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.
Mormons Were Exterminated From Missouri For Opposing Slavery
In July 1833, Anti-Mormons in Jackson County published the Secret Constitution which demanded that Mormons be expelled for opposing slavery of Black people. These Anti-Mormons accused Mormons of “tampering with our slaves, and endeavoring to sow dissension and raise seditions amongst them.” This signed declaration led to the Missouri government’s extermination order and state-led genocide of Mormon communities. Thousands died, were raped, and were stolen from. These were the progenitive events of Mormonism’s historic policies and beliefs regarding race.
In 1844, Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States on a political platform based primarily on abolishing slavery. This was a major reason why Anti-Mormon mobs assassinated Joseph Smith and drove Mormons all the way to Utah. Joseph Smith declared: “The wisdom which ought to characterize the freest, wisest, and most noble nation of the nineteenth century, should, like the sun in his meridian splendor, warm every object beneath its rays; and the main efforts of her officers, who are nothing more nor less than the servants of the people, ought to be directed to ameliorate the condition of all, black or white, bond or free.”
After pro-slavery Anti-Mormons had expelled Mormons to Utah, their racist persecution of Mormons continued. The attacked Mormons in nationwide newspapers for their opposition to racism. The newspapers whipped up a hysteria because Mormons were importing immigrant converts from around the world and mixing races into a single society. The newspapers published political cartoons ridiculing Mormons for being inclusive and living with other races. Mormons believed all races were equally children of God.
We must keep all this history in mind, because the priesthood policy is perhaps the most contorted of all Mormon issues. The truth is Mormons have always been on the front of racial civil rights. Mormons were persecuted and expelled to Utah, Joseph Smith was murdered, and Mormons were resoundingly attacked in the 19th century newspapers because of their race integration. The priesthood ban controversy regards an LDS policy from 1852 until 1978 that people of African descent were not allowed to receive the priesthood in the church. Were racist Mormon doctrines behind the ban? No. We don’t know why the racial policy happened, but it was not the result of incorrect theology, doctrine, or revelation.
Everyone Has Opportunity For Salvation
Those who were prevented from receiving temple ordinances, along with everyone in life who does not get an opportunity to hear about them, will get an opportunity in the future. This a very important Mormon belief that allows salvation for everyone who is worthy. Mormons believe in vicarious baptisms on behalf of the dead, as well as all the other “saving” ordinances. Blacks who were kept from temple ordinances because of this 19th century policy will be able to receive them vicariously.
Brigham Young Prophesied All Men Would Receive Priesthood – In his announcement of the racial policy to the 1852 state political assembly, Brigham Young said the “curse” of being prevented from the priesthood would one day be lifted, along with slavery. He made it clear this was a temporary policy and slavery was the issue; it was an issue of society’s wickedness. Righteous people would overthrow slavery and social racism. “That slavery will continue, until there is a people raised up upon the face of the earth who will contend for righteous principles, who will not only believe in but operate, with every power and faculty given to them to help to establish the kingdom of God, to overcome the devil, and drive him from the earth, then will this curse be removed… That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more.”(Brigham Young)
Policy Is Not Doctrine – Policy is different than doctrine. Doctrine is based on eternal principles and doesn’t change. Policy changes frequently to suit circumstances of the time. There was never any theology, doctrine, or revelation behind the policy. No reason was given for the racist policy, though there are many theories. Mormons have a difficult time explaining the policy because there is no good possible answer! How do you justify racial discrimination?
Others are allowed to admit their racist history and “evolve,” but Mormons cannot do this because portray Mormons as a culture where policy is not allowed to change because they think doctrine and policy are the same thing. None of us were around in those times and we don’t know the circumstances. We can’t judge why the policy happened or what it means about Mormons today. Political pressure from pro-slavery states, rapid church expansion in wide-ranging cultures, and Marxist infiltration in liberal movements may have contributed to the ban. But we don’t know why it happened, and the important thing is how we view race relations today.
So it is ignorant for CES Letter to make snide little remarks like this:
“Heavenly Father likes blacks enough to give them the priesthood under Joseph Smith but He decides they’re not okay when Brigham Young shows up. And He still doesn’t think they’re okay for the next 130 years and the next 9 prophets until President Kimball decides to get a revelation.”
(CES Letter)
Spencer W. Kimball Said ‘Error’ Behind Policy – President Spencer W. Kimball said a “possible error” led to the racial policy. But he did not say it was any error having to do with the church. CES Letter snips away an important part of the quote. Here is what Spencer W. Kimball said: “I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that He will do, I am sure.”(Brigham Young)
What brought about the policy? What error? Many speculate that it was racist politics in America and the social pressures that kept America racially divided well into the 20th century. That was the error, beginning with slavery.
God Accepts All
The priesthood policy was not anything unprecedented. Priesthood has often been restricted in history, such as in the Old Testament when only the sons of Levi could hold it. In his ministry, Jesus commanded his disciples to preach to the Jews and not to the Gentiles to begin with. Why did Jesus say that? To get his church in order before it spread worldwide. Again, a temporary policy.
The scripture in 2 Nephi 26 says God accepts all, black and white: “For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”(2 Nephi 26)
This refers to who God accepts, but it does not refer to who gets to hold the priesthood leadership at any given time, as priesthood is a service role and not synonymous with salvation. This verse is talking about the doctrine of salvation.
Mormons Have Always Battled Racial Division – The prophet Joseph Smith’s views on race were ahead of their time: My cogitations, like Daniel’s, have for a long time troubled me, when I viewed… two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours…
The wisdom which ought to characterize the freest, wisest, and most noble nation of the nineteenth century, should, like the sun in his meridian splendor, warm every object beneath its rays; and the main efforts of her officers, who are nothing more nor less than the servants of the people, ought to be directed to ameliorate the condition of all, black or white, bond or free; for the best of books says, “God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth.”(Joseph Smith’s Presidential Platform)
How long did it take other 19th century institutions such as the Democrat Party to catch up to this conclusion? Divine revelation is superior to social justice, and even today you see the misdirection by those who tear down statues, give unmerited rewards, and spread racial division in the name of equality. If the LDS would just stick by their principles–let the army come, let the newspapers print their cartoons, let the mobs publish their manifestos–then we would always be on the right side of history in the end.
We should celebrate our church’s history and stop trying to justify it. Stop allowing fake news media to spread their racial hysterical narrative. The racial restriction with the priesthood was unfortunate and inexcusable, but our doctrine regarding race has had it right all along. The doctrines of popular culture continue to push racism, and we need to stick by the classical principles that we’ve had from the beginning. Just like in those early days, the Anti-Mormons want more racial division, more slavery, and more persecution of Mormons who oppose racism. The endless rhetoric about this old priesthood policy is designed to whip up racism inside the LDS church and turn society against Mormons.
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehood | CES Letter incorrectly claims “black individuals and families were blocked from the saving ordinances of the Temple.” They were just delayed, along with many people who for one reason or another don’t get a chance in this lifetime to go through the temple. CES Letter incorrectly suggests the priesthood ban was revoked because of “Jimmy Carter’s IRS potentially revoking the Church’s and BYU’s tax-exempt status.” The church was not in danger because of the ban. CES Letter incorrectly claims the church “disavowed” theological and doctrinal racist teachings of the past. It has disavowed some theories, but those were never doctrine. |
| Shifting Goalposts | Later on, CES Letter rejects the idea that temple ordinances are required for salvation. “Does the eternal salvation, eternal happiness, and eternal sealings of families really depend” on temple rituals, they ask? But now CES Letter complains that temple ordinances were temporarily delayed. So which is it? |
| Non Sequitur | CES Letter suggests the church bowed to pressure from “universities boycotting BYU athletics,” but BYU had been accepting Blacks in their sports programs for years and were in no danger of a boycott. This is a lie. CES Letter exaggerates this issue. Even if they had been subject to boycotts, why would the church make a major policy shift over some college’s sports team? |
| Circular Argument | CES Letter frequently gives as evidence the assertion they are trying to prove: that the prophets “decided” policy rather than received direction from God. They don’t actually provide any evidence that the policy was directed or revoked from human decision making rather than God. |
| Appeal To Ridicule | CES Letter’s argument is full of charged language and ridicule, such as: “a god who is not only a schizophrenic racist but who is inconsistent as well.” CES Letter quotes from the bigoted Book of Mormon musical: “He changed His mind again in 1978 about black people.” This is similar to the lyrics of a certain racist musical created by a pair of Anti-Mormons: ” And I believe that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people!” Isn’t it interesting that CES Letter gives a line similar to a musical that has been condemned for being racist against Black people in order to attack Mormons for supposedly being racist? |
| Repetition | Within this argument, CES Letter repeats their claim four times that 10 prophets, over a space of 130 years, kept the ban in place. Why repeat this particular point? To emphasize that it wasn’t just a short temporary policy, as if that proves that it was doctrinal. It doesn’t. CES Letter repeats this argument several times through the pdf. |
| Bandwagon | CES Letter says the church should have led “post-Civil Rights societal trends” and should have been “the one leading the Civil Rights movement.” Well, the church indeed was ahead of its time in opposing slavery, but it wasn’t concerned with jumping on social trends. We are not a political activist organization. |
| False Dilemma | CES Letter says the Mormon God didn’t give Blacks the priesthood because he didn’t “likes blacks enough.” Is that the only possible reason? Did Jesus tell his disciples not to preach to the Gentiles at first because he hated them? |
All Are Children of God – The racial priesthood ban is one of the most powerful anti-Mormon attacks because it shifts focus away from the history of Mormons on the front of civil rights. Mormons were expelled and Joseph Smith was killed because their southern-state neighbors did not like their anti-slavery activism. Fundamentally, Mormon doctrine is that all people are children of God. Do Anti-Mormons believe all people are children of God?
Mormons cannot express the outrage they rightfully feel about being attacked like this because, after all, the ban on priesthood leadership did happen, and there is no justifying racism. God is constant, so either the prophets were racists who came up with it on their own, or the church was forced into having this policy because of historical circumstances. Non-Mormons have the luxury of believing in “evolving” truth, so they don’t need to worry if their political party, or their church, or their university, or their government, or their ideological group once had a discriminatory policy. That’s all in the past. But with Mormons, it is an original sin.
This is why many Mormons don’t even recognize the big hypocrisy coming out of Anti-Mormons–they are outraged because somebody once said Blacks were cursed for somebody else’s sins, yet isn’t that exactly what Anti-Mormons are saying about us? CES Letter condemns us because pioneers practiced slavery and because Brigham Young said some racist things. What does this racial policy have to do with me? I didn’t cause it. I didn’t say racist things. I didn’t exclude races of people from anything.
Perhaps what is most remarkable about CES Letter‘s argument is what they don’t say. They act outraged that the Mormon church changes its policy–apparently commandments and operational structures are supposed to remain static throughout all human history–but how much moral outrage do they actually express about racism? Where do they say everyone is a child of God and deserves equal treatment and equal dignity? Where do they say rewards should be based on merit rather than skin color? I don’t see them say this, and it is definitely a Mormon belief that everyone deserves equal dignity and reward based on merit. Do Anti-Mormons believe this?
Why Did The Priesthood Policy Remain For So Long? – Anti-Mormons tell us that the problem is the Mormon church held on to this racial policy for so long. CES Letter repeats over and over the number of years and number of prophets that this policy spanned in history. The problem is Mormon justice does not evolve like it does for Marxists. Christ’s true church should have been the one leading social change, CES Letter says. Well, St. Paul opposed slavery in the early Christian Church but he also didn’t actively oppose it either, did he? The church is not politically active. We don’t go protesting in the streets. Anti-Mormons demand that we lead political crusades, yet then they complain when we actually do, like with the gay marriage opposition. Then it is inappropriate for the church to become politically active. Then they start complaining about our political activism. So which is it? Should we be politically active or not? In another 130 years, will Anti-Mormons complain that we didn’t do enough to defend traditional marriage?
This all goes back to what Anti-Mormons believe in: evolving truth and agitating for class consciousness. The issue for Anti-Mormons is not really racism, individual dignity, or merit but becoming conscious of as a class of people. Mormons don’t believe in evolving truth. Mormons believe in reward from merit rather than strict equality, personal excellence rather than being defined by class distinction, personal approbation rather than rights and handouts from the government.
Anti-Mormons assume Blacks were limited from salvation when they were not. From day one, no Mormon considered the policy to have any affect on salvation or exaltation. People always get what they deserve in the end based on their works and who they make themselves. Anti-Mormons apparently believe a person’s rank in the priesthood and status as church leader makes them better or gives them extra reward. This is heresy.Complete answers to CES Letter questions about Mormons:
| Church Policy Questions Related questions: Polygamy eternal principle? Acts as prophet or man? Rituals For Exaltation? | Complete Answers to CES Letter |
Did Brigham Young Acts As Prophet When He Taught The ‘Adam-God Theory’?
Brigham Young Did Not Teach This
- Brigham Young did not teach the so-called ‘Adam-God Theory.’ CES Letter took a quote out of context to make it look like he said Adam was “the only God with whom we have to do.” But if you read the entire sermon, Brigham Young was referring to God the Father as “the only God with whom we have to do,” not Adam. In the creation, God the Father, Jehovah, “and Michael, these three forming a quorum,” organized the earth and planted the garden. The question was, “who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary” and created Adam to be “the first of the human family?” Brigham Young answered that it was God the Father. Brigham Young declared Adam had been Michael. “He is Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days.”
He was talking about the quorum that formed the earth, which involved Michael, Jesus, and God the Father, and when he said “he,” he was referring to God the Father, as he had already introduced him as “Father in heaven” and said that he created Adam’s body. Transcribers did not have any way to clarify who Brigham Young was referring to by “he,” even though it was clear by his tone of voice. ‘He is Michael… and he is our Father.’
This was a radical doctrine for everybody of the 1800’s, that Adam was Michael, and they were still trying to figure it out. Brigham Young in some of his sermons said “I reckon” certain things, which seems pretty clear that he was just stating some opinions of his. The news that Adam took part in the Creation sent shock waves through the Christian world, as the ancient teachings of Michael and Adam’s creation role, and the Egyptian version of Adam–Atum, a god, had not yet been discovered. To the Christian world, Adam was still just a guy who sinned and caused the downfall of the human race. He was scorned for his “original sin.” But Brigham Young learned that Adam was much more, and everybody was still unclear exactly what his role was.
I have not read every Mormon apologist out there, but I have yet to see anyone claim Brigham Young was speaking “as a man” in his sermons about Adam and God. This is a strawman. Mormons don’t say this. Lots of people were confused about what he was talking about at the time, and it still sounds confusing, but Brigham Young made very clear which parts of his sermons were prophetic and which parts were just “reckoning.” CES Letter claims Mormons renounce Brigham Young’s alleged ‘Adam-God theory’ and that’s just not true.
‘Adam-God’ Never Taught In The Temple
“I’m told that prophets are just men who are only prophets when acting as such (whatever that means). I’m told that like all prophets, Brigham Young was a man of his time. For example, I was told that Brigham Young was acting as a man when he taught that Adam is our God and the only God with whom we have to deal with. Never mind that he taught it over the pulpit in not one but two General Conferences and never mind that he introduced this theology into the endowment ceremony in the Temples. Never mind that Brigham Young made it clear that he was speaking as a prophet…”
(CES Letter)
Policy Is Not Doctrine – Policy is different than doctrine. Doctrine is based on eternal principles and doesn’t change. Policy changes frequently to suit circumstances of the time. This is why parts have been added and taken out of temple ceremonies over the years.
David Buerger Account Of ‘Adam-God’ In The Temple – According to researcher David John Buerger, one unnamed person recalled third-hand hearing in the 1902 temple ceremony “Adam was our God,” but everybody else he could find that went through the temple previous to 1902 said the ceremonies did “not include any reference” to it.
- Anonymous third-hand source
- Source is remembering something from many years prior
- Source was likely confused by a radical doctrine he hadn’t heard before
An anonymous source recalling third-hand something he thinks he heard many years ago about a very confusing doctrine? Sorry, I don’t find that very convincing. He probably just got confused by the radical doctrine that Adam took part in the Creation along with God.
L. John Nuttall Account Of ‘Adam-God’ In The Temple – Brigham Young’s transcriber for the temple ceremony, L. John Nuttall, wrote in his private journal about an early meeting with Brigham Young, and the tone of L. John Nuttall’s fourth-hand journal entry admittedly makes it sound like Adam took the role of God the Father. This was a private journal entry, nothing official, and it was based on a private meeting. Fred Collier points out that the ink for most of this entry is “much lighter and the same as that used for his diary entry” in later days, which indicates that Nuttall wrote it at least one day after the meeting, perhaps many days later. This gave him time to mis-remember what he had heard. The meeting he was describing took place on February 7th, 1877, and itt wasn’t until March 21, months later according to Wilford Woodruff, that they settled on the text of the temple endowment ceremony.
- Second-hand source, written some time after the meeting took place
- Private discussion during the early planning phase of the temple ceremony
- Source was likely confused by a radical doctrine he hadn’t heard before
“Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things…”(L. John Nuttall)
The context of the temple ceremony is how Adam relates to us or how we emulate Adam and Eve. So, like Adam, we were immortal beings who came to earth, and we lived in a pre-mortal spirit world similar to earth and received Priesthood keys and had been faithful to our first estate. This is sound doctrine and does not make Adam God. “…and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness…”(L. John Nuttall)
Adam being crowned with glory did not happen previous to Adam being placed in the Garden of Eden. Otherwise, L. John Nuttall would have written “had gained his resurrection and exaltation,” like how he wrote “had lived on an earth.” So grammatically, pre-existence and exaltation didn’t happen at the same point in time. The lack of past perfect tense grammar tells us resurrection and exaltation happened after the Garden of Eden. Specifically, after Jesus’ atonement. “…and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world.”(L. John Nuttall)
This is the part that sounds weird. It sounds like Adam, as Michael, had a role in pre-existence spiritual creation. But again, if you pay attention to the grammar it makes better sense. By the time Adam “became” numbered with the Gods and received his exaltation, he had begotten the people who came to earth, namely as the Father of mankind in the Garden of Eden. As the first man, he is the common ancestor who had begotten as physical people all the spirit that came to earth, and then he went on to exaltation. But the way Nuttall wrote it admittedly does sound confusing, probably because he was confused in that beginning phase of discussion. Next, Nuttall’s journal entry becomes even more confusing: “Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam’s first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written.”(L. John Nuttall)
As a son or descendant from Adam’s human family, Jesus indeed was the oldest “first begotten in the spirit world,” though of course it wasn’t Adam who begat him in the spirit world. It was God the Father. Again, this was a private meeting about radically different doctrine about Adam than they were used to from mainstream Christianity. This was the beginning phase, months before the temple ceremony was prepared and ready, written in a personal journal some time after the meeting took place. He just got some things mixed up. Fact is, Brigham Young never said Adam was God and never taught it as doctrine.
Radically Different Ideas About Adam – Brigham Young’s sermons introduced radically different ideas about Adam that shocked audiences of his day. In Mormon doctrine, “Adam” is treated as a priesthood position, a creation role that was ordained in the pre-existence. Pre-mortal Adam helped create the heavens and the earth under the direction of Jehovah, with a “celestial body” of spirit, and went down to the earth and was formed personally by God the Father into the first human being.
Are we subject to people who become exalted in heaven? No. We do not pray to Adam even if he is exalted and we do not worship him. He may have been in the quorum of the Genesis creation, but he is not our God. Ancient religions like the Egyptians spoke of Adam (Atum) as a god who should be worshipped. But nobody had ever heard of such a thing in 1800’s America, before archaeology and scholarly research brought it to light. Brigham Young broke the news that Adam took part in the Genesis creation, and not only that, he was physically created in the flesh by God which actually makes God the father of mankind. This completely changes our idea of who God is. Adam attained priesthood power and created a universe, he fell but was exalted, and this means we can be too. As with ancient religions, Mormons started to see Adam as a figure to emulate not scorn, a priesthood position to strive towards. Things always seem to get off to a rocky start when some huge new doctrine like this is re-introduced.
Adam is a complex subject. For the Egyptians, Atum was a self-created being who emerged from the darkness of chaos and created the first humans. Mormon theology is similar, in that Adam had a pre-mortal leadership role in creation, and that his role as “father” of mankind was ordained before the creation. It could be that Brigham Young “reckoned” that Adam had a role in spiritual creation as well. More likely, people just got confused between spiritual and physical creation. All we know and really can understand is that God the Father is the creator of spirits. Nobody renounced what Brigham Young said, they just denounced the implication by apostates that this means Adam and God are the same person.
It is fascinating that if we read recently-discovered ancient literature about Adam we find the same doctrine as what Brigham Young taught. How did Brigham Young know that Adam had a role in creation and that he was a figure to be celebrated and emulated, not scorned?
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehood | Brigham Young did not teach that Adam was God the Father. The premise of this argument is false. Brigham Young was not “disavowed by future Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.” They denounced apostate splinter sects who misinterpreted what Brigham Young had said. |
| Strawman Fallacy | Brigham Young made it clear when he was speaking as a prophet, statesman, or if he was just “reckoning” his personal opinion. CES Letter claims: “I was told that Brigham Young was acting as a man when he taught that Adam is our God.” I’m not sure who told him that, but it isn’t true. Mormons don’t believe Brigham Young taught Adam is our God, as a man or prophet. |
| Complex Question | There is a lot to the question of who Adam was and what his role is. The fact that Adam as Michael had a role in creating the earth does not make him God. |
| Argument From Ignorance | When you look at the entire context of the sermon, it becomes clear that Brigham Young did not mean Adam. We do not have a lot of material to clarify what Brigham Young “reckoned” about Adam, such as when he was resurrected and exalted, and we do not have the original Lecture at the Veil to determine what Brigham Young taught there. |
| Begging The Question | The whole point of “restoring” the church is that apostates in the Dark Ages misinterpreted what an ancient prophet had said and then went astray. It wasn’t perfectly clear to them. That’s the case here as well. If those ancient prophets were true prophets, then wouldn’t people misinterpret and go apostate when it comes to modern prophets as well? How does the fact that people were confused debunk Brigham Young as a prophet? |
| Repetition | CES Letter mentions the Adam-God theory several times. CES Letter repeats their sarcastic slogan (reworded each time): “the doctrine he teaches today will likely be tomorrow’s false doctrine.” |
| Appeal To Ridicule | CES Letter steps up their snarky mocking in this argument as they repeatedly point out alleged contradictions by saying: “Never mind that…” This is the kind of thing a bratty middle schooler would yell at his mother: “Never mind that you said something different just last week!” It’s a petulant thing to say and incongruent with finding a resolution to any question. Then, CES Letter says: “Why would I want my kids singing ‘Follow the Prophet’ with such a ridiculous 183-year track record? What credibility do the Brethren have? Why would I want them following the prophet when a prophet is just a man of his time teaching his ‘theories’ that will likely be disavowed by future Prophets, Seers, and Revelators?” (CES Letter) |
| Red Herring | CES Letter then brings up arguments they already talked about, that have nothing to do with any of this. What does this hoax Adam-God theory have to do with racism and sexism? “If Brigham Young was really a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, would it not be unreasonable to expect that God would give him a hint that racism is not okay, sexism is not okay, blood atonement is not okay and God’s name is not “Adam”?” (CES Letter) |
Changing Our Moral Blueprint Through Sophistry
“Why would I want them following the prophet when a prophet is just a man of his time teaching his ‘theories’… If his moral blueprint is not much better than their Sunday School teachers?”
(CES Letter)
This part of CES Letter‘s outrage really stuck out to me. Moral blueprint? What does a moral blueprint have to do with anything? Even if the Adam-God hoax were true, what does Brigham Young’s speculation about Adam have to do with his moral blueprint?
This is question of where our moral beliefs come from. Marxists believe that all truth, including morality, is “science” that has been “proven.” Well, what about things that science can’t look at under a telescope or prove with math, such as ethics and morality? How does a scientist prove whether abortion is moral or not? Well, Marxists believe morality is determined through dialectic and contradiction. They deconstruct moral untruths by pointing out contradictions and getting to the pure essence of an issue, which is their raw Marxist ideology of universal salvation. The “moral blueprint” that CES Letter might be referring to to here is the relativistic truth at the heart of Mormon ideology that is allegedly contradictory. Since moral truth is all relative, the prophet is supposed to determine superior truth, which makes them superior to Sunday School teachers. That is the logic going on here.
The big difference between Marxists and Mormons is that the only eternal truth for Marxists is the ideology, while for Mormons all doctrinal principles are eternal and unchanging truth. For Marxists, everything except the ideology can shift however it needs to for the sake of propagating Marxism. One day, two plus two could equal five, if it needs to. For Mormons, the only thing that shifts is policy, including commandments. We don’t drink alcohol today even though people did in ancient times, because circumstances have changed. Still, two plus two always equals four. That is our moral blueprint.
| See also: | CES Letter Contradiction Strategy |
So, CES Letter lets the cat out of the bag and reveals what their attacks are really about. What this all seems to come down to is the doctrine of exaltation and eternal progression. This is why they think this Adam-God theory somehow relates to racism and sexism. They are repulsed by this doctrine. “God’s name is not “Adam”,” or in other words, mortals cannot become like God. That’s what this is about. The reason our Mormon “moral blueprint” allows for exaltation is because we believe moral principles, natural law, or God’s law, does not change. It appears that this is what CES Letter is attacking.
As Mormons, we understand that prophets restore a correct understanding of eternal moral principles, and give updates on commandments and policies from God to suit modern circumstances. Anti-Mormons reject this. Anti-Mormons equate our moral principles with current policy and throw in a bunch of histrionics about racism and sexism to build a case for why their social justice is superior to God’s truth and justice. Anti-Mormons show their moral syllogism as superior, where everything but fundamental ideology is relative, by picking apart every part of our doctrine. This is much easier for them to do when they pretend like temporary policy is doctrine, or when some bit of confusion was some profound doctrinal teaching. So if we drink water for the sacrament instead of wine, Anti-Mormons are liable to claim our doctrine is changing, that prophets are speaking as men rather than prophets, and that their rhetoric proves it to be an immoral practice. Anti-Mormons in general think the Marxist ideology of universal salvation gives a superior moral truth: you cannot become godly.
So why do we have one “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” speak for God instead of giving control to “the people” like Marxists do? Why do we have one unchanging blueprint of justice instead of allowing it to “evolve” as classes in society become more “conscious”, more civilized, and less racist and sexist? I hope every Mormon could easily answer this. It is because mankind is inherently flawed and we could never reach exaltation without divine help. If advancement were left up to “the people,” we would collectively fail every time. Look where Marxism has led us, each and every time it has been tried out! Widespread death and misery! Still today, there are radical groups like Antifa, rioting and mayhem in the streets. If atheists are correct and death really is the end and there is no God, then the individual holds no fealty to a “social contract” and there is no reason for personal morality to exist. Why should the moral blueprint be anything but a scheme for robbing banks and plundering wealth? Why do anything except for the sake of momentary pleasure? This is why Marxists inevitably turn to compulsion to force us to be good, and society turns to authoritarianism and fascism.
This is why I think CES Letter never comes out and attacks the doctrine of exaltation, and why they never say what a “moral blueprint” should be! Anti-Mormons typically attack Mormons from an ivory tower and hope that their audience will be fooled into believing social justice just as they were. They know deep inside their ideology does not lead to anything like exaltation, and they know their beliefs are on shaky ground, so they need to conceal their ideology and slyly insert it into their anti-Mormon rhetoric.
Attacking Patriarchy – In their PDF, CES Letter starts off with intellectual appeals to attack the Book of Mormon. Then they move on to emotional hysterics about polygamy and racism, and now they lay down the hammer with relative truth and social justice. The interesting thing is that now they so strongly attack the idea that man is able to receive revelation from God on behalf of a society. We saw CES Letter scare-monger women about oppressive Mormon males, but now they go on to ridicule the idea that men can be exalted for receive spiritual power. They find it hard to keep their simmering hatred for patriarchy concealed.
This is perhaps the saddest part of the road to apostasy, when a man rejects his rightful potential priesthood role. Adam certainly is not God, and nobody ever believed this. But he did take part in the Creation, he did originate the human family, and he did receive repentance and exaltation. This is why Adam is a role that we seek to emulate. Brigham Young and Joseph Smith restored important doctrine that had been lost for many thousands of years, but is still important for us to hear today. We need to know who Adam was, that he wasn’t just some guy who screwed everything up for everybody. Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy. Adam sacrificed and increased in faith to gain repentance and re-admittance into heaven, and we can take the same holy path.
See Also: Did Brigham Young Teach The ‘Adam-God Theory’?Complete answers to CES Letter questions about Mormons: