Containing 5,717 Articles Spanning 332 Topics  
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery  
Online Since January 1, 2005  
PLEASE NOTE: If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page (the one you just landed on) is an archive containing articles on "SPENCER W. KIMBALL". This website, The Mormon Curtain - is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can read The Mormon Curtain FAQ to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒  CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
  SPENCER W. KIMBALL
Total Articles: 12
Eleventh President of the LDS Church. Spencer was a hard liner when it came to sin and through his books "Faith Precedes The Miracle" and "The Miracle Of Forgiveness", he exposed every sin in every Mormon. If you didn't have a sin before, Spencer would help you find one. Both of his books were absolute rubbish and did more to hurt members than heal them. Mormon authorities today continue to force members who have "transgressed" into reading both of these books.

In 1978 Spencer W. Kimball was facing mounting pressure for continuing to deny any rights or privileges to Blacks and suddenly received revelation that all Blacks were now allowed into the Church ordinances. The LDS Church denied that it was due to the fact that the federal government was reviewing the Church's tax-exempt status. After this the Church began a vigorous movement to eradicate any racist documents from the Church. The Book Of Mormon was changed where verses stated "White and delightsome" to "Pure and delightsome". Arguments made by McConkie or Brigham Young were now labeled as "non-doctrine" and "these men were speaking for themselves."

Spencer W. Kimball was an extreme hard liner when it came to Church Doctrine and Church Policy.
topic image
The Mormon Miracle Of Forgiveness Is No Forgiveness
Friday, Mar 25, 2005, at 12:20 PM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
This is a major difference between mormons and christians. Mormons are expected to "be perfect" as stated in Matt 5:48 and in JST Matt 5:48. Jesus Christ's sacrifice and atonement of sins does not fully cover your sins in mormonism. It is all works and being made to feel guilty.

http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/miracle-of-forgiveness.html

The Miracle of Forgiveness
By Spencer W. Kimball. Reviewed by Bill McKeever

In my opinion, one of the best books written by an LDS general authority that clearly exposes Mormonism's as non Christian is The Miracle of Forgiveness. This book, which was written by 12th President Spencer W. Kimball, contains some of the most horrendous teachings imaginable including:
  • Mankind has the ability to perfect himself and become an omniscient and omnipotent God (p.2).
  • No one can repent on a cross, nor in prison, nor in custody (p.167).
  • Forgiveness is cancelled on reversion to sin (p.169).
  • Discontinuance of sin must be permanent (p.176).
  • Keeping God's commandments brings forgiveness (p.201).
  • Salvation by grace alone was originated by Satan (p.206).
  • Only by living all of the commandments can a Mormon be sure he is forgiven (p.208).
  • Personal perfection is an achievable goal (p.209).
  • The time to become perfect is now, in this mortality (p.210).
  • Forgiveness could take "centuries" and is granted based on a Mormon's humility, sincerity, works, and attitudes (p.325).
  • The repentance which merits forgiveness requires the transgressor to reach the point where the very desire or urge to sin is "cleared out of his life" (pp.354-355).
topic image
Spencer W. Kimball : The Gospel Vision Of The Arts : An Exmo Perspective
Friday, Jun 10, 2005, at 08:32 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
Since I don't have a personal blog in which to write my daily happenings, I'm highjacking the Foyer today, for this one thread, to share my thoughts.

I've been a little scarce here for the past several days -- although you probably didn't notice (many, many thanks to the other Mods for keeping up on things around here!).

The reason for my absence is that I've been commissioned to write the music for a new musical that will be produced this spring. A certain pre-production deadline is looming, which has put me put me into crunch-mode in which I spend large amounts of time at the piano composing. (Except now, of course, when I'm wasting time on the Foyer! It's sort of a dream of every musician to be able to do this. So, I consider myself extremely fortunate.

Anyway, doing this day after day (in essense, doing what I've dreamt of doing since I was a child) has rekindled certain memories of late, for some reason -- memories I've almost forgotten in my journey out of the Church. But now that they've been rekindled, I have such a different slant on them that I thought I'd post my thoughts here.

In another recent thread someone here asked what visions or prophecies were made by prophets during the 20th century. One vision that most people overlook, but which is very dear to many LDS artists, is Spencer W. Kimball's "The Gospel Vision of the Arts", given in the July 1977 Ensign.

Even though I was only 12 years old in 1977, I still had an incredibly strong drive to be a professional musician -- and had had that drive for about 4 years. SWK's "vision" was nothing short of a revelation from God himself to me. Through that vision, I was able to see into the future, and, being only 12 and yet to start on my professional journey, I knew I was going to be a part of that vision.

I can't tell you how inspiring these words were to me, and how they helped shape me during the next several years:

In our world, there have risen brilliant stars in drama, music, literature, sculpture, painting, science, and all the graces. For long years I have had a vision of members of the Church greatly increasing their already strong positions of excellence till the eyes of all the world will be upon us.

President John Taylor so prophesied, as he emphasized his words with this directive:

"You mark my words, and write them down and see if they do not come to pass.

"You will see the day that Zion will be far ahead of the outside world in everything pertaining to learning of every kind as we are today in regard to religious matters.

"God expects Zion to become the praise and glory of the whole earth, so that kings hearing of her fame will come and gaze upon her glory. ..." (Sermon, September 20, 1857; see The Messenger, July 1953.)


With regard to masters, surely there must be many Wagners (Richard Wagner, 1813-83) in the Church, approaching him or yet to come in the tomorrows?young people with a love of art, talent supreme, and eagerness to create. I hope we may produce men greater than this German composer, Wagner, but less eccentric, more spiritual.

Who of us has not sat spellbound with Aida, Il Trovatore, or other of the masterpieces of Verdi (1813-1900)? Can there never be another Verdi or his superiors? Could we not find and develop a Bach (1685-1750)?to whom music, especially organ and choral music, owes almost as much as a religion does to its founder, say some musicians.

Is there anyone who has not been stirred by the rich melodic voice of Enrico Caruso (1873-1921), Italian-born operatic tenor? Surely there have been few voices which have inspired so many. Considered to be the greatest voice of his century by many, year after year he was the chief attraction at the Metropolitan Opera.

Would someone say that they produce singers best in Italy, in Germany, in Poland, or Sweden? Remember we draw our members from all of these places. The gospel attracts many and stirs their blood with the messages of the ages, and they sing songs of accomplishment, eternal marriage, exaltation.

Then there was Patti?Adeline Maria Patti?who was scintillating in her accomplishments and her greatness. She is known as an Italian Singer though she was born in Madrid (1843-1919). Not only did Patti have a pure clear-toned voice, but she had a wide range which was excelled only by her personal grace and charm, her pure style, her loveliness. Surely we can produce many Pattis in the tomorrows.

[...]

Members of the Church should be peers or superiors to any others in natural ability, extended training, plus the Holy Spirit which should bring them light and truth. With hundreds of "men of God" and their associates so blessed, we have the base for an increasingly efficient and worthy corps of talent.

[...]

If we strive for perfection?the best and greatest?and are never satisfied with mediocrity, we can excel. In the field of both composition and performance, why cannot someone write a greater oratorio than Handel's Messiah? The best has not yet been composed nor produced. They can use the coming of Christ to the Nephites as the material for a greater masterpiece. Our artists tomorrow may write and sing of Christ's spectacular return to the American earth in power and great glory, and his establishment of the kingdom of God on the earth in our own dispensation. No Handel nor other composer of the past or present or future could ever do justice to this great event. How could one ever portray in words and music the glories of the coming of the Father and the Son and the restoration of the doctrines and the priesthood and the keys unless he were an inspired Latter-day Saint, schooled in the history and doctrines and revelations and with rich musical ability and background and training?

[...]

...the full story of Mormonism has never yet been written nor painted nor sculpted nor spoken. It remains for inspired hearts and talented fingers yet to reveal themselves. They must be faithful, inspired, active Church members to give life and feeling and true perspective to a subject so worthy. Such masterpieces should run for months in every movie center, cover every part of the globe in the tongues of the people, written by great artists, purified by the best critics.

Our writers, our motion picture specialists, with the inspiration of heaven, should tomorrow be able to produce a masterpiece which would live forever. Our own talent, obsessed with dynamism from a CAUSE, could put into such a story life and heartbeats and emotions and love and pathos, drama, suffering, fear, courage; and they could put into it the great leader, the mighty modern Moses who led a people farther than from Egypt to Jericho, who knew miracles as great as the stream from the rock at Horeb, manna in the desert, giant grapes, rain when needed, battles won against great odds.


Take a Nicodemus and put Joseph Smith's spirit in him, and what do you have? Take a da Vinci or a Michelangelo or a Shakespeare and give him a total knowledge of the plan of salvation of God and personal revelation and cleanse him, and then take a look at the statues he will carve and the murals he will paint and the masterpieces he will produce. Take a Handel with his purposeful effort, his superb talent, his earnest desire to properly depict the story, and give him inward vision of the whole true story and revelation, and what a master you have!


I would dare say that a considerable percentage of the LDS film makers, LDS composers, LDS artists, etc., making their mark in the world have been deeply inspired and motivated by SWK's vision of the arts.

So, what about now, for me? Where does SWK's vision of the arts fit in my worldview? How do I perceive his vision today, after it has influenced me so strongly for so many years? After I've dreamed for more than two decades of the day when I could help bring his vision to fruition, only to find myself now to be the very type of person who is expressly ineligible to become a fulfillment of that vision?

I have to admit that as a current exmo, I still feel a tug of sadness at the death of that dream. It was a beautiful dream that helped inspire me to strive for ever higher regions of excellence in my schooling and early professional life.

But today I did something I haven't done in quite a while. I actually broke out SWK's Ensign article again and read it. I used to read his vision on a regular basis, but haven't read it in several years, and it was enlightening to do so today.

One of the things that struck me today was how difficult it will be for his vision to ever be fulfilled. SWK unwittingly included a couple of almost insurmountable obstacles for LDS artists to overcome before his vision is realized. One of the most difficult obstacles to get past is that the LDS artist must turn overt propaganda into world-class art. Of course, I'm not saying that someone won't be able to find a way to do so someday -- afterall, the basic ingredient for world-class art is passion inside the artist.

But, what makes art "world-class", or even "interesting", for that matter? It's seeing something from a fresh perspective. Seeing something in a way few other people have seen before. That's why great art is so often cutting-edge for its day. Sure, Beethoven is now considered incredibly conservative, but he wasn't in his day. Debussy's professors were appalled at his treatment of harmony. Stravinsky's premiere of "The Rite of Spring" was cut short by the audience booing, hissing, throwing bottles onto the stage, and basically rioting in hatred toward the piece.

True, many artists wrote primarily for the Catholic Church, or wrote out of religious passion, and were immediately popular. Handel's brilliant "Messiah" oratorio comes to mind -- an absolutely brilliant composition that has endured for more than 200 years! But, was Handel's composition an attempt at artistically retelling propaganda (or, as SWK put it, "to properly depict the story")? I don't think so. I think Handel first chose passages from the Bible that inspired him, and created the art from that inspiration.

If the Church was truly open about its history, and if composers, playwrights, screen writers, and artists had the ability to explore the real flaws in the early characters of Mormonism, then perhaps true works of art could be made more easily.

But, LDS artists hands are tied in a couple of ways: First, to create a work of art that includes elements that are contrary to the myth carefully perpetrated by the Church is heresy. Their work would be shunned as "anti-Mormon", and the artist would probably be considered "dangerous" (which, by the way, is a common fate among artists of totalitarian goverments like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy). However, the mythologized Joseph Smith is too two-dimensional to generate much real interest, except for the relatively few numbers of True Believers. We need the flaws to create a truly interesting story.

Secondly, SWK has placed a condition on the type artist that's acceptable. As he put it, " I hope we may produce men greater than this German composer, Wagner, but less eccentric, more spiritual." In other words, SWK doesn't want "weird" people to be the great artists. He wants the clean-cut, wear-a-white-shirt-to-church-every-week, don't-make-waves, extremely-obedient-to-Church-authority type of Latter-day Saint to become the great artists of his vision. Indeed, part of my career goal-setting as a teenager was to set numerous spiritual goals, in the belief that extremely strict obedience to the commandments of the Church would inextricably lead to being one of the great performers of my age.

I've seen this attitude borne out in the Church, sadly. The Church brought a certain gentleman, with whom I'm acquainted, on board one of their projects, of which you all have heard (but which I won't reveal here). This man wrote the project, the Church produced it, and this man continued to be involved in the project in a certain integral way every night that the project was performed. Eventually, however, he was asked to not come back, and was replaced. The reason? It wasn't stated overtly, but it's pretty clear that the reason was that this man is gay. True, he doesn't act on it, which is supposed to be acceptable, but he just wasn't the Brethren's ideal of what a proper LDS artist should be. So, he was replaced by someone who was.

I've got a newsflash for the Church: The reason great artists are great is because they aren't "company men"! They aren't "yes-men". They are people who march to their own drumbeat. Often they're obsessed with their art to the exclusion of almost everything else, including authoritarian religions. Sometimes, their lack of social skills is what drives them to become introverted, which, in turn, causes them to obsess about music, or painting, or writing. Excluding these people from SWK's vision is a sure way to keep it unfulfilled.

I don't think this is the case for everyone, but I feel that my creative potential has been enhanced by leaving the Church. No longer do I feel restrained by artificial constraints imposed by old corporate "company men". I feel more free to delve into the darker side of humanity, and in particular, the darker side of my heritage.

I want to write a play. It's been stewing in my brain for two or three years, and once my current project is over, I think I'm going to start on it. It's sort of like the antithesis of SWK's vision. It will be about my heritage, but will be more frank and edgy than SWK would have wanted. It will explore real depth of character. Yes, JS will have many good qualities, because he had them in real life, but it will also show the narcissistic side of him and the desire for power that eventually caused his downfall. I won't approach the play from a propaganda perspective, but from an artistic perspective. First and foremost will be to serve the artform. It must be introspective, hard-hitting, and inspiring. The primary goal will be to create art, not propaganda, whether that is propaganda for the Church, or for the supposed "anti-Mormon agenda".

So, after all these years, and after this incredible journey I've had over the almost-40 years of my life, I guess SWK is still influencing me. His call to create great art still resonates in my soul. His call to create great art based on my heritage still beckons me. And, someday soon I'll heed that call. I'm just sad to now recognize the true nature of SWK's call, and sad, also, that I didn't recognize the true nature of SWK's call before now.
topic image
Spencer W. Kimball - Women Should Wash Dishes, Cook Meals, Make Beds And Have Babies
Saturday, Jul 30, 2005, at 07:33 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
"I beg of you, you who could and should be bearing and rearing a family: Wives, come home from the typewriter, the laundry, the nursing, come home from the factory, the cafe. No career approaches in importance that of wife, homemaker, mother -- cooking meals, washing dishes, making beds for one's precious husband and children. Come home, wives, to your husbands. Make home a heaven for them. Come home, wives, to your children, born and unborn. Wrap the motherly cloak about you and, unembarrassed, help in a major role to create the bodies for the immortal souls who anxiously await."

The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Pg.514-515.
topic image
Hear! Hear! Kimball Not Only Had No Special Prophetic Witness, He Had No Special Prophetic Knowledge
Monday, Aug 29, 2005, at 07:22 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
Ol' Spence on-the-Fence Kimball put his garments on one leg at a time, just like everyone else, and probably backwards.

Below are adapted excerpts from a couple of my previous posts, in which I recount having had personal communication with Kimball--communication which clearly revealed that Kimball acted without revelation:

Introduction: What Do Mormonism's General Authorities Really Know About the Supposed Truthfulness of the LDS Church--and How Do They Supposedly Know It?

A question often asked by those re-examining their Mormon faith is whether the General Authorities of the LDS Church genuinely believe the Church is true.

They may believe it, but do they really know it?

And are they forthright with the Mormon membership about what they say claim either believe or know?

Based on my personal contact with some of Mormonism’s highest leaders, obtained through conversation and correspondence, the answers to these questions is simply "No." ____

President Spencer W. Kimball

During the course of my BYU research paper on the official LDS stand regarding organic evolution, I repeatedly corresponded with Kimball, who was then Mormon Church President. _____

Knowledge of What Other Mormon Prophets Have Said on Important Doctrinal Matters

Throughout the course of our exchanges, I had a difficult and increasingly frustrating time obtaining direct and clear answers from him on the subject, even though I made specific and detailed inquiries.

For instance, on the question of previous First Presidency statements on the physical origins of humankind, Kimball informed me in personal correspondence that he was not familiar with the First Presidency statements I had cited in my initial correspondence with him and requested that I mail them to him, which I did.

Clearly, whatever confidence Kimball had in the truthfulness of Mormonism was not always based on official Mormon positions enunciated by the Presidents of the Church, some of which he admitted to me he knew nothing.

However, in contradicting Kimball for whom he worked, Secretary to the Office of the First Presidency, Arthur C. Haycock, later told me in a phone conversation that Kimball was incorrect in confessing to me ignorance about the First Presidency statements he had asked me to send him.

In a discussion from his Church office in Salt Lake City, Haycock informed me that Kimball was, in fact, aware of those official First Presidency statements--but that he had forgotten he was aware of them.

(Later, in a 1980 one-on-one visit with Apostle Bruce R. McConkie at his Salt Lake City home, he told me essentially the same thing that Haycock had.

I asked McConkie about the fact that, in personal correspondence with then-Church President Kimball on the LDS stand regarding organic evolution, Kimball admitted to me that he was not aware of the official position of the Church as found in a First Presidency statement entitled "The Origin of Man," issued in 1909.

McConkie responded by insisting that Kimball did, in fact, know about it. He said "he just forgot" that he knew. Deja vu. That is almost exactly what secretary to the First Presidency Haycock had told me over the phone in 1979). _____

On Speaking Out Himself on Matters of LDS Church Doctrine

When I asked Haycock for permission to reproduce Kimball’s correspondence to me in a BYU undergraduate research paper I was doing on the subject, Haycock said I could--as long as I made it clear in my paper that the interpretations reached about Kimball's correspondence with me were my own.

Haycock did not offer me Kimball’s explanatons of his own correspondence with me, assuming Kimball had any to give.

I continued to press Kimball for answers but received none from him.

Eventually, the First Presidency (consisting of Kimball and his two counselors, N. Eldon Tanner and Marion G. Romney) signed and sent a letter to my Arizona bishop, directing him to answer my questions in their behalf.

To assist the bishop in that effort, Kimball, Tanner and Romney included a 1909 statement from the First Presidency of Joseph F. Smith on the subject of organic evolution--a statement that Kimball had told me in his earlier correspondence with me that he was not familiar with and which had I ended up sending to him, at his request.

Although they included the 1909 statement for use by my bishop in explaining to me the official Church position on organic evolution to me, the Kimball First Presidency did not tell my bishop what that statement meant.

Despite Kimball's, Tanner's and Romney's directive to my bishop to answer my questions on the official Church stance on organic evolution, the bishop felt unqualified to do so.

Therefore, the bishop advised me to write Kimball one more time, requesting further clarification on the subject.

I did so but Kimball never answered back.

On the subject of organic evolution and faith, the only direction Kimball gave me was to ask if I had Henry Eyring's book, Faith of a Scientist, in which Eyring asserted that science and religion both served as tools in the search for truth: the former in helping people avoid myth; and the latter in directing people toward God.

When I told Kimball that I had read Eyring's book and asked him to provide me with his own views on it, Kimball remained silent. _____

Conclusion: Pulling Back the Curtain and Revealing the Mormon Charade

The above statements by Spencer W. Kimball--one of Mormonism's supposed prophets, seers and revelators--speak for themselves.

Based upon his own admissions, he did not have persuasive, convincing or complete knowledge concerning the truthfulness of Mormon doctrine or scripture.

The Mormon Church is a consumate fraud, based upon myths perpetrated by its leaders in public and confessed by them in private.
topic image
A Story About Spencer W. Kimball And The 1978 Priesthood Revelation
Wednesday, Feb 1, 2006, at 09:21 AM
Original Author(s): Max
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
While on my mission in 1978, I recall the day that President Kimball received the revelation that all worthy members of the church could receive all blessings of membership; priesthood, temple, leadership, etc.

Within a few weeks of that revelation, I listened in on one of those urban missionary legends that remained as truth in my mind for years. While visiting a group of elders one day (I was serving in the mission office), one respected elder told us the story of the 1978 revelation and what actually occurred. He said that his relative, a person working in the church administration building, told his family that SWK had been praying in the upper rooms of the Salt Lake temple. When the revelation commenced, many personages came into the room where President Kimball was praying; Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Wilford Woodruff and a few others (Harold B. Lee, Joseph Field Smith - as I recall). According to the elder's relative, one of the personages delivered the revelation to SWK (can't remember which one - most probably it was JS). Supposedly, this experience was conveyed to the quorum of the twelve who kept it secret - with the exception of certain administrative assistants of whom was this elder's relative (uncle, I believe).

For years, I believed that was how the revelation occurred. Then, one day about three years ago, I read an article in the Ensign that was written by Hinkley. The subject of the article was personal revelation; how to receive, etc. In that article, Hinkley stated that the method by which we can receive personal revelation was the same method by which SWK received the 1978 worthy members revelation. What did I just read? There were no personages in attendance delivering messages? Hinkley stated that the revelation came into President Kimball's mind as words and sentences - such is the nature of personal revelation - a process and blessing available to worthy members.

Of course, by now I had long forgotten the urban mission legend - yet, for years I had believed the legend of personages visiting SWK in the temple. In fact, I conveyed that story in many priesthood meetings during my days of activity.

Today, Coretta Scott King passed away. I think of her and the struggles that she endured with her husband and after her husband's untimely death. Perhaps, Martin and Coretta could have cared less about entering a mormon temple but, to think that a church had once told them they could not enter. Maybe, just maybe, Martin was on Spencer's mind that day in 1978 ....... I would like to think so.
topic image
Spencer W. Kimball, The Lds Church And Organic Evolution: Personal Correspondence With Mormonism's Prophet Of Fraud
Monday, Mar 6, 2006, at 07:25 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
Introduction: Faithful, Searching Inquiries to a Fraudulent, Slippery Church

While a BYU undergraduate student in the late 1970s, I decided to do a term paper on the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution. In the course of my research, I sent letters to President Spencer W. Kimball asking him to explain the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution. My grandfather and then-president of the Quorum of the Twelve, Ezra Taft Benson, strongly encouraged me in this effort and, in fact, helped facilitate my contact with Kimball.

During this time, I was an active, believing member of the Church. My letters to Kimball--written in the language of faith and obedience--reflected my unquestioning, indoctrinated devotion to Mormonism at that time in my life. Still, I had a keen interest in science. I was confident that Mormon prophets would be clear and forthcoming in explaining to me the truth of the physical and spiritual worlds. I was mistaken in that confidence.

What follows is the complete record of correspondence I had with LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball--including his replies and those of his office spokesman--on the subject of the official LDS position regarding the theory of organic evolution.
_____


First Letter to Kimball

On 16 November 1978, I sent a letter to Kimball, via Ezra Taft Benson, with the following attached cover letter to my grandfather:

November 16, 1978

President Ezra Taft Benson
777 East South Temple, Apt. #15D
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102

Dear Grandpa:

Enclosed is a xeroxed copy of the letter I would like to sent to President Kimball regarding the theory of organic evolution and the position of the Church concerning it. The actual letter is also enclosed in an envelope addressed to the Prophet. If possible, I would appreciate it if you could forward the letter to him.

I have spent several hours researching this question, including a good deal of time in consultation with Brother Reid Bankhead of the [BYU] Religion Department and Brothers Harold Miller, Hal Back, and Duane Jeffery, all of the Biology Department.

I have also taken your advice and sought the Lord for guidance on the matter.

The result of all this is a letter to President Kimball, which I feel addresses the issues with which I am concerned. I have attempted to present the material to the Prophet in as clear, concise, and fair manner as possible, while leaving to President Kimball the decision as to whether or not a response is appropriate or necessary.

If you feel so inclined, I would sincerely appreciate hearing your comments regarding the approach and contents of the letter.

Love,

[signed]

Stephen Reed

P.S. Keep up that good healing job on that leg of yours!” [He had recently broken his leg in a horse riding accident].

_____


My grandfather informed me that he thought the letter was appropriate and forwarded it on to Kimball. That letter from me to Kimball read as follows:

November 16, 1978

President Spencer W. Kimball
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear President Kimball:

I am currently a student at Brigham Young University and have been attempting for some time to resolve within my own mind an apparent problem regarding some of the teachings I receive here on campus. If possible and appropriate, I would greatly appreciate whatever insight you might feel to give.

During the course of my religious instruction, I have been taught that the theory of organic evolution (in which, science claims that man has developed to his present physical state through natural processes originating in a common and lower form of life and extending over millions of years) is neither compatible with the fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ, nor with statements made by the General Authorities of the Church, especially those of the First Presidency body.

In support of such instruction, I have frequently been referred to a formal pronouncement, entitled “The Origin of Man,” released in November, 1909, by the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon L. Lund). At the time this statement was issued, the First Presidency declared it to be “the position held by the Church,” and I have been told that, since then, there has been no change in the Church’s stand. Essentially, the First Presidency stated that a belief in the development of man’s physical body from a lower form of animal creation was a theory of man only, and that, because the Lord had declared Adam to be “the first man of all men,” the First Presidency was duty bound to regard him “as the primal parent of our race.”

Knowledge of this pronouncement notwithstanding, I have also been taught by other professors–whose sincerity and conviction I have no reason to question–that the Church, in fact, has not made an official statement on the subject of organic evolution. These instructors tell me that the First Presidency regards organic evolution as a scientific theory that is subject to and undergoing periodic modification. With scientists themselves differing in their interpretations and views of the theory, it is claimed that the First Presidency believes the wisest course to be [is] in suspending judgment until either the Lord speaks directly on the matter, or until scientists are able to arrive at an ultimate understanding of the truth.

In support of this analysis, my science professors have referred me to an editorial found in the April, 1910, issue of the Improvement Era. The President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, and Edward H. Anderson were the editors at that time. In answer to the question of several priesthood quorums regarding how the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve came into existence, the editors stated that these inquiries had not been “fully answered in the revealed word of God.” Specific mention was made of three possibilities to account for the existence of the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve: (1) The human body had evolved through natural processes under God’s direction and power (2) Adam and Eve’s bodies had been transplanted in an immortal state from another sphere to this earth, where they subsequently became corrupted through sin and the consumption of natural foods (3) Adam and Eve were actually born on this earth, in the same way that all human beings enter mortality. The editors noted that the Lord had not yet shed full light on the truthfulness of such explanations.

These science professors also referred me to an address by you, President Kimball, in the March, 1976, Ensign, entitled ‘Speaking Today,’ where you are quoted as saying, ‘We don’t know exactly how their [Adam and Eve’s] coming into this world happened, and when we’re able to understand it, the Lord will tell us.’ Such reference is used by some to imply that the First Presidency has not taken an official position on the theory of organic evolution.

Here, then, is what seems to me to be a perplexing situation: On the one hand, some BYU professors claim that the Lord has indeed spoken directly to his prophets concerning the theory of organic evolution and that this revelation has been reflected in a statement by the First Presidency they consider to be an unequivocal denunciation of the theory as false. On the other hand, some instructors on campus assure me that the Church has not taken an official stand, either for or against, organic evolution, where the term is defined as the ascension of all living things, including man, from a common and lower form of life and involving natural processes that have taken millions of years to occur.

It is not my desire to create disharmony or to undermine faith and testimony by claiming that leading authorities of the Church have made statements which conflict with each other. I sincerely believe that, under the proper guidance, these statements can be reconciled and interpreted in the true spirit in which they were given. I do not believe that the Lord speaks in contradictory terms when instructing His children.

I fully support the leaders of this Church as the rightfully ordained mouthpieces of God and desire to follow their counsel. As I search for truth in my academic and religious pursuits I look to the scriptures, the Holy Ghost, and the living prophets for guidance in interpreting the truthfulness of what is taught me. After much thought and meditation, I feel comfortable in approaching you with this subject. If it be pleasing to the Lord, I would be grateful if you could offer some further insight regarding the matters outlined in this letter.

May the Lord’s blessings be with you always.

Sincerely, your brother,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
824 East 560 North
Provo, Utah 84601

_____


First Response from Kimball

Kimball replied to my letter roughly five weeks later, as follows:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City Utah 84150

Spencer W. Kimball, President

January 26, 1979

Mr. Stephen R. Benson
824 East 560 North
Provo, Utah 84601

Dear Brother Benson:

In your letter of November 16, you partially quote a statement by the First Presidency of the Church in your third paragraph.

I am not familiar with that particular quote and wonder I you could give me the reference where it can be found. I will await your reply.

With kind wishes.

Faithfully yours,

[signed]

Spencer W. Kimball
(President}

[P.S. in Kimball’s handwriting]: Please quote it

_____


Second Letter to Kimball

I wrote back a week later:

February 2, 1979

President Spencer W. Kimball
47 East South Temple Street, #102
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear President Kimball:

Thank you for your letter of January 26th. As you requested, the source from which I selectively quoted the First Presidency in the third paragraph of my letter is cited below. A copy of the complete text, entitled, ‘The Origin of Man,’ and published in the Improvement Era, Vol. 13, 1910 [sic, 1909 was the actual year], pp. 75-81, is also enclosed for your reference. The following portion from that article represents what is often quoted as the Church’s official stand against organic evolution:

‘Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this important subject will be timely and productive of good . . . (p. 75)

‘It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon the earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father.

‘True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.’ (p. 80)

If it may be of some benefit, I have also quoted in more detail a few additional statements attributed to the Prophet and/or the First Presidency, with appropriate sources. These statements were alluded to in my original letter.

Instructors at BYU who maintain that even the First Presidency statement of November, 1909, (just cited) does not constitute an official denunciation of the theory of organic evolution have referred me to a priesthood quorums’ table dealing with the origin of man, published in the Improvement Era, Vol. 13, 1910, p. 570. The complete text, edited by President Joseph F. Smith and Elder Edward H. Anderson, is enclosed with this letter. Below, however, are some extracted highlights:

‘”In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?” This question comes from several High Priests’ quorums . . . .

‘Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.’

This article then concludes by referring the reader ‘for helpful suggestions’ to the statement by the First Presidency in 1909, entitled ‘Origin of Man.’

Those who view the above priesthood quorum article as an attempt by the Church to remain essentially non-committed on the question of organic evolution also point to a letter signed by Elder Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency, dated May 3, 1960, and addressed to BYU Professor of Geology, Harold J. Bissell. A copy of what is said to be the original letter is enclosed for your examination. The following is an excerpt from that letter:

‘In your [Professor Bissell’s] letter you ask for a statement from the First Presidency that you might read to honest, inquiring students regarding the question of “organic evolution” . . .

‘The Brethren feel very sure that serious reflection on the matter will persuade you of the problems and resulting difficulties that would come to the First Presidency from any announcement that they might make on this matter of “organic evolution” . . . They feel sure that you will also appreciate that the problem as it now exists under the theories of present scientists might well not be the problems that will exist 50 or 100 years from now any more than an explanation made to meet the theories of 100 years ago would met the problems of today . . .

‘We seem to be in an age of such great and fundamental scientific readjustments on many matters, which age we have come to speak of as the nuclear age, that to attempt to harmonize the spiritual truths of the Gospel with the scientific theories would be futile, not because spiritual truths are not truths, because they are, but because the theories are admittedly largely hypothetical and subject to change.’

Elder Anderson then refers Professor Bissell to the statement by the First Presidency–at that time President Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund–which Elder Anderson identifies as ‘the position of the Church as of that time,’ from which ‘there has been no change.’

Despite this further reference to the 1909 First Presidency statement, certain BYU instructors continue to sincerely question whether the position of the Church is a definite one, especially in light of another letter, said to have been written by President David O. McKay to Dr. A. Kent Christensen of the Cornell University Medical College, on February 3, 1959. A copy of what is claimed to be the original letter is enclosed for your reference. The following are a few highlights:

‘The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of organic evolution . . .

‘While scientific people themselves differ in their interpretations and views of the theory, any conflicts which may seem to exist between the theory and the truths of revealed religion can well be dealt with by suspending judgment as long as may be necessary to arrive at facts and at a complete understanding of the truth.’

Finally, an additional letter is cited, dated February 25, 1959, written to Dr. Armin J. Hill, Dean of the College of Physical and Engineering Sciences at BYU, and signed by Elder Joseph Anderson. A copy of the text of the letter, which is admitted not to be from the original, is enclosed. Below is a short excerpt:

‘I am directed to say to you that, as you will perceive on a little reflection, until either the Lord speaks directly upon the mater [of the earth, its age, creation, etc.] or until the scientists are able to say they have the ultimate truth covering these matters, it would only be confusing for the First Presidency to make any statement regarding such things.’

All of these quotes are but a few of many cited by BYU instructors in an effort to prove to inquiring students their claims that either the Church has denounced organic evolution as a false theory or has remained relatively neutral on the subject. Whether or not the letters mentioned above are authentic or were even meant for general consumption, I had little way of knowing when obtaining them. They were simply given to me by a BYU instructor who claims they support his contention that the Church has taken no official stand on the theory of organic evolution.

As a student striving to increase my knowledge, I am somewhat confused and concerned by the antagonism that often seems to arise among instructors themselves and with students when this topic is discussed. In all sincerity, I do not wish to put words in the mouth of the Lord’s prophets, by proclaiming to others what I may think is the Church’s official position regarding organic evolution–whether it be one of opposition or of neutrality. My real desire is to know the truth. If it be the Lord’s will, I would be very grateful to receive some illumination from His prophet. If the truth is not yet to come, according to the Lord’s own timetable, I will wait for the day when I am ready to receive it.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
824 East 560 North
Provo, Utah 84601

_____


Second Response from Kimball

Kimball did not answer back for nearly four months. When he did, he replied as follows:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

Spencer W. Kimball, President

May 24, 1979

Mr. Stephen R. Benson
824 East 560 North
Provo, Utah 84601

Dear Stephen:

I have been a long time in answering your letter of February 2, 1979, pertaining to the life of man.

I am wondering if you have ever read the book of Henry Eyring, ‘The Faith of the Scientist.’ Undoubtedly this book will be found in the library at BYU.

I would be glad to hear from you concerning this matter.

With our kindest wishes,

Faithfully yours,

[signed]

Spencer W. Kimball
President

_____


Third Letter to Kimball

Kimball then took ill and was hospitalized, so I postponed replying for two months:

July 24, 1979

President Spencer W. Kimball
47 East South Temple Street, #102
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

Dear President Kimball:

I am very happy to hear that you have been released from the hospital and are resting comfortably. My prayers have been with you, as have those of Church members everywhere. May the Lord continue to bless and preserve you as you fulfill your responsibilities in His Kingdom.

Thank you for your letter of May 24 in response to my inquiries regarding the official Church position on organic evolution. As you may recall, you recommended that I read Dr. Henry Eyring’s book, The Faith of a Scientist. Fortunately, my grandfather had given me a copy some years earlier; therefore, I took your advice, eagerly read it again, and have since referred to it frequently.

In your letter, you indicated your interest in hearing my opinion concerning his writings. I am glad to be able to explain my feelings in this regard and will do so briefly.

I was very impressed with Dr. Eyring’s thoughtful and penetrating insights concerning the reconciliation of what some see as contradictory principles of science and religion. He expressed his belief that true science and true religion are dedicated to the same goal–that of honestly and eternally seeking knowledge of all things, in earth and in the heavens.

With the purpose of science and religion in their proper perspective, Dr. Eyring claimed that both disciplines are actually of service to each other. Both are guided by the spirit of inquiry, of reaching out for truth. Thus, science serves to strengthen religion, as Dr. Eyring says, by ‘assisting in sifting the grain of truth from the chaff of imagined fable.’ Likewise, religion–with its great fundamental principle of eternal progression made possible by the Savior’s atonement–provides impetus to science to constantly seek for truth.

Of particular concern to me in my science and religion classes at Brigham Young University was the often-heard claim that if I would but interpret the scriptures correctly, I would find no justification for even considering that God may have used organic evolution as the tool for creating the earth and all life upon it, including, perhaps, the physical body of man. The scriptures, I was told, clearly spoke of an earth only 6,000 years old and of no physical death before the fall of Adam. Yet, the scientific data seemed to indicate overwhelmingly that the earth was, in fact, millions of years old and that examination of rock strata revealed life and death processes had been occurring long before Adam’s earthly advent. Moreover, ancient fossil records seemed to indicate that life had advanced from simple to complex forms over eons of time and that man’s physical body was a product of this evolutionary ladder. How, I thought, could these discoveries be explained in light of the scriptural account of creation? Surely God would not have placed age-old fossils in the earth to deceive us.

Reading Dr. Eyring’s philosophy concerning such questions was of great help to me in reconciling these apparent contradictions. Scripture, he said–whether written or spoken–should be accepted for what it is–a divine message of inspiration and hope to struggling humanity. It records God’s dealings with His prophets and is ‘as accurate as He, in His wisdom, requires.’ This last observation by Dr. Eyring led me to wonder, ‘How scientifically accurate is the creation story, as recorded in Genesis and Moses?’ I then recalled an addressed you delivered to the Relief Society General Conference in October 1975 (reprinted in the March 1976 Ensign). In it, you declared that God had indeed created man in His image. You then added that ‘the story of the rib, of course, is figurative.’ (p. 71) Concerning the processes by which Adam and Eve came into the world, you said, ‘We don’t know exactly . . . and when we’re able to understand it the Lord will tell us.’ (p. 72)

As I reflected on your words and the words of Dr. Eyring, a common message seemed to emerge: Questions involving pre-Adamic men and organic evolution are interesting and important, but the truthfulness of the Gospel does not hinge on them. At present, they seem to be a source of contradiction between religion and science; yet, such differences will always exist as long as man’s understanding remains incomplete. Therefore, I need not worry about discovering the ultimate answers immediately, since the Church is dedicated to discovering truth, wherever its source–whether it be in the scriptures, astronomy, or in the rock strata of the earth. Only as I come closer to understanding the mind of God will these apparent conflicts disappear. To expand my knowledge of such things is, in fact, part of my eternal progression and will continue in the life to come. In the meantime, I must continue to search for a balanced, truthful view of these questions, by weighing all the evidence carefully. Moreover, I must concentrate on obeying the fundamental principles of the Gospel that bring exaltation. If I do this, then some day I will know. In light of these conclusions, it appears as if the Church is refraining, at least for the time being, from adopting an official position either for or against the theory of organic evolution.

These have been my impressions on the matter. It is very significant to me that, in answering my inquiries concerning the official position of the Church on organic evolution, the living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator saw fit to direct me to Dr. Eyring’s book. I hope I have interpreted Dr. Eyring’s words correctly and in the spirit in which you recommended them to me.

I am in the final stages of organizing a paper concerning the questions addressed herein. The paper meets the requirements for both a religion and biology class. I am attempting to have it finished, if at all possible, prior to my graduation from Brigham Young University on August 17 of this year. Could I, with your permission, refer in this paper to the correspondence you have sent me? I sincerely believe it would provide great insight into a proper understanding of these questions. I would be happy to send you a copy of this paper, if you wish.

Thank you for your time and wise advice. I have benefited much from your counsel.

May the Lord continue to watch over you.

Sincerely, your brother,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
1543 South 320 West
Orem, Utah 84057

_____


Phone Call to Kimball’s Office

Over a month passed, with no response from Kimball.

My grandfather suggested that if a written reply from Kimball seemed improbable or delayed, that I should call Kimball’s office and talk to his personal secretary, Arthur Haycock. My grandfather indicated that Haycock might be able to make an authoritative decision concerning my request. Since Kimball was, at the time, recuperating from a bout with dizzy spells and had recently been treated and released from the hospital, I took my grandfather’s advice.

On 28 August 1979, at 4:30 p.m., I telephoned Kimball’s office in Salt Lake’s Church Administration Building, from BYU's Harold B. Lee Library in Provo.

I placed the call seeking permission to include in my research paper on the Church’s official position regarding organic evolution the correspondence Kimball had sent me concerning the matter. The letters in question were those from him dated 26 January 1979 and 24 May 1979.

After several unsuccessful attempts to reach Haycock, I asked his office to, if possible, have him return my call. I left word that I could be reached at the Lee Library, where I was doing research for my paper in the Special Collection Archives. Haycock returned my call and we made contact.

I explained to Haycock that I had previously written Kimball regarding the official position of the Church on organic evolution and had received responses from him which were in reply to my questions. Haycock told me he has seen my letters to Kimball.

Haycock then inquired into the reason why I writing the research paper. I informed him that it constituted a project designed to meet the requirements for a religion and biology class at BYU.

Haycock asked if I was planning to make it clear in my paper that I was expressing my own opinions and conclusions regarding the Church’s official position on the question of organic evolution. I answered that such was my intent. Haycock replied, ‘You know that President Kimball’s [24 May 1979] letter was non-committal.’

Haycock then asked me to read to him the letters I had received from Kimball which I desired to include in the paper as source material. I replied that I did not have the letters in front of me, although I could recite, nearly verbatim, the contents of the 24 May letter (which was not difficult to do, since it was so brief). Haycock said that recitation of the letter from memory would be sufficient.

I repeated the words of the 24 May letter as closely as I could remember them, essentially telling Haycock that Kimball had asked me if I had ever read Eyring’s book, The Faith of a Scientist, and that he would be interested in hearing my feelings concerning its contents.

I did not recite the 26 January letter from Kimball, since in it Kimball had simply informed me that he was not familiar with the November 1909 First Presidency statement, "The Origin of Man," which I had partially quoted to him in earlier correspondence, and concerning which he asked me to send him the full text. Furthermore, Kimball’s letter of 26 January clearly implied that a more definitive answer would be forthcoming in later correspondence from him, given that he told me that he would await my reply to his request. At any rate, Haycock did not seem to think that the 26 January letter was of great significance, since he had informed me that Kimball’s letter of 24 May was the one of concern.

After listening to me describe the contents of the 24 May letter, Haycock asked if my research paper would be strengthened by the inclusion, verbatim, of Kimball’s correspondence. As Haycock put it, would it be best to “take a picture of it,” or would it suffice to simply mention Kimball’s letter in the paper? I replied that making a photocopy of the 24 May letter and including it in an appendix would be the ideal course and would add strength to the paper. Haycock responded that, in such case, there would be no objection to me doing so, as long as I made it clear that the conclusions reached were my own.

Our conversation was cordial and Haycock thanked me for having called.
_____


Fourth Letter to Kimball

I still wasn’t satisfied, however. I was hoping for a more definitive answer from Kimball and still believed it was possible to get one. So, my professors granted me an extension past my graduation to continue searching for more answers and working on the paper, which I did for several more months.

During that time, I had many private conversations with my grandfather about the Church’s official position on the theory of organic evolution. (His private views on the subject, by the way, were often more moderate in both tone and substance than those he expressed in public).

I also had an extended, face-to-face conversation with Bruce R. McConkie at McConkie’s home on the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution.

While both my grandfather and McConkie had significant theological problems with organic evolution, McConkie’s were more radical in their opposition than were my grandfather’s.

Armed with notes from my discussions with both men, I again wrote to Kimball:

July 20, 1980

President Spencer W. Kimball
47 East South Temple, #102
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear President Kimball:

Given your responsibilities of a much more important nature, you have been extraordinarily gracious in the past in taking time to correspond with me regarding the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. For your thoughtfulness and concern I am sincerely appreciative.

I am therefore somewhat hesitant in again approaching you on this subject, for fear that I will unnecessarily divert you away from more pressing duties. I am also a bit anxious that you may perceive me to be ‘bogged down’ with matters not pertinent to the essential doctrines of salvation. Nevertheless, I hope that you can understand that the topic addressed herein is of sufficient concern to me that I would be truly indebted if you would indulge me this one last time.

Recently, I had the distinct pleasure of discussing at length with two members of the Quorum of the Twelve some questions I have concerning the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. [The two were Ezra Taft Benson and Bruce R. McConkie]. Since I do not wish to appear to be pitting these brethren against each other–both of whom I wholeheartedly sustain in their divine callings–perhaps a discretionary course would be to refrain from mentioning names.

Both of these brethren told me that the Church has, at least ostensibly, adopted a ‘middle-of-the-road’ approach in regard to its official stand on the theory of organic evolution, although both had their own opinions as to why the Church had chosen this position. Moreover, both do not expect the Church to issue any official statement on the theory of organic evolution in the foreseeable future. Both also share a personal belief, with one Apostle [McConkie] appearing more completely wedded to the idea than the other [Benson], that the theory of organic evolution is completely inharmonious with revealed scripture, particularly as related to the fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ. In addition, both indicated to me that you are decidedly not neutral in your personal assessment of the theory, but share a belief akin to their own.

One Apostle [McConkie] maintains that unless scientists someday discover there was no death before the fall of Adam, they will be unable to bring to light any new scientific evidence which will harmonize the theory of organic evolution with the revealed word of God. The Apostle, in fact, is convinced that the Church has clearly taken at least a doctrinal stand against the theory of organic evolution, that this stand is unquestionably found in the scriptures, and that the Church therefore need not issue an official statement on the matter, since the official position of the Church is readily available in the scriptures for those who truly seek to know it. He emphasized in this regard that the Church is not required to submit to its membership for a vote any proposed position on the theory of organic evolution in order for an official stand to be taken. That stand, he said, has already been taken by the revealed scriptures.

He [McConkie] also told me that attempts by Church members to obtain authoritative statements from the President of the Church on the theory of organic evolution will not solve the problem, since Church presidents can differ–and actually have differed–on certain doctrinal questions and, at times, have even contradicted themselves. (As evidence of this, he mentioned President Brigham Young, saying that ‘you can quote Brigham Young against Brigham Young.’ He also noted that President Young’s belief in the Adam-God theory has been denounced by subsequent Church presidents, including yourself).

Furthermore, the Apostle [McConkie] told me that, in his opinion, if a President of the Church contradicted what he (the Apostle) believed to be the doctrinal stand of the Church against the theory of organic evolution as found in the scriptures, the President would be wrong. For instance, when I mentioned to him that President McKay, in speaking to BYU students, referred to organic evolution as a ‘beautiful theory of the creation of the world,’ he [McConkie] told me that again, in his opinion, if President McKay meant what he said, his words were inharmonious with scripture on the subject, and therefore President McKay was ‘uninspired.’ (President McKay’s address, entitled, ‘A Message for LDS Youth,’ was delivered at BYU on 10 October 1953 and printed in BYU Extension Publications; see pp. 6-7, in particular)

The reason he [McConkie] said, for the absence of an official statement by the Church on the theory of organic evolution is not because the Church has allegedly adopted a neutral position, but because the Church sees wisdom at this time in restraint–in imparting, as Alma said, ‘only according to the portion of [the Lord’s] word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.’

The current desire of the Church, maintains the Apostle [McConkie], is not to drive out of its ranks those members who, because of their weak faith, believe in the false theory of organic evolution; rather, he sees the Church, to use his words, as simply ‘temporizing’ the weaker elements of its membership, much as the Apostles of the primitive Church attempted to avoid alienating recent Gentile converts who still falsely believed that circumcision was essential to salvation.

He [McConkie] also suggests that perhaps the Church, by refraining from making any official pronouncement on the theory of organic evolution, is allowing the wheat and the tares (i.e., those who put their complete faith in the truths of revealed religion vs. those who believe the false scientific religion of organic evolution) to grow up together until the time of the harvest, when the tares will be bundled and burned and the wheat gathered into the barn and saved.

The second Apostle [Benson] with whom I discussed this matter seemed to me to take a somewhat more moderate approach. While he, too, personally finds much of the theory of organic evolution to be incompatible with revealed scripture, he acknowledges that there is evidence on both sides of the question–in scripture and science. Moreover, he notes that there are some things about which we as a Church do not yet completely understand. The Lord, he says, may not have yet revealed enough on the theory of organic evolution to create unanimity among the Brethren. He also observes that all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. He sincerely hopes that the Lord will see fit to reveal at some future date the full answer on the theory of organic evolution; in the meantime, however, he feels that organic evolution should be taught as what it is and nothing more–a theory. In particular, he is concerned that teachers of science in Church educational institutions may present the theory to their students as an immutable fact and, in doing so, undermine the faith and testimony of young people in the revealed word of God. This, he says, is, of course, ‘not pleasing to the Lord.’ If the theory of organic evolution is to be taught at all in Church schools, this Apostle [Benson] believes that such instruction should be accompanied by the solemn testimony of the science teacher regarding the truths of the restored Gospel.

On these last points, this Apostle [Benson] appears to be advocating an approach to education of LDS youth that was strongly encouraged by President McKay. Permit me, if you will, to again quote from the same BYU address mentioned earlier. President McKay told his student and faculty audience:

‘There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On these thoughts, science again leads the student up to a certain point and sometimes lead him with his soul unanchored. Millikan is right when he says, ‘Science without religion obviously may became a curse rather than a blessing to mankind.’ But, science dominated by the spirit of religion is the key [to] progress and the hope of the future. Evolution’s beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will infest the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought. Even the skeptic teacher should be fair enough to see that even Charles Darwin, when he faced this great question of annihilation, that the creation is dominated only by chance, wrote: “It is an intolerable thought that man and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long, continued slow progress” . . . The public school teacher will probably, even if he says that much . . . go no farther. In the Church school the teacher is unhampered. In the Brigham Young University and every other Church school, the teacher can say that God is at the helm.’

The approach of the second Apostle [Benson] also seems quite similar to that of President McKay in at least one more respect. During his administration, President McKay deliberately avoided issuing any official Church statement either condemning or supporting the theory of organic evolution; instead, he seemed content to describe it only as a theory and leave it at that. Forgive me for again quoting, but the attitude of President McKay on the subject seems to closely reflect the thoughts of this latter Apostle [Benson], and therefore may be of some interest to you. In a letter dated 3 February 1960 to Dr. A. Kent Christensen of Cornell University’s Medical College, President McKay wrote:

‘The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of
evolution . . . .

‘Evolution is a theory. You say that biologists would agree on the general lines of what happened, although there may be less agreement about just how it happened. While scientific people themselves differ in their interpretations and views of the theory, any conflicts which may seem to exist between the theory and the truths of revealed religion can well be dealt with by suspending judgment as long as may be necessary to arrive at facts and at a complete understanding of the truth.’

Similarly, in a letter dated 3 May 1960 and signed by Elder Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency during President McKay’s administration, Professor Harold J. Bissell of the BYU Geology Department was told:

‘The Brethren feel very sure that serious reflection on the matter will persuade you of the problems and resulting difficulties that would come to the First Presidency from any announcement that they might make on this matter of ‘organic evolution.’ You will appreciate that any statement they might make on this subject would be presumed to meet the problem as it is now understood by the scientists and the people. They feel sure that you will also appreciate that the problem as it now exists under the theories of present scientists might well not be the problems that will exist 50 or 100 years from now any more than that an explanation made to meet the theories of 100 years ago would meet the problems of today. As the Brethren understand, science must never accept any alleged solution of the problems of science (and they are many and in different fields), as the final truth . . . We seem to be in an age of such great and fundamental scientific readjustments on many matters, which age we have come to speak of as the nuclear age, that to attempt to harmonize the spiritual truths of the Gospel with the scientific theories would be futile, not because spiritual truths are not truths, because they are, but because the theories are admittedly largely hypothetical and subject to change. The Brethren sometimes say that this harmonizing of which so much is sometimes said should be harmonizing of science with spiritual truth, and not the harmonizing of spiritual truth with science, which latter can be accepted only when science comes to the ultimate truth, and nobody knows when that will be.’

(If it may be of some assistance, complete photocopied texts of the above letters were provided in my earlier letter to you, dated 2 February 1979).

I am acutely aware that in quoting Church authorities I have perhaps adopted the approach which the first Apostle [McConkie] said would not lead me to the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. Moreover, I realize that President McKay’s insights were provided specifically for the people of his day and therefore his words may not apply to people living at the present time. Yet, I feel compelled to mention them because they seem so strikingly similar to the views of the second Apostle [Benson] with whom I spoke. If I have correctly interpreted the words of this latter Apostle, the clear implication, at least to me, seems to be that because the Church has issued no official position statement on the theory of organic evolution and because it has not, to my knowledge, referred the Church membership to the scriptures for an official doctrinal answer as to what that position is or is not, the Lord apparently has not yet seen fit to reveal it to His Church. Hence, again in my opinion, the Church seems to be leaving the matter open for the time being, until the Lord judges the membership ready to receive further light and knowledge, according to their faith.

If I have been accurate in this interpretation, then it appears to me that, notwithstanding their common skepticism of the theory of organic evolution in general, the views of the two Apostles, at least on this point, are at odds. One Apostle [McConkie] tells me that the Church has definitely taken a doctrinal stand, as recorded in the scriptures, against the theory of organic evolution, and that this is therefore the official position of the Church. On the other hand, the second Apostle [Benson] suggests that the Lord may not have yet defined for His Church a final position on the theory, doctrinal or otherwise, and that therefore the question remains open.

May I emphasize, however, that this seeming divergence of views between the two brethren does not, by any means, diminish my faith or testimony in their divine callings as prophets, seers and revelators. It simply appears to me that on this question they may well entertain somewhat differing opinions, which I certainly accept as their individual right to do.

Nonetheless, neither view seems to be leading me to a clear and proper understanding of what, in actuality, is the official position of the Church at this time concerning the theory of organic evolution. Both Apostles told me what they personally considered to be the official position of the Church and the reasons behind that position, but neither pretended to be speaking for the Church in an official capacity on this subject. I therefore feel it necessary to approach you, President Kimball, for the insight which I believe only you can give as the Lord’s living mouthpiece for His Church. Without reservation, I sustain you as the sole earthly spokesman for the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, through whom is made known the will of Heaven for all people living in this day and age. I honestly and sincerely have the faith to accept whatever enlightenment you may feel impressed to give me, even if you were to tell me that my conclusions up to this point have been completely wrong. If indeed such is the case, I would like to know where and how I should correct my thinking.

These matters have become of genuine concern to me as I search for truth in the world provided by a loving Creator. I have always enjoyed a keen interest in the biological and earth sciences, and I would be less than candid if I did not tell you that the theory of organic evolution, in its scientific attempts to explain the wonders of nature, has opened up to me new areas of fascinating and adventurous study.

However, I still regard organic evolution as a theory only, no matter how intriguing or even plausible it may seem, and am sincerely attempting not to become unnecessarily dogmatic in passing judgment on something about which I still know relatively little.

Yet, if the theory is, as some claim, patently false, devilish, and will most assuredly lead those who sympathize with or believe it away from Christ, I want nothing to do with it. If, on the other hand, the Lord has not seen fit to condemn it, I desire to now more about the theory, to see if perhaps it can provide me with a better understanding of man’s physical origins and of the world in which he lives.

My ultimate desire, though, is to know and do what is right, to be a builder of faith and testimony in the Creator, in His living prophets, and in His scriptures, not to be a destroyer or a cynic. I honestly hope that my studies in both religion and science will aid me in these efforts. I want to live the teachings of the Gospel, for I know that only through adherence to them, not through devotion to the theories of men, can I understand my relationship to my Father in Heaven and, as His son, someday become like He is, to experience the true joy and knowledge that comes only through obedience to His laws. If I achieve that goal, then I will have eternities to learn how the Lord made the physical world and perhaps have the opportunity to fashion a few worlds of my own.

Nevertheless, while many questions the Lord has not yet seen fit to fully answer, there are a few that, if answerable, would do much to clarify in my own mind a matter which, up to this point, has only confused me. As you see fit, I would greatly appreciate any enlightenment you could provide me concerning the following specifics:

1) Does the Church have an official position on the theory of organic evolution which has been explained to the Church membership?

2) If the Church does, in fact, have an official position on the theory of organic evolution, does it condemn the theory as false, support it as true, or leave the matter ‘open-ended’?

3) If the official position of the Church either condemns or supports the theory of organic evolution, what are the reasons behind that position?

4) If the Church has no official position on the theory of organic evolution, or if that position is officially ‘open-ended,’ am I to understand this to mean that the Church has also taken no doctrinal stand for or against the theory?

5) If the Church has issued no official statement on the theory, does this mean that the Church is merely ‘temporizing’ those members who, because of their weak faith, believe in the false theory of organic evolution?

6) Does the absence of an official position or statement on the theory of organic evolution indicate that the Lord has not yet seen fit to reveal to His Church the full answer as to the truth or falsity of the theory?

Thank you very much for your time and patience in enduring this letter. Reading it, no doubt, must have been a rather laborious undertaking.

May the Lord continue to bless and sustain you in your great work.

Sincerely, your brother,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
1677 Westwind Way
McClean, Virginia 22102

_____


Response from the Office of the First Presidency

In surprisingly short order, I received a response, albeit a puzzling one, from Francis M. Gibbons, Secretary to the First Presidency:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

August 1, 1980

Mr. Stephen R. Benson
1677 Westwind Way
McLean, Virginia 22101

Dear Brother Benson:

I have been asked to acknowledge your letter of July 20, 1980, to President Spencer W. Kimball and to inquire as a basis for responding to it whether you would have an objection if a copy of your letter, together with an answering letter, were to be sent to your bishop.

If you are agreeable to this, it will be appreciated if you will furnish his name and address.

President Kimball also asked me to extend his best wishes to you.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Francis M. Gibbons
Secretary to the First Presidency

_____


Letter to the Office of the First Presidency

I did not know what kind of answer my bishop would be receiving, but by this point, I was willing to accept almost anything. So I wrote back:

September 19, 1980

Elder Francis M. Gibbons
Secretary to the First Presidency
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
47 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear Elder Gibbons:

Thank you for acknowledging my letter of July 20, 1980, to President Spencer W. Kimball regarding the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution.

I would certainly have no objection if a copy of that letter together with an answering letter from President Kimball, were to be sent to my bishop. His name and address are listed below:

Bishop David L. Allen
447 West Sunset Circle
Mesa, Arizona 85201

Thank you again, and please extend my best wishes to the President.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
1455 North Alma School Road, #7
Mesa, Arizona 85201

_____


First Presidency Letter to My Bishop

A few days later, my bishop received the following letter:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

September 22, 1980

Bishop David L. Allen
Lehi 5th Ward
Mesa Arizona Lehi Stake
447 West Sunset Circle
Mesa, Arizona 85201

Dear Bishop Allen:

Enclosed is a copy of a recent letter from Brother Stephen R. Benson, who it is understood is a member of your ward.

As you will see, Brother Benson inquires about the attitude of the Church toward organic evolution. We shall appreciate it if you will contact Brother Benson and discuss this matter with him. To assist you in your discussion, we are enclosing herewith a copy of the statement issued by the First Presidency which appeared in the Improvement Era, Volume 13, pp. 75-81, on the subject of the origin of man.

Brother Benson has given permission for a copy of his letter to be sent to you.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency


So, after nearly two years of playing mail tag with Kimball, I was back to square one. The Kimball First Presidency had sent to my bishop, without guidance or explanation, the 1909 First Presidency statement–the same one that I had originally sent, at his request, to Kimball after he told me he wasn’t familiar with it.
_____


Fifth Letter to Kimball

When my bishop received the letter from the First Presidency, he didn’t know what to do. He told me he didn’t know enough about organic evolution to give me any advice and wasn’t sure on how to properly interpret the 1909 First Presidency statement that Kimball and Company had sent along to him to aid in his consultations with me.

So, he suggested I write Kimball one last time:

November 7, 1980

President Spencer W. Kimball
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple, #102
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear President Kimball:

Thank you for the First Presidency letter, sent through my bishop, regarding the attitude of the Church on organic evolution (22 September 1980, to Bishop David L. Allen, Lehi 5th Ward, Mesa Arizona Lehi Stake).

The following request for clarification of certain points in that letter is made on the recommendation of my bishop, with whom I discussed the letter at length. The bishop also recommended that this be my last inquiry (for which, no doubt, you are understandably grateful), and that I abide by whatever counsel you may see fit to give. This I am quite willing to do, knowing that your time is valuable and there are other topics of more importance to salvation that deserve our respective attentions. I will, therefore, be as brief and, yet, as specific as possible.

Thank you for enclosing in your reply a copy of the 1909 statement by President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors, entitled 'The Origin of Man.' I have read it often and believe it to contain many beautiful and eternal truths. Please do not interpret this as a spirit of boastfulness, but I have been aware of the 1909 statement for some time and, as you may recall, provided you with a copy of its complete text, as you requested, in February 1979.

Much of the discussion among Church members concerning the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution has centered on this very statement. Many divergent views have been expressed as to what allegedly is or is not the official Church position on the theory and to the connection between that position and the 1909 statement. Some members, for instance, claim that the 1909 statement definitely condemns organic evolution as false. Others say that it does not. Whatever claim is correct, such interpretations seem to be to be based largely on speculation.

Since the reply from the First Presidency to my bishop contained no explanation as to the proper interpretation to be applied to the 1909 statement, I remain, in all honesty, confused. Without an attendant explanation of how the 1909 declaration should be viewed, it is my feeling that it remains subject to the same kind of private and, perhaps, inaccurate interpretation that has often been the source of disagreement among Church members.

May I emphasize here that the above observations are mine alone and certainly may be subject to error. I do not wish to appear to be telling the First Presidency what to put in their letters or to be calling into question the wisdom of their replies. I simply feel that I have traveled ‘full circle,’ so to speak, without having obtained in my own mind a clear picture of the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution. Only for this reason have I sought additional insight.

My bishop has acknowledged that I appear to be in somewhat of a dilemma. In our discussion, he told me that, in his opinion, many topics, including organic evolution, are speculative in nature, due to an absence of complete revelation from the Lord and that, therefore, such topics can be argued for or against, depending on which side, and even on which scriptures, one chooses to base a particular viewpoint.

Nevertheless, the bishop emphasized that these represented only his personal opinions and, therefore, thought it would be of value for me to approach you this one last time. I must admit that I agree with him on taking this step. So many individuals, President Kimball, have told me their various, and often contradictory, versions of what supposedly is or is not the official Church position on organic evolution, each invoking their own scriptures and Church authorities, that my attempts to sift fact from fiction have, more often than not, led to frustration and disappointment.

Would it be proper, then, for me to ask candidly if the 1909 statement should be regarded as officially condemning the theory of organic evolution, as some Church members claim it does, or is there perhaps some other conclusion that might be drawn? I would not even be disappointed to learn that, as a Church, we simply do not yet know the answer to that question, if such be the case. (In posing these questions, I am assuming, based on the First Presidency’s letter to my bishop, that the 1909 statement remains the official position of the Church. Enclosed for your reference, however, are copies of statements made since 1909, by President Joseph F. Smith in 1910 and 1911 and by the Grant First Presidency in 1925, all of which deal with the Church view on evolution).

I sincerely want to avoid any inaccuracies in my conclusions and would very much appreciate clarification on these points, if and how you see fit.

Thank you for your indulgence. May the Lord continue to bless you in your work, and I hope your legs feel better.

Respectfully, your brother,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
1455 North Alma School Road, #7
Mesa, Arizona 85201

enc/srb


Kimball did not reply.
_____


Sixth(and Final) Letter to Kimball

I waited for three-and-a-half months for a reply. Hoping against hope that perhaps Kimball hadn’t answered because my letter had gotten lost in the mail, I sent him another copy of it with the following note:

February 24, 1981

President Spencer W. Kimball
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple, #102
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear President Kimball:

This inquiry is simply a follow-up to a letter mailed to you on November 7, 1980. Having received no response to that letter, I fear that perhaps it may have never reached your desk. If not, then this correspondence will serve as a substitute. If, in fact, you did receive it and have thought it best not to respond, please forgive me for sending yet another letter.

On September 22, 1980, the First Presidency kindly sent a letter to my bishop in response to my questions regarding the attitude of the Church on the theory of organic evolution (Bishop David L. Allen, Lehi 5th Ward, Mesa Arizona Lehi Stake).

Bishop Allen and I discussed the First Presidency's letter at length, and he recommended that I make the following request for clarification of certain points of that letter.

In response to my inquiries, the First Presidency sent to Bishop Allen a copy of the 1909 statement by President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors, entitled, "The Origin of Man." I have read it often and believe [it] to contain many beautiful and eternal truths. As you may recall, I provided you with a copy of its complete text, at your request, in February 1979.

Much of the discussion among Church members concerning the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution has centered on the precise meaning of the 1909 statement. Some members, for instance, claim that it clearly condemns organic evolution as false. Others say that it does not. Wherever the truth lies, such interpretations seem to me to be based largely on personal opinion.

Absent of official insight into how the 1909 statment should be viewed, it is my honest feeling that it will remain subject to the same kind of private and, perhaps, inaccurate interpretation that has often led to disagreement and confusion among inquiring Church members.

Please may I emphasize here that I do not wish to appear to be counseling the First Presidency as to what to include in their letters or to be calling into question the wisdom of their replies. From a personal standpoint, however, I simply feel that I have traveled "full circle," without having obtained in my own mind a clear picture of the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution. Only for this reason have I sought additional direction from the First Presidency.

My bishop has acknowledged what appears to be the dilemma of my situation. In our discussion of the First Presidency's letter, he told me that, in his opinion, organic evolution is still a speculative theory, about which the Lord has not yet seen fit to provide complete revelation. Therefore, my bishop concludes that the theory can be argued for or against, depending upon what evidence, including the scriptures, one chooses to base a particular viewpoint.

The bishop, however, reminded me that this was only his personal opinion and recommended that I approach you for final clarification. So many individuals, President Kimball, have offered me various and even contradictory versions of what they believe is or is not the official Church position on organic evolution. Many have invoked a mixture of the scriptures, statements from Church leaders, and scientific data to bolster their arguments. My attempts to sift through they offer as proff has often led to frustration and disappointment.

It is not my intent to "prove" or "disprove" the theory of organic evolution. Whether or not the theory is scientifically "proveable" is really not by concern. I only desire to know what the official position of the Church is on the matter. Would it be proper, then, for me to ask candidly if the 1909 statement should be regarded as an official denunciation of the theory of organic evolution, or is there perhaps some other conclusion that might be drawn? Whatever the answer may be, it certainly will not shake my testimony in the truthfulness of the restored gospel. Yet, some clarification of the 1909 statement would be very much appreciated, if it is your inclination to provide it.

Thank you for your indulgence. May the Lord continue to bless you in your work.

Respectfully, your brother,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson

2011 East Cornell
Tempe, Arizona 85283

P.S.--Enclosed for your reference are copies of statements made since 1909 by the President of the Church: President Joseph F. Smith in 1910 and 1911, and President Heber J. Grant, together with his counselors, in 1925, all of which deal with the Church view on evolution.

enc.
(original emphasis)

No reply.

Kimball died five years later.
_____


Conclusion: Lengthen Your Runaround

As a devout member of the Mormon Church at the time of my correspondence with Kimball, and as someone who was seeking direct answers to honest questions, I had tried every conceivable way to pry any light and knowledge out of Kimball on the LDS Church’s official position concerning the theory of organic evolution.

In the end, however, I found myself no further ahead than when the process had begun 27 months earlier. Despite my assurances to Kimball that none of this would lead to me questioning my faith in Mormonism, I admittedly came away beginning to wonder, “If the Church could not--or would not--give me honest answers to my inquiries on matters of science and faith, what else could I trust it to give me answers on?”

A few years later, with my faith completely shattered, I had my name removed from the membership shackles of the Mormon Cult.
topic image
"The Miracle Of Forgiveness" Revisited
Monday, May 1, 2006, at 07:11 AM
Original Author(s): Lightfingerlouie
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
Years ago, my daughter tossed her copy of Kimball's magnum opus in the closet, muttering that "I cannot believe a church that teaches this."

Her friend had given her the book. She tried to read it, and was horrified at the tone.

The book sat there for ten years.

I got it out yesterday, and decided to ask my wife if she remembered it. She had forgotten its contents.

I went to the "Cain as Bigfoot" section, and read that. She could not believe it, and had to read it for herself. She was stunned. This nonsense was published by a church leader?

Then, we visited the section on rape, and she read the part about how its better for a woman to die while being raped than to lay back and submit. This time, my wife became furious. She could not believe the book was even allowed in print.

It does make me wonder. I hated the book when I first read it 30 years ago. I was far from comforted. It made me feel there is no hope at all.

Looking back on it makes me realize it must qualify as the worst church book ever written. It is mean, cold hearted, unforgiving, and depressing. No rational person could believe God is as heartless as the book indicates he is.

My wife mentioned that most of the book's scriptures she looked at came from the "Old Testament." She wondered why Kimball chose those when "Christ was supposed to give a new law, a new gospel." That is what we were taught. I guess Kimball was there to set us straight.

I can well imagine how someone tormented by guilt for an offense would read the book, and just give up. How could you feel any hope at all? What a huge rift Kimball created. The distance between the average person's idea of Christ, and the church's idea of Christ, is very wide indeed.

Oh rift, I cannot cross over you. I cannot even see the other side.
topic image
Hail To The Prophet - Top 10 Quotes From Spencer W. Kimball
Monday, Dec 11, 2006, at 06:31 AM
Original Author(s): Deconstructor
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
FIRST, the LDS Church's prophet "guarantee" and promise:
"Nothing man-made or man-controlled can ever be truly guaranteed! But here's the miracle. The Lord has given some marvelous guarantees without any disclaimers. And this is one of them: He will choose the prophet, and He will never let that man lead us astray. Imagine for a moment the impact of that promise. There is at least one place we can turn for pure, unpolluted guidance."

"Our prophets are men whom the Lord has raised up specifically to preside over the Church for the particular time in which they have served. The Lord is working through the leaders of His Church today, just as He has always done in the past."

"Do we fully appreciate what a wondrous blessing it is to each one of us that we have found our prophet? The ways in which our lives have been enriched by listening to our prophet's voice are numerous. We have a clearer picture of who we are and what we mean to our Father in Heaven. We have received commandments and counsel to guide us, reminders to keep us on the straight and narrow, and encouraging words to spur us on when we become disheartened or discouraged. If we listen to the voices of the world, we will be misled. But if we listen to the voice of the Lord through His living prophet and follow his counsel, we will never go astray."
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/co...

NOW, Kimball's Top Ten Greatest Church-Published Quotes

I wonder how many of these great words of prophetic guidance made it into the new lesson manual dedicated to the Lord's mouthpiece-on-earth.

Come, listen to a prophet's voice, and hear the word of God:
"Sexual relations in marriage are not unrestrained. Even though sex can be an important and satisfactory part of married life, we must remember that life is not designed just for sex. Even marriage does not make proper certain extremes in sexual indulgence. To the Ephesian saints Paul begged for propriety in marriage: "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself." (Ephesians 5:28.) And the Lord's condemnation included secret sexual sins in marriage, when he said: "And those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God."
(DandC 132:52)"
"If it is unnatural, you just don't do it. That is all, and all the family life should be kept clean and worthy and on a very high plane. There are some people who have said that behind the bedroom doors anything goes. That is not true and the Lord would not condone it."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.311-12
"Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices. Husbands and wives who are aware of these requirements can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord."
"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church, January 5th, 1982, http://www.lds-mormon.com/worthy_lett...
"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality...."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "The Miracle of Forgiveness, Pages 77-79, 81-82.
"Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, [unwed] pregnancy, and abortions - all ugly sins - but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins. They awaken lust and stir evil thoughts and sex desires. They are but parts of the whole family of related sins and indiscretions. Almost like twins, 'petting' and fornication are alike."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 65 - popular book for Bishops to use when counseling members
"Immorality [petting, premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality and masturbation] brings generally a guilt deep and lasting. These guilt complexes are the stuff of which mental breakdowns come; they are the building blocks of suicide, the fabric of distorted personalities and the wounds that scar and decapitate individuals or families."
President Spencer W. Kimball, devotional speech to young adults in 1974, http://www.solotouch.com/res/art/art0...
"And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth." (Genesis 4:9-14.) That was true of murder. It is also true of illicit sex, which, of course, includes all petting, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and all other perversions. The Lord may say to offenders, as He did to Cain, "What hast thou done?" The children thus conceived make damning charges against you; the companions who have been frustrated and violated condemn you; the body that has been defiled cries out against you; the spirit which has been dwarfed convicts you. You will have difficulty throughout the ages in totally forgiving yourself."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965. Often-used quote still used today in LDS seminary classes.
"I do not find in the Bible the modern terms "petting" nor "homosexuality," yet I found numerous scriptures which forbade such acts under by whatever names they might be called. I could not find the term "homosexuality," but I did find numerous places where the Lord condemned such a practice with such vigor that even the death penalty was assessed."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965.
"If adultery or fornication justified the death penalty in the old days, and still in Christ's day, is the sin any less today because the laws of the land do not assess the death penalty for it? Is the act less grievous? There must be a washing, a purging, a changing of attitudes, a correcting of appraisals, a strengthening toward self-mastery. There must be many prayers, and volumes of tears. There must be an inner conviction giving to the sin its full diabolical weight. There must be increased devotion and much thought and study. And this takes energy and time and often is accompanied with sore embarrassment, heavy deprivations and deep trials, even if indeed one is not excommunicated from the Church, losing all spiritual blessings."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "The Miracle of Forgiveness, Page 155
"How like the mistletoe is immorality. The killer plant starts with a sticky sweet berry. Little indiscretions are the berries -- indiscretions like sex thoughts sex discussions, passionate kissing, pornography. The leaves and little twigs are masturbation and necking and such, growing with every exercise. The full-grown plant is petting and sex looseness. It confounds, frustrates, and destroys like the parasite if it is not cut out and destroyed, for, in time it robs the tree, bleeds its life, and leaves it barren and dry; and, strangely enough, the parasite dies with its host."
-Elder Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967.
"I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness."
- Elder Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, 1960
"Here he [God] has the Indian or Lamanite, with a background of twenty-five centuries of superstition, degradation, idolatry, and indolence.... I present to you a people who, according to prophecies, have been scattered and driven, defrauded and deprived, who are a "branch of the tree of Israel -- lost from its body -- wanderers in a strange land"--their own land.... I beg of you, do not disparage the Lamanite-Nephites ... Do not scoff and ignore these Nephite-Lamanites... Do not prate your power of speech or your fearlessness unless you too could stand with the Prophet Samuel on the city wall, dodging stones and spears and arrows while trying to preach the gospel of salvation. The very descendants of this great prophet are with us. They may be Navajos or Cherokees.... Mayas or Pimas.... Piutes or Mohicans.... And in these living descendants ... will be redeemed, will rise and will become a blessed people. God has said it."
- Elder Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1954, p.106-108
topic image
The Last Time I Saw A Copy Of "The Miracle Of Forgiveness."
Tuesday, Jul 31, 2007, at 07:45 AM
Original Author(s): Lightfingerlouie
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
Years ago, my daughter flirted with Mormonism. My wife and I were out, but she and some friends gave it a try. I said nothing, due to the fact she was old enough , and smart enough, to make up her own mind.

She got a copy of "The Miracle of Forgiveness" from her friend, and started to read it. I came home one day, and watched as she threw the book into the back of a storage closet. I asked why she was doing that. She said "That book is depressing and mean."

The book stayed in the closet for quite a long time---more than a few years. I finally saw it in the back of the closet a couple of years ago, and pulled it out.

I started to read it, and all the old feelings of horror came back---the same feelings I had on my mission, when I read the book, and felt a total sense of despair. Was this really what God is like?

I found the part about the old "Apostle," and his encounter with a huge, hairy black man, who, it turned out, had to be Cain. It was incredible that a man in the 20th century would include this stuff in a book.

I read the part about rape, and how a woman is probably better off being killed than allowing her rape to occur. What was Kimball thinking? Would he really wish that sentiment on someone he loved? It blew my mind-- yet again.

I met Kimball on my mission--in the early 70s, before he became Church President. He turned out to be rather kind, and unassuming. When he came in the room, and the missionaries stood up, he told us "Sit down, you do not need to stand up for me." He joked with us, and told J. Golden Kimball stories. It was a rather pleasant meeting, all considered.

I was puzzled. How could this guy, who seemed very nice, write such a dreadful and depressing book? Anyone who had "sinned" would read the book and either give up, or feel anger at the total lack of forgiveness.

At any rate, I think Kimball's book was one of the worst in the long, sad history of Mormon publishing. I am amazed its still available, still in print. I can't think of a single book which did more to discourage and depress people who, for various reasons, felt they needed hope.

My wife trashed my daughter's copy of the book after she saw it on the coffee table.
topic image
Spencer W. Kimball Predicting The Future Growth Of The Church
Thursday, Jan 1, 2009, at 05:29 PM
Original Author(s): Bender
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
A long time ago, when I was a Blazer, I remember being shown a video in church. The video was Spencer W. Kimball explaining the future of missionary work and the future of the growth of the church. In it he's standing in front of a large map of the world. He uses the map to illustrate how the church will grow. He explains that someday soon, missionaries will be allowed into Russia and Eastern Europe and even China.

The thing I remember most about the video is that he says when the church enters Russia and China, Latin America will not only become self-sufficient in missionaries, but they will began exporting missionaries to places like Africa. With Latin American missionares handling their own countries and Africa, this would free up North American missionaries to concentrate in Russia and China. I distincly remember this, because at the time my brother was serving a mission in South America just like my dad had. So I wanted to serve in South America. I was disappointed to learn in the video that soon Latin America would not need North American missionaries, and that I would probably have to serve in China or Russia.

Fast forward about ten years, the Soviet Union has fallen and missionaries are called to Russia and Eastern Europe, and I get my mission call to South America, Chile to be exact. The majority of the missionaries there, are North American like me. Latin Americans made up about 40% of the mission.

Fast forward another ten years to 2008 and majority of missionaries in Latin America are still North American. Latin America is still far from being self-sufficient in missionaries. LDS growth in Eastern Europe has been miniscule, and the small LDS branches in Russia will soon begin to disappear as no new North American missionaries are called there, and those that are there slowly leave.

So it looks like Kimball was speaking as a man when he made the video.

"...suppose that Mexico and Central America provided far more missionaries than they needed themselves and the people of South America had reached the point where they could export numerous fine missionaries and then suppose that the United States and Canada awakened to their real responsibility, sending thousands of missionaries to join them, going east and north so that Iceland, Scandinavia, southern Europe, Germany, and Europe could be covered.

"Great Britain, with seven missions and 14 stakes now but numerous others later, should join that army and all together the army of the west would move across western Europe and central Europe and Arab lands, and in a great pincer movement join their efforts with the missionary army from the east to bring the gospel to millions in China and India and other populous countries of the world. You will note the size of the men on the map which is intended to represent the relative population size–our problem in those areas.

"May we emphasize again that numbers are incidental and secondary to our main purpose..."

(Spencer W. Kimball, “‘When the World Will Be Converted’,” Ensign, Oct 1974, 3; From an address delivered at a Regional Representatives Seminar, Thursday, April 4, 1974)

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
topic image
In 1975 There Were 225,000 Potential Gods
Monday, May 2, 2011, at 07:24 AM
Original Author(s): Jod3:360
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
In 1975, Spencer W. Kimball stated in a general priesthood meeting:
“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.

“Just think of the possibilities, the potential. Every little boy that has just been born becomes an heir to this glorious, glorious program. When he is grown, he meets a lovely woman; they are married in the holy temple. They live all the commandments of the Lord. They keep themselves clean. And then they become sons of God, and they go forward with their great program–they go beyond the angels, beyond the angels and the gods that are waiting there. They go to their exaltation.”
Conference Report, Oct. 1975, p. 120; or Ensign, Nov. 1975, p. 80.

I'm not sure that we teach that.
topic image
Marry In The Temple Or Be Afraid... Be Very Afraid
Tuesday, Nov 15, 2011, at 09:00 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: SPENCER W. KIMBALL   -Link To MC Article-
The church tries to scare the young women. The Young Women's manual uses Spencer W. Kimball's story to make them afraid.

http://lds.org/manual/young-women-manual-2/lesson-15-temple-marriage?lang=eng

President Spencer W. Kimball told the following true story:
“A few years ago a young couple who lived in northern Utah came to Salt Lake City for their marriage. They did not want to bother with a temple marriage, or perhaps they did not feel worthy. At any rate, they had a civil marriage. After the marriage they got into their automobile and drove north to their home for a wedding reception. On their way home they had an accident, and when the wreckage was cleared, there was a dead man and a dead young woman. They had been married only an hour or two. Their marriage was ended. They thought they loved each other. They wanted to live together forever, but they did not live the commandments that would make that possible. So death came in and closed that career. They may have been good young people; I don’t know. But they will be angels in heaven if they are. They will not be gods and goddesses and priests and priestesses because they did not fulfill the commandments and do the things that were required at their hands.

“Sometimes we have people who say, ‘Oh, someday I will go to the temple. But I am not quite ready yet. And if I die, somebody can do the work for me in the temple.’ And that should be made very clear to all of us. The temples are for the living and for the dead only when the work could not have been done. Do you think that the Lord will be mocked and give to this young couple who ignored him, give them the blessings? The Lord said, ‘For all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.’ (DandC 132:7)”
In Conference Report, Japan Area Conference 1975, pp. 6162.

Mormon children are taught to follow the prophet. Should they follow Kimball? He got married in a regular wedding, then waited seven months before he went to the temple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_W._Kimball
"they married civilly on November 16, 1917 in Pima, Arizona. Seven months later, on June 7, 1918, the couple were sealed in a marriage ceremony in the Salt Lake Temple."
There is quite a lesson to be learned here. The young women might throw away their chance of being goddesses but Kimball did it and became a prophet.
 
mcimg
HOME
FAQ
CONTACT ME
332 TOPICS
THE EX-MORMON FORUMS
MORMON RESIGNATION
Google
Search The
Mormon Curtain





MormonCurtain

How to navigate:
  • Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
  • Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
  • Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
The Mormon Miracle Of Forgiveness Is No Forgiveness
Spencer W. Kimball : The Gospel Vision Of The Arts : An Exmo Perspective
Spencer W. Kimball - Women Should Wash Dishes, Cook Meals, Make Beds And Have Babies
Hear! Hear! Kimball Not Only Had No Special Prophetic Witness, He Had No Special Prophetic Knowledge
A Story About Spencer W. Kimball And The 1978 Priesthood Revelation
Spencer W. Kimball, The Lds Church And Organic Evolution: Personal Correspondence With Mormonism's Prophet Of Fraud
"The Miracle Of Forgiveness" Revisited
Hail To The Prophet - Top 10 Quotes From Spencer W. Kimball
The Last Time I Saw A Copy Of "The Miracle Of Forgiveness."
Spencer W. Kimball Predicting The Future Growth Of The Church
In 1975 There Were 225,000 Potential Gods
Marry In The Temple Or Be Afraid... Be Very Afraid
5,717 Articles In 332 Topics
TopicImage TOPIC INDEX (332 Topics)
TopicImage AUTHOR INDEX

  · ADAM GOD DOCTRINE (4)
  · APOLOGISTS (53)
  · ARTICLES OF FAITH (1)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD (31)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - PEOPLE (16)
  · BLACKS AND MORMONISM (12)
  · BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD (11)
  · BLOOD ATONEMENT (4)
  · BOB BENNETT (1)
  · BOB MCCUE (144)
  · BONNEVILLE COMMUNICATIONS (2)
  · BOOK OF ABRAHAM (50)
  · BOOK OF MORMON (66)
  · BOOK OF MORMON EVIDENCES (18)
  · BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY (24)
  · BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES (5)
  · BOOK REVIEW - ROUGH STONE ROLLING (28)
  · BOOKS - AUTHORS AND DESCRIPTIONS (12)
  · BOOKS - COMMENTS AND REVIEWS (44)
  · BOY SCOUTS (22)
  · BOYD K. PACKER (33)
  · BRIAN C. HALES (1)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG (24)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY (54)
  · BRUCE C. HAFEN (4)
  · BRUCE D. PORTER (1)
  · BRUCE R. MCCONKIE (10)
  · CALLINGS (11)
  · CATHOLIC CHURCH (5)
  · CHANGING DOCTRINE (12)
  · CHILDREN AND MORMONISM (48)
  · CHRIS BUTTARS (1)
  · CHURCH LEADERSHIP (3)
  · CHURCH PUBLISHED MAGAZINES (51)
  · CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS (10)
  · CHURCH VAULTS (4)
  · CITY CREEK CENTER (23)
  · CIVIL UNIONS (14)
  · CLEON SKOUSEN (3)
  · COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (2)
  · COMEDY (128)
  · CONCISE DICTIONARY OF MORMONISM (14)
  · D. MICHAEL QUINN (1)
  · D. TODD CHRISTOFFERSON (6)
  · DALLIN H. OAKS (101)
  · DANIEL C. PETERSON (88)
  · DANITES (4)
  · DAVID A. BEDNAR (23)
  · DAVID O. MCKAY (8)
  · DAVID R. STONE (1)
  · DAVID WHITMER (1)
  · DELBERT L. STAPLEY (1)
  · DESERET NEWS (3)
  · DIETER F. UCHTDORF (13)
  · DNA (23)
  · DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS (8)
  · DON JESSE (2)
  · ELAINE S. DALTON (5)
  · EMMA SMITH (5)
  · ENSIGN PEAK (1)
  · ERICH W. KOPISCHKE (1)
  · EX-MORMON FOUNDATION (33)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 1 (35)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 10 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 19 (26)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 22 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 23 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 24 (28)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 3 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 4 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 5 (23)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 6 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 8 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 9 (26)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 1 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 10 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 19 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 22 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 23 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 24 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 25 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 26 (61)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 3 (21)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 4 (22)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 5 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 6 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 8 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 9 (26)
  · EXCOMMUNICATION AND COURTS OF LOVE (19)
  · EZRA TAFT BENSON (30)
  · FACIAL HAIR (6)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS (70)
  · FAITH PROMOTING RUMORS (11)
  · FARMS (30)
  · FIRST VISION (23)
  · FOOD STORAGE (3)
  · FUNDAMENTALIST LDS (17)
  · GENERAL AUTHORITIES (29)
  · GENERAL CONFERENCE (14)
  · GENERAL NEWS (5)
  · GEORGE P. LEE (1)
  · GORDON B. HINCKLEY (68)
  · GRANT PALMER (8)
  · GREGORY L. SMITH (9)
  · GUNNISON MASSACRE (1)
  · H. DAVID BURTON (2)
  · HAROLD B. LEE (1)
  · HATE MAIL I RECEIVE (23)
  · HAUNS MILL (2)
  · HBO BIG LOVE (12)
  · HEBER C. KIMBALL (4)
  · HELEN RADKEY (17)
  · HELLEN MAR KIMBALL (4)
  · HENRY B. EYRING (5)
  · HOLIDAYS (13)
  · HOME AND VISITING TEACHING (9)
  · HOWARD W. HUNTER (1)
  · HUGH NIBLEY (13)
  · HYMNS (7)
  · INTERVIEWS IN MORMONISM (18)
  · J REUBEN CLARK (1)
  · JAMES E. FAUST (7)
  · JEFF LINDSAY (6)
  · JEFFREY MELDRUM (1)
  · JEFFREY R. HOLLAND (32)
  · JEFFREY S. NIELSEN (11)
  · JOHN GEE (3)
  · JOHN L. LUND (3)
  · JOHN L. SORENSON (4)
  · JOHN TAYLOR (1)
  · JOSEPH B. WIRTHLIN (1)
  · JOSEPH F. SMITH (1)
  · JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH (8)
  · JOSEPH SITATI (1)
  · JOSEPH SMITH (101)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - POLYGAMY (43)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - PROPHECY (8)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SEER STONES (7)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - WORSHIP (13)
  · JUDAISM (3)
  · JULIE B. BECK (6)
  · KEITH B. MCMULLIN (1)
  · KERRY MUHLESTEIN (9)
  · KERRY SHIRTS (6)
  · KINDERHOOK PLATES (6)
  · KIRTLAND BANK (6)
  · KIRTLAND EGYPTIAN PAPERS (17)
  · L. TOM PERRY (5)
  · LAMANITE PLACEMENT PROGRAM (3)
  · LAMANITES (36)
  · LANCE B. WICKMAN (1)
  · LARRY ECHO HAWK (1)
  · LDS CHURCH (19)
  · LDS CHURCH OFFICE BUILDING (9)
  · LDS OFFICIAL ESSAYS (22)
  · LDS SOCIAL SERVICES (3)
  · LGBT - AND MORMONISM (44)
  · LORENZO SNOW (1)
  · LOUIS C. MIDGLEY (6)
  · LYNN A. MICKELSEN (2)
  · LYNN G. ROBBINS (1)
  · M. RUSSELL BALLARD (13)
  · MARK E. PETERSON (7)
  · MARK HOFFMAN (12)
  · MARLIN K. JENSEN (3)
  · MARRIOTT (2)
  · MARTIN HARRIS (5)
  · MASONS (16)
  · MELCHIZEDEK/AARONIC PRIESTHOOD (9)
  · MERRILL J. BATEMAN (3)
  · MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS (1)
  · MICHAEL OTTERSON (1)
  · MICHAEL R. ASH (26)
  · MITT ROMNEY (71)
  · MORE GOOD FOUNDATION (4)
  · MORMON CELEBRITIES (14)
  · MORMON CHURCH HISTORY (8)
  · MORMON CHURCH PR (13)
  · MORMON CHURCH PROPAGANDA (5)
  · MORMON CLASSES (1)
  · MORMON DOCTRINE (35)
  · MORMON FUNERALS (12)
  · MORMON GARMENTS (20)
  · MORMON HANDCARTS (12)
  · MORMON INTERPRETER (4)
  · MORMON MARRIAGE EXCLUSIONS (1)
  · MORMON MEMBERSHIP (38)
  · MORMON MISSIONARIES (142)
  · MORMON MONEY (73)
  · MORMON NEWSROOM (5)
  · MORMON POLITICAL ISSUES (5)
  · MORMON RACISM (18)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONIES (38)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CHANGES (15)
  · MORMON TEMPLES (116)
  · MORMON VISITOR CENTERS (10)
  · MORMON WARDS AND STAKE CENTERS (1)
  · MORMONTHINK (13)
  · MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE (21)
  · MURPHY TRANSCRIPT (1)
  · NATALIE R. COLLINS (11)
  · NAUVOO (3)
  · NAUVOO EXPOSITOR (2)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL (1)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL INSTITUTE (1)
  · NEIL L. ANDERSEN - SECTION 1 (3)
  · NEW ORDER MORMON (8)
  · OBEDIENCE - PAY, PRAY, OBEY (15)
  · OBJECT LESSONS (15)
  · OLIVER COWDREY (6)
  · ORRIN HATCH (10)
  · PARLEY P. PRATT (11)
  · PATRIARCHAL BLESSING (5)
  · PAUL H. DUNN (5)
  · PBS DOCUMENTARY THE MORMONS (20)
  · PERSECUTION (9)
  · PIONEER DAY (3)
  · PLAN OF SALVATION (5)
  · POLYGAMY (60)
  · PRIESTHOOD BLESSINGS (1)
  · PRIESTHOOD EXECUTIVE MEETING (0)
  · PRIMARY (1)
  · PROCLAMATIONS (1)
  · PROPOSITION 8 (21)
  · PROPOSITION 8 COMMENTS (11)
  · QUENTIN L. COOK (11)
  · RELIEF SOCIETY (14)
  · RESIGNATION PROCESS (31)
  · RICHARD E. TURLEY, JR. (6)
  · RICHARD G. HINCKLEY (2)
  · RICHARD G. SCOTT (7)
  · RICHARD LYMAN BUSHMAN (11)
  · ROBERT D. HALES (5)
  · ROBERT L. MILLET (7)
  · RODNEY L. MELDRUM (15)
  · ROYAL SKOUSEN (2)
  · RUNTU'S RINCON (78)
  · RUSSELL M. NELSON (14)
  · SACRAMENT MEETING (11)
  · SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (1)
  · SCOTT D. WHITING (1)
  · SCOTT GORDON (5)
  · SEMINARY (5)
  · SERVICE AND CHARITY (24)
  · SHERI L. DEW (3)
  · SHIELDS RESEARCH - MORMON APOLOGETICS (4)
  · SIDNEY RIGDON (7)
  · SIMON SOUTHERTON (34)
  · SPAULDING MANUSCRIPT (8)
  · SPENCER W. KIMBALL (12)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 1 (18)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 (17)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 11 (15)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 12 (19)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 13 (21)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 14 (17)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 15 (12)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 (21)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 3 (18)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 4 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 5 (22)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 6 (19)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 7 (15)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 8 (13)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 9 (19)
  · STORIES (1)
  · SUNSTONE FOUNDATION (2)
  · SURVEILLANCE (SCMC) (12)
  · TAD R. CALLISTER (3)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 3 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 4 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 5 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 6 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 7 (9)
  · TALKS - SECTION 1 (1)
  · TEMPLE WEDDINGS (6)
  · TEMPLES - NAMES (1)
  · TERRYL GIVENS (1)
  · THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE (1)
  · THE SINGLE WARDS (5)
  · THE WORLD TABLE (3)
  · THOMAS PHILLIPS (18)
  · THOMAS S. MONSON (33)
  · TIME (4)
  · TITHING (63)
  · UGO PEREGO (5)
  · UK COURTS (7)
  · UNNANOUNCED, UNINVITED AND UNWELCOME (36)
  · UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY (3)
  · VALERIE HUDSON (3)
  · VAN HALE (16)
  · VAUGHN J. FEATHERSTONE (1)
  · VIDEOS (30)
  · WARD CLEANING (4)
  · WARREN SNOW (1)
  · WELFARE (0)
  · WENDY L. WATSON (7)
  · WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME (11)
  · WILFORD WOODRUFF (6)
  · WILLIAM HAMBLIN (11)
  · WILLIAM LAW (1)
  · WILLIAM SCHRYVER (5)
  · WILLIAM WINES PHELPS (3)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM (86)
  · WORD OF WISDOM (7)
  · WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES (1)
Donate to help keep the MormonCurtain and Mormon Resignation websites up and running!

Note: Dontations are done via my AvoBase, LLC. PayPal Business Account.
Copyright And Info
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.

Website © 2005-2016

Compiled With: Caligra 1.119

HOSTED BY