Testament times, known as an “Evangelist,” performed the patriarchal blessing as a father’s blessing, because the church was confined to a small family group. The Evangelist’s patriarchal blessing was a father’s blessing. Today’s patriarchs are evangelical ministers who perform this role to the general membership of the church, to people who are not their sons and daughters. That’s what makes them “patriarchs.” Because they are not these people’s fathers, these blessings are not father’s blessings, even though the blessings serve the same kind of role. The patriarch can fill the patriarchal role of father for those in need, but the main purpose is not to replace the role of a father’s blessings. I guess this distinction can be confusing, and early members of the church were certainly confused. WW Phelps published an article that tried to explain it, and then the Times & Seasons followed up with clarification on June 1, 1845. “So far as the editorial is concerned, it was written rather hastily by our junior editor, WW Phelps, and did not come under our notice until after it was published. There are some expressions contained in it, which might have been worded better… Every father, after he has received his patriarchal blessing, is a Patriarch to his own family; and has the right to confer patriarchal blessings upon his family… A Patriarch to the church is appointed to bless those who are orphans, or have no father in the church to bless them. Not as stated inadvertently in the editorial above alluded to ‘to bless all, and such as have not a father to do it,’ for this he could not do, where the church is so extensive; the burden would be too onerous.” (Times & Seasons vol. 6)
11. “Prophesying that the younger Smith would establish Zion”
Wikipedia’s next sentence incorrectly portrays the patriarchal blessing which Patriarch Joseph Smith Sr. gave his son Joseph Smith. Wikipedia claims: “Smith Sr. gave his son a blessing on December 9, 1834, prophesying that the younger Smith would establish Zion, subdue his enemies, enjoy his posterity to the latest generation, and ‘stand on the earth’ to witness the Second Coming.” Each point here is incorrect. First, the blessing does not say Joseph Smith Jr. would “establish Zion.” All it says is that he would be “gathered to Zion.” This could refer to any of the gathering points of the Saints, such as Nauvoo or Independence, as they are each considered Zion. Or it could refer to Joseph Smith’s participation in the Millennial experiences of the church to come as a resurrected being. Wikipedia makes it sound like it could have been meant to refer to the final Millennial Zion within Joseph Smith’s lifetime.
12. “Subdue his enemies”
Joseph Smith’s patriarchal blessing does not talk about subduing his enemies. Just that he would “escape the edge of the sword, and put to flight the armies of the wicked.” The blessing also cites a prophecy from Joseph in Egypt of a future seer: “His feet shall stand upon the neck of his enemies.” We assume this prophecy from Joseph in Egypt refers to Joseph Smith, and it certainly seems to refer to conquering enemies, but it does not sound to me like it refers to “subduing” enemies. Rather, the context of “escaping” and “putting to flight” the wicked immediately before this reference leads us to believe it refers to defensive action against enemies.
13. “Enjoy his posterity to the last generation”
Joseph Smith’s patriarchal blessing does not say this. It merely says he would enjoy his inheritance, and so would his posterity: “in the goodly land thou shalt enjoy thine inheritance; thy children and thy children’s children to the latest generation; for thy name and the names of thy posterity shall be recorded in the book of the Lord, even in the book of blessings an genealogies, for their joy and benefit forever.” We can’t assume that this inheritance refers to a physical event meant to be in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, as the sentence goes on to clarify “for thy name and the names of thy posterity shall be recorded in the book of the Lord.” The book of the Lord is will be used in the Millenium to judge the living and the dead. So this is clearly referring to a Millennial event. Wikipedia makes it sound like it could have meant that he would live to see his posterity to the last generation. But it did not say that at all.
14. “‘Stand on the earth’ to witness the Second Coming”
This is a misquote. Joseph Smith’s patriarchal blessing actually says he would stand “upon the earth,” not “on the earth.” This is small difference, but it is important because it displays the sloppiness in Wikipedia’s content. “On the earth” also insinuates a more immediate, physical event, while the blessing is clearly talking about after he is resurrected. The scriptures tell of people standing “upon” the earth in the resurrection. The blessing states: “Thousands and tens of thousands shall come to a knowledge of the truth through thy ministry, and thou shalt rejoice with them in the Celestial Kingdom: Thou shalt stand upon the earth when it shall reel to and fro as a drunken man, and be removed out of its place: thou shalt stand when the mighty judgments go forth to the destruction of the wicked… Thou shalt see thy Redeemer Come in the clouds of heaven.” The way Wikipedia portrays it, we might believe the blessing meant Joseph Smith would live to see the Second Coming, but it does not say this. What it says is that Joseph Smith will rejoice with tens of thousands of people in the Celestial Kingdom, and that because of this he will have the privilege of witnessing the Second Coming standing upon the earth.
15. “Joseph Smith Sr… ordained his eldest living son, Hyrum Smith to succeed him”
I find no evidence that Joseph Smith Sr. ordained Hyrum Smith “to succeed him as Patriarch to the Church.” Wikipedia provides no reference or source for this claim. D&C 124:91 indicates the Joseph Smith Sr. had ordained him a patriarch: “that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right.” D&C 124 goes on: “That from henceforth he shall hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people.” Joseph Smith Jr. had appointed him a patriarch, but not the patriarch over all the church. Those were “keys” which Joseph Smith declared “henceforth he shall hold”–meaning, he did not hold them before. Why would Joseph Smith declare he “shall” hold the keys if he already held them? The 1845 Times & Seasons article clarified that multiple patriarchs are appointed to assist a patriarch and that this had been the case with Joseph Smith Jr’s son. “Father Smith ordained Hyrum, and the Twelve (of whom Br. William is one) ordained him.” It is “the duty of the Twelve” apostles to “ordain evangelical ministers.” “The Twelve are commanded to ordain evangelical ministers in all large branches of the church abroad, and who has charge over them, the patriarch? No. Those who ordained them, and to whom is committed the power and authority to regulate all the affairs of the churches abroad. And who has the charge of the whole priesthood here? Answer: The presidency of the church; and not the patriarch.” Hyrum was “ordained as Presiding Patriarch of the Church, a position formerly held by his deceased father” only “after relocating to Nauvoo,” which was after Joseph Smith Sr. died. This is important, because the narrative that Hyrum’s keys came from a patriarchal succession rather than from the President of the church could lead us to believe that priesthood offices are a matter of a person’s descent, which was what the RLDS splinter-sect’s claim to authority rested on. “The president of the church presides over all; patriarchs, presidents, and councils of the church; and this presidency does not depend so much upon genealogy as upon calling, order, and seniority.”
16. “Patriarchs were paid in the early years of the church”
Wikipedia claims: “According to historian D. Michael Quinn, patriarchs were paid in the early years of the LDS Church…. ‘Both the Presiding Patriarch and local stake patriarchs charged a fee.’” This does not specify that only the presiding patriarch was paid by the church. That next sentence suggests it was “both the presiding patriarch and local stake patriarch.” Wikipedia states “patriarchs” were paid, which is untrue. Only the presiding church patriarch was paid by the church, according to historical records. Quinn claims, “In 1835, the presiding patriarch was authorized a salary of ten dollars a week, plus expenses.” But Dennis Michael Quinn’s statement is deceitful as well, because this pay was not a salary. It was only for whenever he gave blessings. If weeks went by when he didn’t give blessings, he didn’t receive money for those weeks, as that was time he could have worked a job to make money for himself. Quinn cites History of the Church 2:273, but does not quote it. Here’s what it says: “In a meeting of a High Council and the Presidency at Kirtland, it was decided that, as the laborer is worthy of his hire, whenever President Joseph Smith, Sen., is called upon to pronounce Patriarchal blessings upon the Church, he be paid for his services at the rate of ten dollars per week and his expenses.” I do not know if the church patriarch today receives “a just recompense of wages” or if this was just in the days of Joseph Smith Sr., but it is well understood that general authorities are compensated for their work–if they do not have time to hold steady jobs for themselves. So I do not know if Wikipedia is correct or not in their claim: “The practice of paying patriarchs diminished in the 20th century and was officially ended in 1943.”
17. “Both the Presiding Patriarch and local stake patriarchs charged a fee”
Along with the previous incorrect claim that all patriarchs were paid, Wikipedia incorrectly claims the patriarch’s pay came from church members rather than from the church. Wikipedia quotes Dennis Michael Quinn: “Both the Presiding Patriarch and local stake patriarchs charged a fee. In the 1840s the fee was $1 per patriarchal blessing at Nauvoo; by the end of the nineteenth century it had increased to $2 per blessing.” Quinn’s source for this is Irene May Bates (Wikipedia cites Irene May Bates for other claims, so why don’t they cite her directly for this one? Why cite a person who cites her? This gives a false impression of more sources than there really is, which is an old trick I used in my high school English class days.) But I do not find Irene May Bates actually saying this. What I find is Irene May Bates citing Lyman A. Shurtliff who says he gave “a present of four or five dollars” to a patriarch, and Uncle John Smith who said he “received one dollar” as a present after blessing three people. These were unrequested presents people gave to the patriarch for going to such effort (they often had to travel long distances by horse). The only source I could find alleging a standard fee is rabid Antimormon Benjamin Ferris, who famously testified before Congress to suppress the “Mormons” with military force. Irene Bates fails to mention his checkered history, but quotes him: “The blessing is given in writing to the applicant who pays for the same one dollar and a half, of which one dollar belongs to the patriarch and the balance is paid to the scribe for recording the document.” A dollar and a half? But Quinn said it was a dollar, then two dollars? How much was this alleged fee actually? Benjamin Ferris’s allegation is likely false also considering it was originally decided that the scribe is to “receive for his services at the same ratio” as the patriarch, so the fee should have been the same for both of them. So these sources are all contradictory. It looks like all they got were charitable gifts, and it is not clear whether these gifts were considered tithing or not. Dennis Michael Quinn also cites Patriarch John Smith in a statement evidently found in Apostle Rudger Clawson’s diary (1902), in a book by Stan Larson. But I have not been able to find or verify this fourth-hand source.
18. “Joseph Smith Sr. gave patriarchal blessings without payment of a fee, but would not record them.”
This claim is definitely false. Wikipedia quotes Dennis Michael Quinn who claims Joseph Smith Sr. did not require this alleged fee from church members, but that he would not record the patriarchal blessings either. This is a bizarre claim, considering the original policy of paying patriarchs states that there was to be a scribe recording the patriarchal blessings, and Quinn cites this source himself to prove that the patriarch was being paid. So Quinn’s claim is contradictory and obviously false. Quinn’s allegation about Joseph Smith Sr. rests solely upon “Zadoc Knapp Judd Reminiscences.” So it is according to the “reminiscences” of an elderly person from his early childhood–not exactly a reliable source to make such a sweeping claim. Here is what Zadoc Knapp Judd actually said: “I have forgotten to relate a circumstance while living with my step-mother in Nauvoo. While living poor and enduring hard times, Mother took me with her boys to the Patriarch, Joseph Smith, Sr., to get patriarchal blessings. She could not pay for all, but we boys each received a blessing which was not recorded.” It sounds like they were expected to pay for the scribe to record the blessing and they could not afford this. Stenography was not something Joseph Smith Sr. could do, after all, and cost money–though the ten dollars from the church was supposed to pay for it, wasn’t it? But this is just how Zadoc understood it at such a young age. We do not know the circumstance which prevented the blessing from being recorded in this instance, and there is certainly no reason to assume Joseph Smith Sr. would not record any of his patriarchal blessings. Quinn is taking one foggy source and making a highly unreasonable sweeping generalization.
19. “John Smith… Obtained A Comfortable Living”
Wikipedia’s quote from Dennis Michael Quinn takes snippet of quotes out of context to support their false narrative of a standard fee: “’Uncle’ John Smith commented that he ‘lived very poor ever since we left Kirtland Ohio’ (from January 1838 until January 1844). Then his nephew, Joseph Smith, ordained him a patriarch ‘through which office I obtained a comfortable living.'” Instead of giving the full alleged quote from Uncle John Smith’s diary, he takes snippets of quotes and assume that he is talking about being a Patriarch when he says, “through which office I obtained a comfortable living.” If the office he is talking about is indeed that of patriarch, there is zero hint that was from charging a fee to church members, considering everyone else speaks of giving donations. Perhaps he obtained help from donations? But I have not been able to find or verify Quinn’s source for this. Elsewhere, Quinn quotes John Taylor who expressed concern about patriarchs “traveling from door to door and underbidding each other in the price of blessings.” He cites a letter from John Taylor to George Q. Cannon 1877 in The John Taylor Papers and fails to quote it. I do not find that quote in this source. But Irene May Bates does quote it, and she provides more context: “The subject of the present condition of the patriarchs has lately been considered by us. It has appeared to several of the members of the Quorum that they have noticed a spirit amongst some of the brethren ordained to this office, to degrade it to a mere means of obtaining a livelihood… This we all considered an evil that should be remedied as soon as practical.” If patriarchs were relying on charitable gifts to obtain a livelihood, it was evidently a very recent problem that was quickly taken care of by the brethren.
20. “Patriarchal blessing fees ended in 1902”
Wikipedia’s quote from Dennis Michael Quinn continues: “Patriarchal blessing fees ended in 1902, although patriarchs were allowed to accept unsolicited donations. Not until 1943 did church authorities prohibit patriarchs from accepting gratuities for giving blessings.” Quinn cites Irene May Bates, who cites the First Presidency letter “suggestions for stake patriarchs” in 1943 to back up his claim that paid blessings were to stop. Now, there was a letter that said no payment for blessings were to be charged, but the letter never says there were fees being charged before then. “No charge is to be made nor gratuity accepted for the giving or recording of such a patriarchal blessing. The stake patriarch should arrange for adequate stenographic service to record blessings. If stenographers are available who will furnish the service gratuitously, their services should be accepted as a worthy Church contribution. If, however, such gratuitous service is not available the patriarch may arrange for a stenographer to record blessings and for this service a stenographer so employed may submit to the First Presidency of the Church statements of charges, not to exceed $1.00 for each blessing recorded.” (Letter from the Office of the First Presidency Salt Lake City, Utah May 25, 1943)
This suggests that if there had been charges–as it sounds with the Zadoc Judd case–it was to hire a stenographer whose charge was not covered by the church. No fee was for the patriarch. As for the claim that fees ended in 1902, Quinn’s source is the Rudger Clawson diary, which I have not been able to find or verify.
21. “Patriarchs were allowed to accept unsolicited donations”
The 1943 letter prohibited the acceptance of gratuities, but this does not necessarily mean gratuities were being accepted up until that point. There are a small handful of sources that indicate some patriarchs were accepting gratuities to offset the cost of travel and stenography, and that at some point some patriarchs used these gratuities to obtain a livelihood. But John Taylor’s letter in 1877 indicates the brethren dealt with this issue immediately, and I do not find any source to indicate donations were made in the 1900’s.
22. “The bishop determines the applicant’s worthiness and readiness”
Wikipedia claims a patriarchal blessing recommend is “is dependent on an interview by which the bishop determines the applicant’s worthiness and readiness.” Wikipedia subtly switches the wording from the church’s explanation of patriarchal blessings. The church says the bishop or branch president will determine “your readiness and worthiness” for the recommend. Wikipedia switches this to “worthiness and readiness,” a subtle hint that worth is more important than readiness. But it is actually more about readiness than worthiness. The church explains, “The bishop will help determine if you are ready for the blessing.” Help determine, not just determine all on his own as Wikipedia makes it sound. The recipient himself determines if he is ready for the blessing.
23. “Identify the tribe of Israel… then ‘adopted’ in”
Wikipedia claims: “The purpose of a patriarchal blessing is (1) to identify the tribe of Israel to which some people belong, others who do not are then ‘adopted’ in and given the same blessings.” This is false. The “adoption” into the tribes of Israel occurs at baptism, not from the blessing. There is nothing about “adoption” in patriarchal blessings, only in baptism: “Those who aren’t literal descendants are ‘adopted’ into the house of Israel through baptism.”
Wikipedia later says: “As with the pre-1844 church led by Joseph Smith, an important part of patriarchal blessing in the LDS Church is the declaration of lineage.” Why would the pre-1844 church be different? Why did Wikipedia add the first part of this sentence “as with the pre-1844 church.” It adds uncalled-for doubt and suggests there would be reason for this fundamental function of a patriarchal blessing to change.
24. “Bless the member with knowledge and the spiritual gifts”
Wikipedia claims “the purpose of a patriarchal blessing” is “(2) to bless the member with knowledge and the spiritual gifts that may be obtained by obedience to Gospel principles.” A blessing may talk about gifts the person has or will have, but this is not a fundamental purpose that a blessing must have. It isn’t about “knowledge”–it is not an oracle for esoteric insight into the universe or future. It is about admonitions and advice, and Wikipedia’s narrative here poisons the well to support Wikipedia’s later criticism of patriarchal blessings: “Some former Mormons and LDS Church critics have said that patriarchal blessings are similar to fortune telling.”
25. “May be obtained by obedience”
The realization of promised blessings are conditioned upon “faithfulness” to the gospel, not “obedience to gospel principles” as Wikipedia claims. This is a falsehood that Wikipedia repeats again in its article to condition us to believe it, and it poisons the well to support Wikipedia’s later criticism of patriarchal blessings.
26. “Give advice or help to the individual”
Wikipedia claims, “the purpose of a patriarchal blessing” is “(3) to give advice or help to the individual (often this includes foretelling of possible future events, opportunities, and temptations).” No, it is not “advice” or “help.” It is admonitions from the Holy Ghost, and the point is not to foretell future events. The church explains the purpose of patriarchal blessings: “inspired and prophetic statement of the life mission of the recipient, together with such blessings, cautions, and admonitions as the patriarch may be prompted to give for the accomplishment of such life’s mission.”
27. “Acknowledge the fulfillment of the church doctrine”
Wikipedia claims, “A person is informed of the tribe of Israel to which they belong. This is done to acknowledge the fulfillment of the church doctrine that through baptism members become part of the house of Israel.” Well, this is different from what Wikipedia said earlier, that a patriarchal blessing adopts a person in. Now they admit that it occurs through baptism. That’s progress. But they still get it wrong. The point of the patriarchal identifying a person’s tribe of Israel is not to acknowledge the fulfillment of church doctrine. It’s not a nicety that the church provides to convince you that you’ve been adopted in. It is to “be a helpful guide in your life, because belonging to one of the twelve tribes brings the blessings and missions specific to each tribe.” It is important to know your tribe to understand your life mission. “This lineage often has to do with your responsibilities in the Lord’s kingdom.”
28. “Understand the unique circumstances of his or her life”
Wikipedia claims: “Additionally, it is believed that each tribe differs slightly and a person may come to understand the unique circumstances of his or her life better by knowing to which tribe they belong.” I would not consider the differences between tribes “slight.” They are actually pretty significant. And “unique circumstances” of life are not what a tribe determines. This makes it sound like the tribes of Israel are some kind of zodiac sign–which would be an easy mistake to make considering there are 12 zodiac signs and 12 tribes of Israel. But they are very different. It is about knowing your specific spiritual responsibility, mission, and spiritual blessings. Wikipedia’s description incorrectly makes the patriarchal blessing sound like an astrology reading.
29. “Differences between the tribes… arise from the differences in the blessings Jacob pronounced”
Wikipedia claims the differences between tribes “are generally acknowledged to arise from the differences in the blessings Jacob pronounced upon his sons and Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.” I have not heard anyone say this. We study Jacob’s blessings to understand the general mission of each tribe, and we assume that a member of that tribe has the same kind of mission. But are these blessings the source of the differences between the tribes? There are sources that suggest responsibilities, missions, and blessings were preordained, not originally determined by Jacob.
30. “The blessings are direct revelation… not to be shared casually”
Wikipedia claims: “Since adherents believe the blessings are direct revelation from God, the church advises members to treat them as sacred, not to be shared casually with others.” The fact that patriarchal blessings are “revelation” isn’t why they are guarded and no shared. There’s plenty of revelation that is shared to everyone. It’s simply because it is “personal, between you and Heavenly Father.”
31. “Found worthy and spiritually mature by their priesthood leader”
Wikipedia claims: “Any member found worthy and spiritually mature by their priesthood leader may receive a patriarchal blessing.” In my opinion, the bishop doesn’t “find” a person worthy. He merely “helps” determine worthiness, in a necessary step according to church policy. It is really up to the person receiving it and the patriarch.
32. “19th century often made use of themes, such as millennialism and polygamy”
Wikipedia claims: “Blessings given in the 19th century often made use of themes, such as millennialism and polygamy, that are not common in today’s blessings.” There is zero basis for this claim, and Wikipedia does not provide a source or citation. It makes sense that polygamy might be mentioned in a time when polygamy was part of church policy. Blessings address the circumstances of people’s lives, after all. But I don’t actually recall seeing any blessings that talk about polygamy. And blessings I’ve heard from recent times talk about millennialism just as much as 19th century blessings did. Blessings still talk about preparing for the Millenium. Wikipedia’s claim here may support their false claim that Joseph Smith was meant to “stand on the earth” at the Second Coming.
33. “Patriarchs to be conservative in their blessings”
Wikipedia claims “During his presidency, Joseph Fielding Smith advised patriarchs to be conservative in their blessings unless ‘especially inspired otherwise’.” There are several serious flaws here.
- Misquote – Their use of quotes around “especially inspired otherwise” would suggest that Joseph Fielding Smith said these specific words. But I find no evidence that he did. Wikipedia’s citation for this claim is Irene May Bates (she sure gets used a lot doesn’t she?), and she does not use quotes around these words. So Wikipedia misquoted their source. Joseph Fielding Smith did not say this. Here is what Irene May Bates said: “President Joseph Fielding Smith advised the patriarchs to be conservative and cautious in their blessings, unless they were especially inspired otherwise.”
- Added Context – Why did Wikipedia add “during his presidency” before Irene Bate’s line? Well, it makes it sound like patriarchs weren’t being conservative before his presidency, which is not something Irene May Bates actually said. Wikipedia added this context on their own.
- Baseless – But Irene May Bates doesn’t provide any sort of citation or reference for this claim either. It’s just an opinion call, presented without any evidence.
- Removed Context – Wikipedia says this immediately after their false observation that 19th century blessings talked about millennialism and polygamy while blessings today don’t. So we are left to assume that this change in the content of blessings over time is the result of Joseph Fielding Smith advising patriarchs to be “conservative” in what they say. But this is different than why Irene May Bates claimed. She said the tone became conciliatory in regard to church relations with the government: “After the turn of the century, despite the persistence of distinctive Mormon beliefs and practices, there was an increasing tendency in the church to identify with the economic and political values of the larger society. From being a persecuted minority the church has become a valued supporter of the U.S. government. Certainly the tone and direction of twentieth-century blessings is conciliatory. President Joseph Fielding Smith advised the patriarchs to be conservative and cautious in their blessings, unless they were especially inspired otherwise. Today there is more stress on living virtuous lives, obeying the commandments, supporting church programs by attending meetings, celebrating domestic life, and obeying the laws of the land.” (Patriarchal Blessings and the Routinization of Charisma, Irene M. Bates) I have no reason to doubt Irene Bates’s claim here. It may well be true, though she doesn’t present evidence to back it up. But Wikipedia’s snippet of this quote makes it support a claim which is not true.
34. “Every Latter-day Saint father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood can pronounce blessings.”
Wikipedia claims: “Although they may not be ordained patriarchs, every Latter-day Saint father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood can pronounce blessings upon his child or spouse, as necessary.” The 1845 Times & Seasons article clarifies that a man has to have received a patriarchal blessing from an ordained church patriarch in able to have this priesthood right. “Every father, after he has received his patriarchal blessing, is a Patriarch to his own family; and has the right to confer patriarchal blessings upon his family.” It is a power that comes from the Melchizedek Priesthood, so the man must be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, but it is also something that must be conferred through a patriarchal blessing.
35. “Although they may not be ordained patriarchs”
Fathers are patriarchs, just not ordained to be patriarch for the church. This is why it is a problem for Wikipedia to equate “evangelist” with “patriarch.” An evangelist is a patriarch, except that his ministers for his own family rather than on behalf of the church, and men who hold the priesthood and have received blessings can act as evangelist.
And it’s not a blessing to “spouse”, it’s to his wife. By using gender-neutral language, Wikipedia reinforces this subtle narrative that patriarchal blessings ought to be a gender neutral thing.
Wikipedia notes that the church “does not accept” records of a father’s patriarchal blessing “into the official church archives in Salt Lake City as they would a blessing from an ordained patriarch.” Well, why would they? It is a personal thing between a man and his children or wife. But the Wikipedia’s wording could make it deceitfully sound like the reason is because the father is not ordained. That is false. His blessing is “just as legal as those conferred by any Patriarch.”
36. “Can pronounce blessings… as necessary”
It’s not just when necessary. A father can give blessings as patriarch for his family whenever he wants: “…which blessings will be just as legal as those conferred by any Patriarch of the church: in fact, it is his right; and a Patriarch in blessing his children, can only bless as his mouth-piece.” One stated purpose of the church patriarch is “that fathers might again be enabled to act as patriarchs to their families, and bless their children.” Wikipedia’s explanation sounds as if a father can act as patriarch instead of the church patriarch if need be, when really it is more like the other way around. The church patriarch acts as patriarch for orphans and people without family, as needed, and provides patriarchal blessings for everyone which enable men to act as patriarch for their families.
37. “Do not reveal the Tribe of Israel to which a person belongs”
Wikipedia claims that with a father’s patriarchal blessing: “Such blessings do not reveal the Tribe of Israel to which a person belongs.” Not true. They can, but usually don’t. Spencer W. Kimball directed church policy: “I think we should generally leave to the ordained patriarchs in the stakes the responsibility of declaring lineage in connection with an official patriarchal blessing, but still we could leave unlocked the door so that any father who felt inspired to pronounce the lineage in connection with a father’s blessing he was giving to his children should not be prevented from doing so.” The reason is most likely that father’s blessings do not become church record.
38. “Only by following the counsel in a patriarchal blessing can one receive the blessings”
Wikipedia claims: ““Those who have received a patriarchal blessing are told to read it ‘humbly, prayerfully, and frequently.’ Only by following the counsel in a patriarchal blessing can one receive the blessings contained therein.” This is not necessarily true. The patriarchal blessing could reveal blessings that a person is to receive regardless of whether they are being told about it from the patriarch or not. All blessings are contingent upon being worthy of having them, regardless of whether we are aware of it. So a patriarch could give a blessing and not give counsel on how to be worthy of this blessing. Conversely, a patriarch could give counsel and not say what blessing will be rewarded for following it.
39. “Opinions differ.. Whether the lineage is intended to mean literal ancestry”
Wikipedia claims: “Opinions differ as to whether the lineage is intended to mean literal ancestry, or whether the lineage is metaphorical or adoptive, as there are many recorded instances of children having a different lineage from their parents.” No, actually it is pretty clear. Not a lot of differing of opinions. It may be literal ancestry or adoption at baptism. If a person does not already have literal descendancy from a tribe of Israel, they are adopted in, physically and literally. It’s definitely not metaphorical. Daniel H. Ludlow said “lineages declared in patriarchal blessings are almost always statements of actual blood lines; they are not simply tribal identifications by assignment… few persons not of the blood of Abraham have become members of the Church in this dispensation; the terms ‘adopted into the house of Israel’ or ‘assigned to a tribe of Israel’ pertain only to those relatively few members.” The reason why family members may be identified with different tribes is also clear. It is not about genetics, as there may be descendancy from multiple tribes from common ancestors: “This lineage is not determined simply by your race or nationality. Members of the same genetic family can be from different tribes of Israel. This lineage often has to do with your responsibilities in the Lord’s kingdom.”
40. “Members were more likely to believe they were literally descended ”
Wikipedia claims: “In the early 19th and 20th centuries, members were more likely to believe they were literally descended from a certain tribe.” Their source for this is fringe site ByCommonConsent, a post that begins with a photo of the Harry Potter “sorting hat”. Really? ByCommonConsent says “While the idea of literal ancestry was strongly held in the 19th and early 20th century, my sense is that that view is receding, because it just plain doesn’t make a lot of sense.” Doesn’t make a lot of sense? What doesn’t make a lot of sense? No citation, source, or reference. Just, they are confused by the idea so it must be receding. It’s actually very simple. Most people are literally descended from Israel, and in cases where people have ancestors from multiple tribes, which is probably usually the case, they identify with the tribe that suits their character most closely. For those who do not descend from Israel, they are adopted into whichever tribe suits their character. To compare it to Harry Potter or astrology or anything else just muddles the issue. Just because some doubting members don’t believe they are literal descendants doesn’t mean this hasn’t always been the doctrine. Most members today believe it.
41. “Black people were… denied declaration of lineage out of policy”
Wikipedia claims: “After the priesthood ban, black people were still allowed patriarchal blessings but were denied declaration of lineage out of policy.” Huh? Does Wikipedia mean during the priesthood ban? Well, that’s not substantiated by their source. According to their own source for this claim, Irene May Bates, one black member Elijah Abel was not told his lineage in the blessing. That’s it, one person for whom it wasn’t mentioned. That single instance happened before the racial priesthood policy, so Wikipedia’s sweeping generalization is totally baseless.
Elijah Abel was told in his blessing that he would have his bands of affliction broken and make him “equal to thy brethren… because of the covenants of thy fathers.” He was told that his ancestors made covenants with God that made him equal to anyone else in the tribes of Israel. Irene claims that later “declarations of lineage were omitted as a matter of policy” but provides no citation and does not substantiate this claim. She also points to Heber J. Grant’s directive in regards to blessings for Blacks: “It will be alright for Brother Wallis to bless them, but as to their status in the future, that is… in the hands of the Lord.” Firstly, this is an unreliable fourth-hand reference. Her source is a book by Gloria W. Rytting (I don’t know who this is and cannot find this source) relating what John A. Widtsoe allegedly said Heber J. Grant allegedly said. Secondly, she snippets out part of the quote so that we do not know what he said was “in the hands of the Lord.” It is removed from context so that we do not know what is meant by “their status in the future.” The “status” in question is probably not of lineage but of holding the priesthood, and that is probably the issue he was talking about: whether Black people would some day hold the priesthood. Maybe it was policy for Black people to not have their lineage declared, but I have not seen evidence for this claim.
42. “The guidelines were inconsistent.”
Wikipedia goes on about Black people and patriarchal blessings: “However, the guidelines were inconsistent.” This points to the same source as above, but that source does not show inconsistency. According another Wikipedia source, some patriarchs in Brazil were told not to declare a tribe of Israel to Black people, but this is according to people the author interviewed and is not backed up by any formal policy.
43. “After the 1978 revelation… sometimes they did not declare a lineage”
Wikipedia claims: “After the 1978 revelation, patriarchs sometimes declared lineage in patriarchal blessings for black members, but sometimes they did not declare a lineage. Some black members have asked for and received new patriarchal blessings including a lineage.” Their source for this is fringe blog By Common Consent, which uses the Twitter account @SISTASinZion as its source. Twitter is the source for this claim. They claim: “Said I couldn’t have 1 cuz I was Blk its what he legit thought & was taught. Due 2 my blessing he was informed in 2000s give Blks lineage”. I have not seen any documentation of any directive or practice to refrain from declaring lineage, just people’s stories. The ByCommonConsent post claims local directives to patriarchs was to always declare lineage after 1978. Maybe some patriarchs assumed that Black people were not to have lineage declared. I don’t know. But it is poor scholarship for Wikipedia to make such a sweeping generalization with such little evidence. All sorts of things are said on Twitter.
44. “Other lineages had been given, including from Cain.”
Wikipedia claims: “In 1961, the Church Historian’s Office reported that other lineages had been given, including from Cain.” There is zero evidence or citation for this, and I have never heard of such a thing. It also contradicts what Wikipedia’s earlier source claimed, that it was policy not to declare if a person is from Cain or any other non-Israelite lineage.
45. “Non-Israelite tribes should not be given as a lineage”
Wikipedia claims: “ In 1971, the Presiding Patriarch stated that non-Israelite tribes should not be given as a lineage in a patriarchal blessing.” Again, zero evidence or citation for this. I do find an article that claims: “The patriarch, replying to another inquiry in 1971, pointed out that ‘names of biblical characters not tribes of Israel’ should not be used in patriarchal blessings.” I have not been able to verify this claim, and it doesn’t state that it has to do specifically with lineage.
46. “Other lineages had been given, including from Cain.”
Wikipedia claims: “In a 1980 address to students at Brigham Young University, James E. Faust attempted to assure listeners that if they had no declared lineage in their patriarchal blessing, that the Holy Ghost would “purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham.” Attempted to assure listeners? Boy, that’s not biased language at all… But this snippet of quote is taken out of context. James E. Faust was not talking about undeclared lineage. He clearly said this was in reference to those “adopted into the house of Israel.” A person adopted into a tribe would have the old blood purged, not a person of no lineage.
47. “Ephraim is the dominant tribe declared for people of European descent”
Wikipedia claims: “Ephraim is the dominant tribe declared for people of European descent and Manasseh dominates for Pacific Islanders and South Americans.” Wikipedia’s reference for this is a book by Mark E. Petersen. I have not been able to find or verify this source. But I’m going to be very skeptical, considering Wikipedia’s article about Mark E. Petersen perpetuates a different fake quote hoax. Wikipedia does not have a good track history when it comes to Mark E. Petersen. It may be so that these different world regions identify with these tribes, or maybe that was just Petersen’s opinion, or that they misinterpreted what he was saying, or that it is another fabricated quote. But I haven’t seen anything to indicate this geographical grouping. The next source on Wikipedia’s citation section says this narrative almost word for word (that same ByCommonConsent article from earlier): “The overwhelming number of such assignments of lineage are to Ephraim, with substantial numbers being assigned to Manasseh (especially in central and south America and the Pacific Islands), and Jews are generally assigned to Judah.” I suspect that this is where Wikipedia got this narrative from, and that the Mark E. Petersen citation is just fabricated to make it sound more authoritative. Mark E. Petersen is the Antimormon boogeyman, after all. ByCommonConsent, naturally, provides zero reference, source, or citation to back it up. Presto! A fabricated hoax!
48. “Jews have typically been assigned to the tribe of Judah”
Wikipedia’s source for this that same article from fringe site By Common Consent, and it provides no evidence or citation. I have heard people assume this, and perhaps it is true, but I have not seen any official directive on it.
49. “Community of Christ, part of the Latter Day Saint movement”
Wikipedia says: “In the Community of Christ, part of the Latter Day Saint movement, the term patriarchal blessing was renamed ‘evangelist’s blessing’ in 1985, to reflect the change in terminology from patriarch to the gender-neutral ‘Evangelist’ when women were first ordained to offices of the Priesthood.” They call it “Community of Christ” but Wikipedia does not distinguish them as a different “church.” A reader may be left to assume that “Community of Christ” is part of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)” which they introduced in the first sentence. This first sentence equates patriarchal blessings with evangelist’s blessings and patriarchs with evangelists, after all. Wikipedia should have a different article altogether for the RLDS splinter-sect (now named “Community of Christ” church), or at the very least identify them as a separate church. And it is not part of the Latter-Day Saint movement, it is a splinter-sect from the church.
50. “Conditioned on members’ faithfulness to the church”
Wikipedia says: “According to an article from Mormonism Research Ministry, the blessings’ fulfillment are often conditioned on members’ faithfulness to the church, helping keep members obeying the church leaders and blaming themselves instead of patriarchs’ accuracy when the promises are not fulfilled.” This perpetuates Wikipedia’s earlier falsehood that the blessings are conditioned upon obedience rather than faithfulness. But it also misrepresents what it is conditioned upon faithfulness to. I have never heard a patriarchal blessing require faithfulness to the church, just faithfulness to the gospel. There is no reason to think lack of obedience to church leaders is to blame if a blessing goes unfulfilled. It is not conditioned on faithfulness to the church. It is not conditioned on obedience to the church. It is not conditioned upon obedience to church leaders. It is conditioned upon faithfulness to whatever principle causes the promised blessing to come true.