Wide the Divide?1, joka julkaistiin huhtikuussa ,
on alustavaa keskustelua MAP-kirkon ja evankelisten akateemikkojen
välillä. He pyrkivät ensin etsimään yhteistä
pohjaa ja sitten hahmottamaan noiden kahden uskonnollisen perinteen
eroja. Tri. Blomberg on Uuden testamentin tutkimuksen professori
Denverin seminaarissa; tri. Robinson on muinaisten kirjoitusten
professori Brigham Youngin yliopistossa. Kummallakaan kirjailijalla
ei ollut tilaisuutta olla kanssamme tänään, vaikka
heidät kutsuttiin [symposiumiin].
Kirja on dialogimuodossa, kummankin kirjoittaessa vuorotellen.
Omissa luvunpuoliskoissaan he käsittelevät oman perinteensä
opetuksia ja arvostelevat ja kommentoivat toistensa materiaalia.
He käsittelevät vuoron perään pyhiä kirjoituksia,
Jumalaa ja palvomista, Kristusta ja kolminaisuutta sekä pelastusta.2
Tänään esittämäni essee ei ole sinänsä
kirjan arvostelu, vaan käytän kirjaa kohtana, josta aloitan
oman, hyvin henkilökohtaisen näkemykseni aikamme mormonismista.
Oikeaoppisuus, pyhät kirjoitukset ja jumalallinen ilmoitus
Kuultuamme, että "puhdas mormonioppi voi olla liikkuva
maali"3, luemme, että:
... mormoniortodoksian määrittelevät kirkon
standarditeokset (raamattu, Mormonin kirja, Opit ja Liitot ja Kallisarvoinen
helmi) niin kuin kirkon johtavat auktoriteetit nykyiset apostolit
ja profeetat niitä tulkitsevat.4
Tri. Robinson selvittää näkemystään lisää
sulkemalla erityisesti pois tiettyä, opin oikeellisuuden määrittelyyn
käytettävää materiaalia. Näitä ovat
Tässä ei mainita sitä, että Brigham Youngia pidetään
profeettana, kun taas sellaista ei väitetä Lutherista tai
... kommentaareja, puheita, laajennuksia ja spekulointeja ...
millään näistä, voisin lisätä, ei
ole kanonisoitua asemaa. Protestantit varmaan ymmärtävät
eron yhtäällä Lutherin, Calvinin tai Wesleyn erinomaisten
tulkitsevien tekstien ja toisaalla itse raamatun auktoriteetin
välillä. Sama ero on olemassa yhtäällä
Brigham Youngin tai Orson Prattin puheissa annettujen lausuntojen
tai kirjoitusten ja toisaalla kanonisoitujen standarditeosten
välillä ... Brigham Youngin, Orson Prattin tai muiden
spekulatiiviset lausunnot eivät ole kanonisoituja eivätkä
kirkon virallista oppia ...5
Mitään muuta kuin kanonisoitua materiaalia ei voida käyttää
määrittelemään MAP-kirkon oppia; lisäksi
tulevat kuitenkin lausunnot, jotka on varustettu Ensimmäisen
presidenttikunnan ja Kahdentoista koorumin allekirjoituksilla.6
"Kirkon takuu opin oikeellisuudesta lepää lähinnä
elävän profeetan harteilla, ja vain toissijaisesti kirjoitetun
tekstin säilyttämisessä",7 selittää
Robinson, korottaen näin elävien profeettojen, näkijöiden
ja ilmoituksensaajien sanat sekä kanonisoidun tekstin että,
niiden jatkeena, aiempien profeettojen, näkijöiden ja
ilmoituksensaajien allekirjoitusten yläpuolelle. Eli, jälleen
kuten muualla tekstissä ilmaistaan: "mormoniopin parametrit
ovat selvät pyhät kirjoitukset ovat oppia, puheet
Joseph Smithin välityksellä tulleen ilmoituksen kautta
perustettuna mormonismi on jatkanut apostoleja ja profeettoja kahdessa
ylimmässä pappeuskoorumissa, Ensimmäisen presidenttikunnan
ja Kahdentoista koorumin perinnettä ja pitää uskonkappaleenaan
sitä, että Jumala antaa jatkuvasti ilmoitusta ohjaavana
voimana kirkon hallinnassa.9
Opin ja liittojen kirjan luvussa 68 julistetaan:
... Ja se, minkä he puhuvat Pyhän Hengen johtamina, on
oleva pyhä kirjoitus, on oleva Herran tahto, on oleva Herran mieli,
on oleva Herran sana, on oleva Herran ääni ja Jumalan voima pelastukseksi.10
Siitä huolimatta, että tämä ilmoitus saatiin
ennen kuin Kahdentoista koorumi järjestettiin, osoittaa vanhin
Packerin puhe lokakuun 1996 konferenssissa helposti, että useimmat
mormonit uskovat tämän koskevan Ensimmäistä
presidenttikuntaa ja Kahtatoista. Hän siteeraa tätä
jaetta kuvatessaan, miten kaksitoista apostolia kutsuttiin tehtäväänsä.11
This builds into Mormonism a methodology to apply the canon to
new situations in an authoritative way, through continuing revelation,
meaning either new revelation, or allowing a reinterpretation of
existing canon to a new situation. Given this, Robinson's view that
late 20th century Mormonism ought not to be judged by 19th century
Mormonism seems reasonable. Yet, there seems to be the suggestion
that the words spoken as defined in the revelation, "when moved
upon by the Holy Ghost" may be uncanonized scripture. Our challenge
is determining what among the "commentary, sermons, expansions and
speculations"12 meets the definition of scripture by coming
to us by means of the Holy Ghost acting upon the speaker. Robinson's
definition of what can be used for doctrine, while eliminating from
consideration some of what he views as the extremes of 19th century
Mormon expression, also may be eliminating some scripture as Section
68 defines it, as well as helping to maintain our current more organizational,
bureaucratic Mormonism, divorced from its more charismatic past.
Vanhin Harold B. Leen kommentti on opettavainen. Puhuessaan BYU:ssa
vuonna 1964, vanhin Lee huomautti:
But, there is also in LDS thought the idea that, as Elder Lee states
in the same talk, we are "not dependent only...on our standard works...we
have a mouthpiece [whom] God will never permit...to lead us astray".14
Emme saa ajatella, että jokainen johtavien auktoriteettien
puhuma sana on innoitettu, tai että Pyhä Henki on heidän
päällään kaikessa, mitä he lukevat tai
Elder Lee's more limited sense of a sort of near-infallibility15
for THE prophet, seer and revelator, seems to have developed into
something more in recent years. President Faust's message in the
August 1996 Ensign seems expands the principle.16 "How, then,
one might ask, can we be sure, that as promised [as an aside, note
these are now plural], the prophets, seers and revelators will never
lead the people astray?". He cites the scriptural injunction that
decisions of these church councils must be unanimous17, and
continues, "The requirement of unanimity provides a check on bias
and personal idiosyncrasies. It ensures that God rules through the
spirit...". Then follows his comment that "we make no claim of INDIVIDUAL
[emphasis added] infallibility or perfection as the prophets, seers
and revelators", implicitly suggesting a group infallibility.
Vertaa tätä George Q. Cannonin huomautuksiin:
Veljet, älkää panko luottamustanne ihmiseen,
on hän sitten piispa, apostoli tai presidentti. Jos niin teette,
he jättävät teidät pulaan joskus tai jossakin;
he tekevät väärin tai näyttävät niin
tekevän, ja teidän tukenne on poissa; mutta jos panemme
luottamuksemme Jumalaan, hän ei koskaan jätä meitä
pulaan. Kun miehet ja naiset luottavat ainoastaan Häneen, heidän
uskonsa ei horju, vaikka kirkon korkein viranhaltija astuisi sivuun.18
Sitten, viime huhtikuun yleiskonferenssissa, presidentti Hinckley
Hänen kirkkoaan ei johdeta harhaan. Älkää
koskaan pelätkö sitä. Mikäli sen johtajissa
olisi sellaista taipumusta, Hän poistaisi heidät [viroistaan].19
Ja Brigham Young ilmaisi näkemyksensä näin:
I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to
the children of men, that they may not call scripture.20
Ja sitten voidaan siteerata Joseph F. Smithiä:
I have never pretended nor do I confess to have received
revelations. I never said I has a revelation except so far as God
has shown to me that so-called Mormonism is God's divine truith;
that is all...Well, I can say this: That if I live as I should in
the line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of the impressions
of the spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time, just as any
good Methodist or any other good church member might be. And so
far as taht is concerned, I say yes, I have had impressions of the
spirit upon my mind very frequently, but they are not revelations.21
Perhaps those from both the "iron-rod" and the "liahona" perspectives
need to reexamine what LDS leaders mean by their individual comments
about this issue.
Tarkastelkaamme kahta hiljattaista selitystä siitä,
miten ilmoitus toimii nykykirkossa.
Hugh Hewitt haastatteli vanhin Maxwellia PBS-sarjaa "Jumalan
etsintä Amerikassa". Maxwell puhuu "the voice in the mind",
that "revelation doesn't have to be spectacular or global", that
"it's the personalness of the revelation that matters...". When
specifically asked, "...What is that process like?", Elder Maxwell
It's the voice of the spirit. It's the voice in the mind.
It's the Lord speaking to us in such a way that when men may have
had different opinions on something, then comes the prophetic intervention.
There is a calmness and a serenity, and we vote to sustain that
Elder Maxwell says that he has experienced this "on four or five occasions"
"in the upper room of the temple".23
More recently, President Hinckley, interviewed by Don Lattin of
the San Francisco Chronicle,24 identified revelation as "one
thing that's different" when asked about differences between LDS
theology and that of other churches:
Q: ... As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do
you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?
One observer on the internet, looking at all this, sensed a circular
argument, noting that President Hinckley says that we have a body
of revelation and don't need much revelation, and yet, the Church
emphasizes the importance of continuing revelation and the need for
living prophets both in its public discourse, curriculum and instruction
to potential converts.25
A: Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation,
the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith.
We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to
the revelation we've already received.
Now, if a problem should arise on which we don't have an answer,
we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly.
Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind....
As Man Is, God Once Was ...
Robinson's definition of what can be used to determine orthodox
doctrine, the canonized Standard Works, and their interpretation
by the living prophets was discussed earlier. It is significant
that he does accept two additional statements, that while not canonized,
"they are so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that this technical
point has become moot."26 They are, first, Lorenzo Snow's
couplet, "As man is, God once was; as God now is, man may become",27
and Joseph Smith's sermon at the funeral of King Follett, in which
the prophet taught that God is an exalted man.28
Presidentti Gordon B. Hinckley in a
series of recent interviews has addressed this principle.
Don Lattin, of the San Francisco Chronicle, interviewed
President Hinckley in March 1997. The interview was published on
Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs.
For instance, don't Mormon's believe that God was once a man?
The PBS program, Newshour with Jim Lehrer, featured a segment on the
Mormon Church during the July 18th, 1997 broadcast, during which several
people were interviewed by Richard Ostling, including President Hinckley,
and the Rev. Thomas Taylor, who the transcript of the segment published
on the PBS web site identifies as being from the First Presbyterian
Church in Salt Lake City. Some of the program describes what President
Hinckley was reported to have said, rather then directly quoting him;
other statements are quoted.
A: I wouldn't say that. There is a little couplet coined, "As
man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more
of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep
theology that we don't know very much about.
Q: So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand
A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression.
Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence
and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this
life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. Knowledge, learning
is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education.
We're trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest,
best, brightest people that we can.29
Taylor: Have I ever known any Mormons who, after
speaking with them, have I come to believe that they know Jesus
Christ in the same way that I do; that they are true disciples of
Jesus, the answer would be, yes. But if you are asking me, do I
think that Mormonism as a system of belief and practice is the same
as what we ordinarily mean by Christianity, I think my answer would
In the recent August 4th issue of Time
magazine, the authors write:
Ostling: The major doctrinal difference centers on the
nature of God.
Taylor: The Bible says in the Book of John, Chapter 4,
God is spirit. But the Mormons say that God is flesh and bone.
You get a picture of a God that is progressing. So you see that
man is made of the same stuff, as it were, as God is; and that
man is progressing toward deityhood, and God once was like man.
So this is a very different picture of Christianity.
Ostling: President Gordon
Hinckley says the concept of God having been a man is not
stressed any longer, but he does believe that human beings can
become gods in the afterlife.
Hinckley: Well, they can achieve a godly status, yes,
of course they can, eternal progression. We believe in the progression
of the human soul. Ours is a forward-looking religion. It's an
upward looking religion. We believe in the eternity and infinity
of the human soul, and its great possibilities.30
In an interview with TIME, President Hinckley seemed
intent on downplaying his faith's distinctiveness. The church's
message, he explained, "is a message of Christ. Our church is Christ-centered.
He's our leader. He's our head. His name is the name of our church."
At first, Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become
gods, suggesting that "it's of course an ideal. It's a hope for
a wishful thing," but later affirmed that "yes, of course they can."
(He added that women could too, "as companions to their husbands.
They can't conceive a king without a queen.") On whether the church
still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain,
"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it...I
understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know
a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."31
Those of you on LDS internet lists know that each of these statements
from President Hinckley elicited responses from acceptance to confusion
to alarm. Was President Hinckley downplaying differences in doctrine
so as to appear more in the Christian mainstream? Was it his responsibility
as the prophet, seer and revelator to use these media opportunities
to proclaim truth? As prophet could he really not know a lot about
it? Or, as others noted, was this belief uncanonical, and was this
the point he wished to convey? Others suggested that President Hinckley
did not wish to cast pearls before swine. Some, members of other Restoration
traditions, suggested this evidence of apostasy within the LDS tradition.
President Hinckley's suggestion that we don't emphasize this doctrine
seems strange as well. A two part lesson on The King Follett funeral
sermon was included in the Relief Society manual for 1988. One of
the section headings is, in boldface: "God is an Exalted Man".32
The current Church manual for the Gospel Essentials Sunday School
class covers this topic in lesson 47.33 And, a student manual
for Institute class Religion 345, Presidents of the Church,
published in 1979, covers the topic in chapter 13.34 True,
it is not explicitly stated in canonized scripture. But it is clearly
suggested in both Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132, verse 17-20,
which Robinson specifically mentions35, as well as in Section
84, verses 33-38, which he does not. Robinson also notes:
What do Latter-day Saints mean by "gods"? Latter-day
Saints do not, or at least should not believe that they will ever
be independent in all eternity from their Father in heaven or from
their Savior or from the Holy Spirit. Those who are exalted by his
grace will always be "gods" (always with a small g, even
in the Doctrine and Covenants) by grace, by an extension of his
power, and will always be subordinate to the Godhead. In the Greek
philosophical sense and in the "orthodox" theological sense
such contingent beings would not even rightly be called "gods,"
because they never become "the ground of all being" and are forever
subordinate to their Father.36
Compare this to the decidedly uncanonized talk by by Charles W. Penrose
As the Father had taken His upward course in worlds before
this, so Jesus Christ followed in his footsteps in every respect;
therefore he is entitled to sit down at the right hand of God in
the heavens, to sit on his throne and be one with the Father in
all things; and all the power and glory, and dominion that the Father
hath he conferred also upon Jesus. And the promise to the sons of
God on the earth is, that if they will follow in the footsteps of
Jesus, they shall be also exalted and shall partake of that glory
which he partakes of and they shall become Gods, even the sons of
God, and "all things" shall be theirs. And we are told in the revelations
of God to us in the latter days, that if we are faithful in all
things, "all that the father hath" shall be given unto us. We shall
become like Him, and we shall receive power, dominion and glory
similar to that which he enjoys, only he shall be above us, God
as our Father, and Jesus Christ our elder brother...We will comprehend
everything we learned when we dwelt in the flesh; and we will be
clothed upon with the spirit and power of God in its fullness, and
kingdoms and power and glory eternal will be given unto us. We shall
have the gift of eternal end endless increase. Our families will
be with us and be the beginning of our dominion, and upon that basis
we shall build forever.37
Given this, what can we make of Robinson's comment that "God is omniscient,
omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, eternal and unchangeable"?38
He uses Book of Mormon scriptures to support this statement (2 Nephi
9:20, Mosiah 3:5), and Blomberg provides still more.39 It seems
to me that the Book of Mormon is the beginning of Mormonism, and not
the end, in that Joseph Smith, as prophet continued to receive further
revelation and guidance from heavenly sources beyond what appears
in that book, right up to the King Follett address, ending only with
his own death. I wish I had time to review all of Elder Penrose's
talk cited above. But nineteenth century Mormonism's God was once
a man, progressing, accumulating further light and truth until qualifying
as a God. The core elements of man are of the same eternal elements
of him we call God. This is the only sense that I see that the God
of Mormonism can be infinite, eternal and unchangeable: "For, behold
the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For behold, I am endless..."40
Let me conclude with two quotes written not by Dr. Robinson, but
by Dr. Blomberg.
"We each speak officially for no one other then ourselves,
but unofficially we reflect a fair cross-section of the religious
traditions we represent. Both of us stand in the progressive wing
of our movements, and yet we clearly dissociate ourselves from the
"dissidents" who flirt with the very boundaries and established
parameters of our respective faiths.41
This is remarkable. The "progressive wing" of Mormonism? This is a
term I have never in my life ever heard applied to us. Orthodox, yes;
heterodox, yes; apostate, yes; iron rod and liahona, yes. But never
progressive. I have no idea what progressive means in an LDS context.
I would be overjoyed if I learned that there might be
an "Evangelical Mormonism," just as increasing numbers of Roman
Catholics or Seventh-day Adventists are abandoning their legacies
of works-centered religion. But then I would need to raise a further
important question: How widespread in LDS circles are views like
This likewise, seems odd. Dr Blomberg views Dr. Robinson's writings
as some sort of evangelical Mormonism, similar to that found in some
other faith traditions. He continues citing other examples, including
other writings of Dr. Robinson, to show that these views may not be
as widespread as he hoped for.43
President Benson's well-known talk, based on Doctrine and Covenants
84:54 - 58, that the church is under "condemnation until they [we]
repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon"44
was in my experience viewed as a call to return to studying the
Book of Mormon and its teachings. Robinson has a more expansive
...Prof. Blomberg and other evangelicals have misjudged
what is happening in the contemporary LDS Church when they refer
to the LDS "modifying" their doctrines and making other "changes"...Ezra
Taft Benson...emphasized the importance of personal study of the
Book of Mormon and other scriptures for the Latter-day Saints. He
also reminded us that the Lord has not been pleased with the gap
between scripturally revealed beliefs and the level of "popular"
Dr. Robinson then proceeds to define "popular" understanding as the
uncanonized sermons and homilies from the nineteenth century, including
the Journal of Discourses and similar uncanonized material,46
which brings us fill circle from where I began.
Quoting Dr. Robinson, again:
The only change precipitated by President Benson is that
Mormonism now seeks to define itself in terms of its own canonized
Scriptures rather then the ... speculative sermons of the nineteenth
century or the popular theology of the twentieth century. I would
argue that this is not an innovation but a course correction, a
return to original headings. Inevitably, non-LDS will see it as
a change in doctrine, but viewed from within the church it is merely
a reemphasis on the basics - our basics.
If the response to President Hinckley's remarks on LDS internet lists
is representative, then Dr. Robinson is wrong. It is not only non-LDS
who wonder if we are seeing a change in doctrine or if we are witnessing
a reemphasis on basics.
Either way, it is true that the LDS Church is somewhat different
today then it was a decade ago, largely as a result of President
Benson's emphasis on the Book of Mormon. I find it highly revealing
that as LDS theology has moved from late nineteenth-century rhetoric
to the specific doctrines of the Book of Mormon, it has also been
seen as moving closer to the Evangelicals...47
Is this the trend of late twentieth-century Mormonism? In which
light should President Hinckley's recent remarks be seen: a change
in doctrine or a reemphasis on basics? For this question, I do not
have an answer. But let me close quoting from two friend's private
correspondence with me which reflects in part the questions raised
when living in times of unexplained possible change:
...the constant change of church doctrine and practices
is dis- empowering since the individual must look to someone outside
of themselves (moral conscience) and any written record (the Standard
Works) in the form of the President of the Church...48
The idea that God was once a man is an amazingly humanistic
theology. It affirms an essential similarity between humanity and
divinity. It can be used by people to foster a sense of worth and
even independence. On the other hand, the authority structure of
the church serves to separate most people (except the Brethren)
from the divine, by having the Brethren mediate between the two.
The more God is thought of as essentially different from us, the
more we need the brethren as mediators...There seems to always have
been a dynamic tension between Mormon authoritarianism and its communitarianism.
It's not hard to see which tendency predominates today.49
- Blomberg, Craig L. and Stephen E. Robinson. How Wide The
Divide?: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation. (Downers
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997). 228 pages. ISBN: 0-8308-1991-6
LCCN: 96-051534 $ 11.99 [Hereafter in footnotes as HWTD.]
- For another brief review of the book's organization, see Publisher's
Weekly, 24 March 1987, p. 76.
- HWTD, p. 14.
- HWTD, p. 15.
- HWTD, p. 85. This definition of orthodoxy is vital to Dr. Robinson's
discussion of Mormon issues; he repeats in varying ways throughout
the book. See for example pages 15, 63-4, 68, 73-4, 76, 83, 93,
135-6, 140, 162-3.
- HWTD, p. 208, footnote 32.
- HWTD, p. 57; same idea is expressed on pages 58, 65, 68, and
- HWTD, pp. 73-74.
- 9th Article of Faith
- Doctrine and Covenants, Section 68:4. Note that this section
is not addressed to the First Presidency or to the Twelve; neither
of these quorums have been organized as of the date of the revelation
in 1831. The revelation is addressed to "all those who are ordained
unto this priesthood", and is addressed to Orson Hyde and others.
However, it would be my view that section 68 is generally understood
to express the place of revelation in the Church, and within the
bounds of the stewardship of the person receiving the revelation.
of general applicability to all faithful members, including those,
such as women, without priesthood.
- Packer, Boyd K. "The Twelve Apostles", Ensign, Nov. 1996,
p. 8 (footnote 28).
- HWTD, p. 85. See also footnote 5.
- Lee, Harold B. "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer and Revelator",
Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, Brigham
Young University, Provo, Utah; July 8, 1964, p. 8; typeset in
- Ibid, p. 9.
- I do not intend to imply perfection in teaching and speaking
by use of this term, rather, that the view would be that in the
broadest sense, prophets might make mistakes in doctrine and belief,
but not to a point to lose the ability to be lead by Christ. That
this would be orthodox thinking is suggested by Bruce R. McConkie's
letter of 19 February 1981, to Eugene England, where Elder McConkie
states that it is his opinion that Brigham Young, in terms of
what Elder McConkie called the Adam God "theory", had taught error.
- Faust, James A. "Continuing Revelation", Ensign, Aug.
1996, pp. 2-7.
- Doctrine and Covenants 107:27
- George Q. Cannon, Millennial Star, 53:673 - 74.
- Hinckley, Gordon B. "Our Testimony to the World", Ensign,
May 1997, p. 83.
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, p. 95.
- Joseph F. Smith, before Congress, Reed Smoot Hearings, Volume
One, page 483. 1904. Let me haste to add her that this comment
predates by a number of years President Smith's "Vision of the
Redemption of the Dead", since canonized and added to the Doctrine
- Elder Maxwell's interview is published in full in: Hewitt, Hugh.
Searching For God in America. (Word Publishing: 1996.)
432 pages. $27.99. ISBN: 0-8499-1308-X. Selections from the interview
were also published with permission, in Sunstone,
Issue 104, December 1996, p. 80.
of the Main Mormon, San Francisco Chronicle, 13 April
- Copy of e-mail in my possession, 7 May 1997, Mormon-l. HWTD,
- HWTD, pp. 85-86.
- HWTD, p. 86; 209, footnote 12.
- HWTD, p. 85; 209, footnote 13.
- Lattin, Don. "Musings of the Main Mormon", San Francisco Chronicle,
13 April 1997. [Downloaded from the Chronicle WWW page]
- Transcript downloaded from here.
- Biema, David Van. "Kingdom Come", Time,
August 4, 1997, p. 56.
- Relief Society Manual, 1988, published by the church.
- Gospel Principles, published by the Church.
- Presidents of the Church, 1979.
- HWTD, p. 85.
- HWTD, p. 86.
- Penrose, Charles W. "The Personality of God...", Journal
of Discourses, Volume 26, pp. 20-29.
- HWTD, p. 77.
- HWTD, p. 124.
- Doctrine and Covenants, Section 19:10.
- HWTD, p. 25.
- HWTD, p. 182.
- HWTD, pp. 182-3.
- HWTD, pp. 67-69; see also President Benson's Conference talk,
October 1986, Saturday morning session.
- HWTD, p. 67.
- HWTD, p. 68.
- HWTD, p. 68 - 69.
- Personal correspondence in my possession.
- Personal correspondence in my possession.