"For thus shall my church be called..."

The Problem:

Growing up in the Church, I was always puzzled by the lengthy name it went by. Why not just call us "The Church of Jesus Christ"? Serving a mission, we'd explain to investigators that the "of Latter-day Saints" moniker made complete sense as it was "to distinguish the Church in the last days (today) from the same church in ancient times"...why??? Does that even make sense? Should we now change the name to "The Church of Jesus Christ of the 21st Century Saints" to distinguish us from those backward 19th century pioneers?

Regardless of what we know the Church to be called today, the fact is, the Church changed it's name many times during it's early years. Originally the Church of Christ, then later The Church of the Latter Day Saints, and finally The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So why the many name changes? Surely God (who is omnipotent) could foresee any issues with each name and reveal the final name to Joseph Smith in 1830?

Of course, on the other hand, if there was no God involved and it was all made up by men, one might still expect a single name (do you see the Scientologists changing their name?). But as was typical for Joseph Smith, any ideas he had would either evolve with further knowledge or due to circumstances beyond his control, necessitate changes, often retroactively, to combat those problems.

So what was the church called, when was it changed, and why the changes?

1830 - Church of Christ

The church was organised on April 6th, 1830, and according to the revelation recorded in D&C 20 was referred to as the “Church of Christ” and was called this for the first four years of its existence. This correlates with The Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 27:7-8) where it specifies that it was to be called after Christ's name.

The problem with calling the church, the "Church of Christ" is that there were other churches around at that time already using this name (see "Church of Christ (disambiguation)").

1834 - Church of the Latter Day Saints

22 January 1834 - A letter of the First Presidency of the Church, noted “the organization of the Church of Christ, or the Church of the Latter Day Saints, on the 6th of April, 1830” (History of the Church 2:22).

17 February 1834 - We read the “Minutes of the Organization of the High Council of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, Kirtland, (History of the Church 2:28), employing a name nearly identical to the one used today.

3 May 1834 - Kirtland was the scene of “a Conference of the Elders of the Church of Christ” at which “a motion was made by Sidney Rigdon, and seconded by Newel K. Whitney, that this Church be known hereafter by the name of 'The Church of the Latter Day Saints.' Remarks were made by the members, after which the motion passed by unanimous vote” (History of the Church 2:62-63). This name change, unlike the others, did not come as a result of revelation, but by vote.

So who's idea was it to change the name? According to David Whitmer, it was Sidney Rigdon who pushed Joseph Smith to change the name to "Church of the Latter Day Saints":

In June, 1829, the Lord gave us the name by which we must call the church, being the same as He gave the Nephites. We obeyed His commandment, and called it THE CHURCH OF CHRIST until 1834, when, through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, the name of the church was changed to "The Church of the Latter Day Saints," dropping out the name of Christ entirely, that name which we were strictly commanded to call the church by, and which Christ by His own lips makes so plain. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon 1887.)

So why the name change? According to Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn:

Apr 23, 1834 - A revelation ends the Kirtland United Order and distributes its real estate assets among Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, Martin Harris, Newel K. Whitney, and John Johnson. Although the revelation says, "it is my will that you shall pay all your debts," Smith requires Whitney to absorb the $1,121.31 Whitney had loaned to him personally as well as $2.484.22 of other men's debts to Whitney. Ten days later the name of the church is officially changed from "The Church of Jesus Christ" to "The Church of the Latter Day Saints" possibly to avoid law suits. (Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power).

Joseph Smith probably thought that since the contracts specified the original name of the church, if he changed the name of the church, the debts wouldn't apply any more...and if this was indeed what he thought, he would have been wrong on this count (not that being wrong ever stopped him from carrying out a "divine" plan).

1838 - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

On April 26, 1838, the Lord speaks again to Joseph Smith and reveals a new official name he has come up with for the church, which has remained ever since: “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” (D&C 115:4). It's somewhat odd that in the Book of Mormon, the Lord made a point to instruct the Nephites on what the Church should be named, and as shown above it was a different name to the one he revealed to Joseph Smith. It's also reasonable to assume that Christ would have informed Joseph back in 1830 the final name He wanted the Church to be called, not wait until 8 years later to come up the official name...!

So why add "Christ" back into the name of the church? Also from D. Michael Quinn:

Apr 26, 1838 - A revelation changes the official name of the church, this time to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Kirtland dissenters had claimed that Joseph Smith apostatized and became the anti-Christ in 1834 when he changed the church's name to delete reference to Jesus. (Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p.628)

1838 was a period of trial for Joseph Smith and the church, with many prominent followers excommunicated and speaking out against him accusing him of being a false prophet. Adding "Jesus Christ" back into the name was likely an attempt to give Joseph Smith some credibility back that he was actually the Lord's chosen for leading God's church. 

1851 - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

In 1851, Brigham Young incorporated the LDS Church by legislation of the State of Deseret under the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", which included a hyphenated "Latter-day" and a lower-case "d".

1887 - Church legally disenfranchised by Edmunds-Tucker act

In 1887, the Edmunds-Tucker act disincorporated the LDS Church on the grounds it practised polygamy, of which this act explicitly prohibits. This act dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000.

1923 - Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Under the direction of President Joseph F. Smith, the church organised several tax-exempt corporations to assist with the transfer of money and capital. These include the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized in 1916 under the laws of the state of Utah to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property. In 1923, the church incorporated the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah to receive and manage money and church donations. In 1997, the church incorporated Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (IIC) to hold all the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property.

This will be to topic of a future blog, but for now, be aware that technically, there is no such "church" called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" - it is purely a trademark owned by the subsidiary IIC, which in turn is owned by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is owned by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The church as a "church" has technically not existed since 1890. As such, since you cannot be a member of a trademark, to say you're a "member of the church" is not entirely accurate. I will cover this in more detail in the coming weeks.

Summary:

• 1830: The Church of Christ was the name of the Lord's church. However, there were many other churches also sharing this name.
• 1834: The name changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. This was most likely an attempt to thwart debts owed by the "Church of Christ" via the Anti Banking Society debacle.
• 1838: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is revealed by direct revelation. This was during a crisis where Joseph Smith authority was in question by many dissenters. This revelation restores "Jesus Christ" to the church's name.
• 1851: The church is incorporated by Brigham Young.
• 1887: The church is legally disincorporated by the US Government.
• 1923: The "church" becomes a corporation with the name becoming a trademark, not a religion.

Conclusion:

At the end of the day, for me at least, it's not really important WHAT the church is called - I can find no mention in the New Testament of a "name" for the church of Christ. What a person or organisation does or believes is far more important than what they call themselves. My issue is that it must have been important to God for He felt the need to declare the name via direct revelation to Joseph Smith (at least twice).

The main issue raised here is the fact that the inspired name of God's true church changed multiple times, which is not indicative of a Church led by an unchanging perfect God. So, one must accept that either:

1. God changes His mind time and time again, without prejudice or, more likely, 
2. Joseph Smith was not an inspired prophet of God when he named the church (and renamed it and then renamed it again). 

The latter would seem the more plausible option.

Aside:
Regardless of the discussed changes above, the intention to give the Church a divine name has failed - most people I know outside of the Mormon religion, have no idea who "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is. The "Mormon Church" on the other hand is well known the world over, a nickname derived from the title of the Book of Mormon. 

Links:

MormonThink - The Name of The Church
D. Michael Quinn - Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power
Wikipedia - Name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
FairMormon Answers - Changes in the name of the Church

The "restoration" of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods

Problem:

Have you ever wondered why a church that is so pedantic about it's processes, the exact wording of it's rites and ceremonies, record keeping and dates, has absolutely no date recorded for when the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored? 

This priesthood authorises all men who serve within the Church to act in the name of the Lord, and specifically gave Joseph Smith the "power and authority" to restore the Church in its fullness. A significantly important event such as this would be commonly known amongst the early members and be recorded somewhere in officially published or personal accounts, and would include the date and location this occurred (and I wager it would no doubt be a date that would coincide with some significant Biblical event, such as "the same date Peter, James & John ascended the Mount of Transfiguration"). 

But alas, this is NOT the case. Nowhere within the meticulously recorded history of the church can we find the date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. As you will discover below, not only is there no recorded date to this day, this event along with the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, was completely unknown prior to 1834. In fact, no one had even heard the expressions "Aaronic" or "Melchizedek" relating to priesthood, until after this point in time.

Facts:

Amongst the many histories, diaries, letters or writings of church members, there is absolutely no mention of any priesthood, until several years after the Church had already been restored. David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, said, "I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834… I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver…" There are countless of similar testimonies (before 1834) by early church members who repeatedly heard Joseph Smith recite the visitations of the angel Moroni, but never the other angelic visitations.

You would think if Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received personal visitations of the ancient apostles, they would have written or at least mentioned something about the experience soon thereafter. Nope - no date at all and nothing mentioned nor recorded at all for the next 4 years following the restoration of the Church. No mention at all of the appearances of John the Baptist, nor Peter, James and John.

So what priesthood offices did we have prior to 1835? We know that when the Church was first established in 1830, we had Elders, Priests and Teachers, but these were not considered as offices with the priesthood as they are today.

The introduction of the "high priesthood" (1931):

The concept of higher or lower offices within the priesthood did not exist within the Church until the June 1831 conference, when Joseph Smith announced for the first time, there was a “high priesthood". The original accounts of this 1831 conference have generally since been edited to indicate the participants (including Joseph Smith) were instead ordained to "High Priests". But as stated, this term was not used until 1835. According to these original records, Joseph Smith himself received the high priesthood under the hand of Lyman Wight. This would indicate that he did not believe he had not yet received the high priesthood before that time (1831). 

It was not until late 1834, that Joseph Smith introduced the concept of "priesthood authority". So why introduce this at that time, and risk creating the problems raised in this article?

The crisis of 1834:

"When Joseph and Oliver began mentioning their angelic ordinations in late 1834 and early 1835, they were facing a credibility crisis that threatened the church's survival. In late 1833 a group in Kirtland, Ohio, denounced Joseph Smith for ministering "under pretense of Divine Authority." They employed D. P. Hurlbut to investigate Joseph's past, hoping to bring him down "from the high station which he pretends to occupy." Hurlbut traveled to Palmyra, New York, and collected affidavits from residents about Joseph's early treasure seeking and other aspects of his youth. Hurlbut began a lecture tour starting in January 1834 to "numerous congregations in Chagrin, Kirtland, Mentor, and Painesville; and ... [he] fired the minds of the people with much indignation against Joseph and the Church." Finding disillusionment spreading among the Saints, Joseph and Sidney Rigdon began preaching against Hurlbut. It was under these circumstances, exacerbated by problems associated with the failure of Zion's Camp--the paramilitary trek to assist fellow Saints in Missouri--that Joseph mentioned for the first time in public that his priesthood had "been conferred upon me by the ministering of the Angel of God." 

"By May 1834, Joseph’s Pennsylvania in-laws had issued similar affidavits about Joseph’s treasure digging and his supposed motivations for starting Mormonism. Howe published all of these in his book in November 1834. Meanwhile, Oliver Cowdery, with Joseph’s assistance and sensitive to the negative impact of the recent disclosures, decided to write “on the subject of those affidavits.” Oliver’s first refutation, published in the October 1834 Messenger and Advocate, included the narrative of being ordained by an unnamed angel. Shortly thereafter, this angel was identified as John the Baptist. Simultaneously, a statement about Peter, James, and John appearing to Joseph and Oliver was added to an earlier revelation. This information appeared in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Thus, by degrees, the accounts became more detailed and more miraculous. In 1829 Joseph said he was called by the Spirit; in 1832 he mentioned that angels attended these events; in 1834-35 the spiritual manifestations became literal and physical appearances of resurrected beings. Details usually become blurred over time; in this case, they multiplied and sharpened. These new declarations of literal and physical events facilitated belief and bolstered Joseph’s and Oliver’s authority during a time of crisis. No contemporary narrative exists for a visitation to Joseph and Oliver by Peter, James, and John. In fact, the date, location, ordination prayer, and any other circumstances surrounding this experience are unknown." An Insider's View of Mormon Origins - Grant Palmer

Introducing two orders of Priesthood:

According to David Whitmer, it was Sidney Rigdon who introduced Joseph Smith to the concept of two Priesthoods and the office of “High Priest”:

“Now Brethren, seeing they had no High Priests in the church of Christ of old, and none in the church of Christ in these last days until almost two years after its beginning — when the leaders began to drift into error; remembering the fact of the revelation being changed two years after it was given to include High Priests;…

In no place in the word of God does it say that an Elder is after the order of Melchisedec, or after the order of the Melchisedec Priesthood….This matter of ‘priesthood,’ since the days of [Sidney] Rigdon, has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. …This matter of the two orders of priesthood….all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Brother Joseph to inquire, etc. He would inquire and as mouthpiece speak out the revelations just as they had it fixed up in their hearts…How easily a man can receive some other spirit, appearing as an Angel of Light, believing at the time that he is giving the revealed will of God…..” (An Address to All Believers in Christ, page 64).

Rewriting History:

Once the new concept of 2 distinct priesthoods was made public, to facilitate the new organisational change, all previously published versions of LDS history which mentioned someone being ordained “to the high priesthood”, were later changed to read “to the office of high priest” or “as a high priest”. When the 1835 edition of Doctrine & Covenants (the successor to The Book of Commandments) was compiled, new revelations were added, and existing revelations had additions made referencing this new priesthood. e.g. The revelation regarding the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood was added at this time ^[1]. 

This is a major issue for me. How can one receive a revelation, record and publish it, then many years later, ADD critical new content that had somehow been forgotten the first time it was recorded, and in most cases, changes the meaning of the original revelation??

As David Whitmer stated: "Is it possible that the minds of men can be so blinded as to believe that God would give these revelations – command them to print them in His Book of Commandments – and then afterwards command them to change and add to them some words which change the meaning entirely? As if God had changed his mind entirely after giving his word? Is it possible that man who pretends to any spirituality would believe that God would work in such a manner?" (Saint’s Herald, February 5th, 1887)

It would also seem reasonable to expect that the priesthood, as a necessary authority to establish and direct the Lord’s church, would clearly and frequently be mentioned in many of the divinely inspired canon of the Church - the Book of Mormon, Book of Commandments etc. A quick search reveals…nope, nothing, zip, zilch (The Book of Mormon contains the term “high priesthood” in Alma and does not mention Deacons at all, while the Book of Commandments names Apostles and Deacons but no "High Priesthood". They both contain absolutely nothing on the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood).

Instead, God’s actual words to Joseph Smith in the Book of Commandments (BC) and the Book of Mormon makes it clear that the original revelations Joseph Smith received were “true and faithful” (BC 1:7), “neither doth He vary from that which He hath said” (BC 2:1) and “now the decrees of God are unalterable” (Alma 41:8). However, it is also clear that significant changes and additions were made. So what then is the only possible conclusion...?

Conclusion:

Let’s assume that the events currently recorded in Church history – the latest First Vision account and the two distinct Priesthood restoration events, are the truth - they happened exactly when Joseph Smith claimed they did. What would be the result? We would expect to have recorded accounts (official and personal) prior to 1834 and also expect the official revelations received prior to 1834 to be complete and unchanged (as if from the mouth of the unchanging God Himself). We'd expect such a momentous event to have been discussed with every new potential convert (as it is today).

However, on the other hand, let’s just suppose for argument's sake that the First Vision and Priesthood restoration events etc. never happened, and instead, Joseph Smith came up with the idea years after they were supposed to have happened. What result would we expect then? Exactly what we have today – no recorded accounts prior to 1834 and revelations received prior to this date being changed later to reflect this new ideology. 

The simple fact is that Joseph Smith never believed he needed any kind of “priesthood” or “keys” to have authority when he initially "translated" the Book of Mormon and later set up the church. This “requirement” only came years later when he needed to address credibility challenges. One would assume that authority granted directly by God is sufficient to do anything in His name.

So, what's the only rational conclusion one can make in regards to the priesthood restoration events as currently taught by the LDS Church? Joseph Smith, once again, when necessity dictated, fabricated a lie and thus, the whole LDS religion and its foundation on priesthood authority from on high, is...simply not true!

Notes:

^[1] There are seven revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C) on these priesthoods. Although five of them were allegedly received before October 1832, one as early as 1823, and one as late as September 1832, none of these five were included in the 1833 Book of Commandments. Two of them did not appear in the D&C until the 1876 edition, three were first included the 1835 edition.

References:

For examples of the passages in the D&C added or altered after 1834, see Fabricating The Mormon Priesthood: By God Or By Man?
Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims Pt 1 Dan Vogel (YouTube video)
Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims Pt 2 Dan Vogel (YouTube video)
MormonThink - Priesthood Restoration

Addendum:

See http://flawsinmormonhistory.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/the-restoration-of-aaronic-and.html

The Book of Mormon "translation" pantomime

Carrying on from my previous post on the “translation” of the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon, one thing that has always troubled me, is how Emma would describe that JS could just resume translation at any time and “begin where he left off without any hesitation”. He was thus able to verbalise the entire book, word for word without backtracking or correcting what was previously dictated.

So how did he dictate one continuous speech equating to the text of the Book of Mormon, without gaps or disjointed sentences? 

First, let’s look at the facts:

1. The accounts we have from eyewitnesses on the BoM "translation" process vary. One account will make reference to a specific method/process of "translation" that is completely different to another eyewitness’s account. So in reading one account one cannot assume that's how the whole book was "translated" - Emma herself contradicted her earlier statements when older.
2. Regardless of who was acting as scribe at any time, no one ever saw the golden plates present. In fact eyewitness accounts describe the plates were often covered in the corner of the room or not even present (sometimes even buried outside in the field). Hence, this was not a "translation".
3. The first 116 pages were produced using the “Urim and Thummin” and it was mostly this portion that Emma assisted in translating (along with Martin Harris). This has been described as JS sitting at a table with a blanket raised between JS and the scribe [1]. Thus, if JS was hidden from view, whatever was being dictated could possibly have been sourced directly from notes (although I think this is unlikely).
4. The rest of the BoM (what we have today) was translated via the “seer stone” (“a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone”[2]) he found on his neighbour’s (Willard Chase) farm in 1822. JS would read out lines while his head was buried in a hat. Again, the golden plates were not used nor required. This process was witnessed by both David Whitmer [3] and Oliver Cowdery.
5. Most of the BoM account we now have, was scribed by Oliver Cowdery [4] - He described how he “wrote with my own pen the intire book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the Lips of the prophet”[5]. This affirms that JS did not need to collude with many scribes [6]. Oliver Cowdery incidentally was JS's second cousin [7]. 

Now let’s pose a few possibilities:

1. As suggested above, during the times that there was a blanket between JS and the scribe (e.g. Emma), it’s quite possible he could simply been reading from a wad of foolscap. This method is in question, as Emma also reflected later that the translation took place via the head in hat method, which contradicts her earlier account. Personally, the risk of being caught would outweigh the likelihood this theory is valid.
2. JS would memorise a page of manuscript at a time beforehand. So the head in the hat process was JS reciting what he had just memorised. 
3. The manuscript was already written (or transcribed in private), and the pages dictated in front of others were only for show, and not used. I believe this is the most likely, especially considering the significant portions of word for word KJV Bible passages.

Conclusion:

My view is that most of the "translation" process took place behind closed doors and hence could be simply a transcribing process by Oliver Cowdery. This would also explain why there are significant sections matching the exact (and unique) wording of the 1796 edition of the KJV of the Bible (which were later corrected in subsequent editions of the KJV). 

In the cases where there were other scribes or witnesses, this process was purely for show, to deceive, EXACTLY as in the past when JS used THIS SAME METHOD (head in hat with peep stone) to deceive his neighbours that he was able to see hidden treasures. The small amounts of translations done during these periods were either later discarded, or if were kept, were previously memorised portions.

Of course, all of this aside, as previously posted, why would God require all this smoke and mirrors to bring forth his "marvellous work and a wonder"? Why make the plates at all if they were not used? Why create and preserve a "Urim and Thummim" that was never used for the end product we have today? Why so many errors from a divinely inspired translation (apparently God is ignorant of acceptable English grammar)?

Instead of utilising a "translation" process that creates all the dilemmas above, a 100% accurate translation could have been produced many other more "Godly" ways:

1. Transform the characters on the golden plates into a language anyone could transcribe (e.g. Hebrew, or wait...English!!). Then have any faithful servant (or many!) perform the work directly from the plates that anyone could translate and verify! 
2. God could snap His fingers and produce a perfect translation out of thin air - no issues with lost translations, mistranslations, incorrect grammar or questionable translation methods.

So either, God has failed once again in producing the "most correct book on earth", OR, me thinks instead...(wait for it)...JS simply made it all up!

So for now, cross off yet another Church History question from my list!

Notes:

[1] Wikipedia - Golden plates

[2] B. H. Roberts - A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
[3] "I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing." (An Address to All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, p.12)
[4] "Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory." - Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual, (2003), 52–66
[5] Journal of Reuben Miller, Oct. 1848, Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
[6] How the Mormon Church Created the Cowdery Myth
[7] GENEALOGY OF OLIVER COWDERY

References:

The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation

Dan Vogel - Joseph Smith's magic spectacles - transcript
Translation of the Book of Mormon