Affidavit Of Support - University Of Missouri: Fill & Download for Free

This is a very serious subject, I’m charged with talking to you a little bit about the Mountain Meadows Massacre and what’s happening these days with the literature on the subject.I think most of you have seen, if not all of you, have seen a tremendous upsurge in publications on this atrocity. Hard to tell exactly why that has happened. I think there are a number of ways to understand that. One is that increasing attention came upon the state of Utah because of the Olympics; there were numerous mainstream national publications that paid much more attention to Utah and Mormonism than normally do. You may have seen some of the articles that appeared pretending to be balanced views of the state and Mormonism.Some of you may have noticed in magazines like The New Yorker that, in that particular case as I recall, an 11-page article on the state–six pages devoted to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and two pages to polygamy, the rest about the state of Utah and its wonders.This event has become in recent years something that a lot of people know about who didn’t know about it before. Part of the reason for that is President Hinckley who, in 1998, decided to build a new monument at the Meadows on the spot of the original army cairn that held the partial remains of 34 victims buried there by the army in May of 1859; and I want to get back to that story in a minute but I’m trying to outline for you a few reasons in my mind that this has gained so much attention recently.Another reason of course is the publication of Will Bagley’s book. Will began work on his book well before the Hinckley initiative on the Meadows. He was employed by a former Mormon in California who, frankly, wanted to pin the Massacre on Brigham Young. He put an ad in the Salt Lake Tribune asking for applicants to write a new history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and in the course of interviewing several who applied (inaudible) except for Br. Bagley. Will was, by his own words to me–this is first hand words–the only one who said that he could and would pin it on Brigham Young. So Will was hired, he quit his job at Evans and went to work full-time writing a new history which was published by the University of Oklahoma Press last year.I must tell you up front (you can throw tomatoes or whatever you want at me) that I was one of the readers that the University of Oklahoma Press sent a manuscript and I recommended publication because I believed very strongly and still do that Br. Bagley had done intense research and that it was fairly exhaustive. He solved whatever he could see and looked very deeply, plumbed very deeply, to find much information that Juanita Brooks did not have when she published her landmark book in 1950. And so I was impressed with that and recommended that the Oklahoma Press publish the book but I cautioned the Press that it was an anti-Mormon polemic and that I did not agree with Will’s conclusions and we’ll talk more about that some more here if time allows.His book did very well in the first printing, it was very quickly into a second printing, and then shortly after all the hoopla over his book which ascribes the motivation of the murderers to Brigham Young ordering these people killed to avenge not only Joseph and Hyrum but also Parley P. Pratt who had been murdered in Arkansas the May before the Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred in September–by the way on September 11. The anti-Mormons on the web are making a whole lot out of that right now–the two atrocities happening on the same day and so on all committed by mad fanatics, religious fanatics.In any case, we could probably waste the whole time here talking about why there is so much interest today in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I grew up in Ogden, Utah. The first time I heard about it was from a Catholic classmate who was feeling pressure at having to take Utah history in the seventh grade which really turned out to be half a year of Sunday School (laughter) and his parents who to immunize him against Utah history told him about the Mountain Meadows Massacre and I was told about that when I was in the 7th grade and I dismissed it and later in high school heard about it again, went to my seminary teacher who said, ‘It’s a lie, it didn’t happen,’ and pretty much forgot about it until I was a history student and found out that it did indeed occur.So I think there’s been a long period since the execution of John D. Lee in 1877 where Mormons would just as soon not talk about this and successfully did not. But beginning in 1990 when President Hinckley supported the building of the monument up on the hill there, if you’ve been there, the Dan Sill Hill monument which has all the names of the people we know were killed there; and then in 1999 when a second monument was built at the bottom of the draw on Church property with Church funds suddenly it became alright to talk about that and so there’s much discussion in Mormon circles about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.I’ve been invited to speak in stake priesthood meetings on the subject. I’ll never forget one evening, a chapel packed as full as this room and more, I was supposed to speak for forty-five minutes and was there with them for an hour and forty-five minutes; and finally had to say that I was tired and wanted to go home! The Institute director at Weber called his staff together and had me give them a two-hour presentation on this so they’d know about it.So it’s okay now to talk about this but let’s be honest, for years and years, this was a subject that we just didn’t talk about and when we did we either said, ‘Well that was John D. Lee and a bunch of renegade Indians,’ or we’d try to ascribe it to some external force rather than to face the fact that some 50 Mormons taking orders from local ecclesiastical leaders actually went out and tricked these 120 people out of their encampment with a white flag and then proceeded to murder them in cold blood with the exception of 17 small children.So it’s a very, very hard thing to discuss especially if you’re a Mormon and especially as I know some of you are descended from people who were involved in this.But anyways, we could talk about the history–I’ve got my own perspective on this. I think most of you know the great historian Carl Becker said (this was pre-feminist days) “every man is his own historian,” I guess we could say ‘every person is his or her own historian.’ And we all have to make up our own minds about what happened there that week.It’s an awful story, you can’t put a smilie face on it. This was cold-blooded murder of innocent people. Occasionally someone will come up to me and say, ‘Well don’t you think they deserved it?’ And, no I don’t think they deserved it. I don’t care how many of the stories you believe about whatever the immigrants did to get killed, nothing they did came anywhere close to justifying the murder of little children and the oldest child saved was six-years and 11 months old. Everyone older than that was murdered. In fact most of the murdered people were women and children. So there’s no justification. Even if you wanted to make some justification for killing the men, it breaks down pretty fast. It’s just- there’s no justification for the murder of these people.So it’s an ugly, ugly story.Then we get to the place where, alright what are we faced with today in 2003 as non-Mormons and ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons and others take a look at this story and try to make sense out of it? I think you also, in this group are much more aware than I am, there are a lot of people out there who find not only Mormonism to be abhorrent but find religion itself to be not healthy at all, in fact not benign but dangerous.I have not had a chance to read Krakauer’s book Under the Banner of Heaven but it’s getting lots and lots of attention. It’s selling like hotcakes, particularly in the east and California where people are more aware of Mormons and it is a sensational story about the Lafferty case. The message seems to be there, as I’ve talked with friends who have read it and read the reviews, that religion–organized religion, in this case Mormonism–can and too often is dangerous and a bad thing rather than just something that if you’re not religious you might want to ignore.So we’ve got a big problem here as historians and in your case, if you want to defend Mormonism. I’m a practicing Mormon, I don’t smoke, drink or chew or go with girls who do (laughter). I give of my excess income once a month to the guy with the suit on at Church and so forth. So I’m with you to a point.But as a historian, our job is to let the chips fall where they may and I’ve looked at this story for many years, long before I became involved in the Mountain Meadows Association in 1998 so I’ve been involved in this whole mess for the last five years and I think I know what happened there.I don’t agree with Will Bagley. I certainly don’t agree with Sally Denton. Her book outsold Bagley’s book in a couple of weeks; I’m sure Will’s hurting over that. Denton’s book is just trash frankly. The first chapter is about stuff that I know about first hand and I barely got through it with my stomach contents intact. But, it sells well and I’m getting e-mail from people all over the country because I’m on our website linklist, all the e-mail that people write into the Mountain Meadows Association’s website I get their message and dozens and dozens of people writing in and saying, ‘I just finished Sally Denton’s book.’ One man said, ‘I hope that the American people within the next ten years wake up and drive the Mormon Church out of existence.’ Two sentences in his message: ‘I just finished Sally Denton’s book’ and then ‘let’s drive them out of existence.’It’s pretty hard to look at this story without having revulsion against the men who did it. I don’t have ancestors who were there. Mine were here in Utah but they were all up north, and some of you who have ancestors who were there, it’s awful! And, I must tell you that I become very angry when people want to excuse what these men did.Do I understand why they did it? I think I do. But I still don’t excuse it and I’ve got a friend with whom I spent hours and hours and hours discussing the Mountain Meadows Massacre–he’s a non-Mormon who has read voluminously on the subject and it’s interesting to get his perspective. And he doesn’t agree with Bagley or Denton.We have a similar view of what happened but… I don’t know, I’m trying to make you see this is just not fun. It just isn’t fun. I’ve told my wife who was about to divorce me over it sometimes, ‘I wish (a) that it had never happened, and (b) that since it did I don’t know about it.’ I mean I really wish ignorance on myself which being a college professor makes me something of a sinner! Ignorance is bliss (the old clichÈ).What I’d like to do for a few minutes and then we’ll open this up to questions is refer you to a particular incident that occurred–well two instances that occurred–that I think puts a perspective on how the non-Mormon/anti-Mormon quote/unquote or slash/slash–whatever you want to call people–how they view this.In October 1998 I was invited with the rest of the Mountain Meadows Board–including descendants of the Bakers and the Fanchers and the Dunlaps and others–to visit with President Hinckley in the Church office building. President Hinckley was with us for about fifty-five minutes. It was an amazing event. He talked about his history with the mass graves, taken to the Meadows the first time in 1947 by his father; they walked the ground silently, shed tears. President Hinckley said he walked away knowing that this was a sacred place and so he had a feeling for the incident.And then in 1998, President Hinckley was at Dixie College to dedicate the pioneer camping ground there on the campus, asked his folks to take him up to the Meadows, was ashamed at the condition of the Church property there. Called us together to say, ‘What do you want to do?’ and the result was we built this beautiful monument down there that some of you I’m sure have seen and I hope most of you have seen. It is a replica of the original cairn that the army constructed over the rifle pit where 34 partial remains were chucked in May of ’59.In the course of preparing to put that new monument there, we made every effort in the Association to discover where the remains were because we knew that cairn had migrated a bit over the years–farmers had knocked it down, vandals had carried off rocks and so forth. Brigham Young ordered it knocked down once according to Dudley Leavitt, he was there with a party in the 1860s and they came up to it and he ordered it destroyed.So we were worried that there were bones that we might discover and the descendants of the Bakers and the Fanchers and others had made it very clear that they did not want that to happen. So we did a lot of cores. We had an archaeologist from BYU, Shane Baker, come down and do some cores to try to find the- whatever graves might be there. Long story made short, he missed. He (inaudible) the grave by six inches and the second scoop of the backhoe dug them up. That was on August 3, 1999.This resulted in a firestorm of activities. The remains, and all kinds of confusion about what state law had to say about these things, the sheriff came immediately and pronounced it was not a recent murder site, so it was an archaeological site and et cetera.Eventually the remains wound up in BYU. I saw them just a few days after they were brought to BYU for the public archaeology folks to try to make some sense out of what they had. The partial remains, they found 29 individuals. We’ve known for years that some of that grave had washed away and we’ve had accounts of farmers seeing bones sticking out of the ground and so forth.So anyway, eventually because the BYU people didn’t have the people to take care of it they transferred the cranial matter to the University of Utah where an archaeology graduate student (now has her Ph.D.) Shannon Novak was commissioned to take a hard look at the cranial material to see what she could determine from the cranial matter.In the meantime, the descendants in Arkansas became very angry. They wanted them reburied immediately and enormous pressure began to come upon us in the Association to try and keep this whole thing afloat–to get the Church and the state and whoever else we could to get those bones back in the ground–so we worked hard to get that done.And finally, the week before the dedication of the new monument which was to take place on September 11, a Saturday, 1999, a man in Harrison, Arkansas named J.K. Fancher who is friends with Dixie Leavitt the governor’s father, got on the phone and called Dixie and said, ‘Your son’s got to intervene.’ So the governor called the state archaeologist and within a few hours the bones had been removed from the University of Utah and brought altogether and on Friday morning, the day of the funeral that had been scheduled for the bones, they were brought to St. George and brought to a funeral parlor where they were placed in four small little caskets and buried that afternoon in a Baptist funeral.You should’ve heard all the Mormons there trying to sing “Amazing Grace.” Then the next day you should’ve heard all the non-Mormons trying to sing “We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet.” There was some humor.Anyway and the end of that story is; then the story is that in March of 2000, a yellow journalist by the name of Chris Smith at the Salt Lake Tribune (he’s not; his skin’s not yellow it’s what he does) published a three-part series in which he announced rather bald-faced (he knew better) that the bones were full of secrets that would have been revealed if the archaeologists had been allowed more time with them and that the Mormon Church conspired with the governor, who was a descendant of one of the killers. (Although the governor’s ancestor claims that he was just a picket rider, most of the people who were there were just there. Picket riders, eh? Didn’t do anything!) That the bones were then, under this conspiracy, quickly replanted.The Associated Press and every other wire service in the world picked that up and here’s the message that went out to the world and which is now in all these books (Krakauer’s book, Denton’s book, et cetera): The bones came out of the ground, they were revealing the nasty truth that the Mormon Church didn’t want out there and so the Mormon Church conspired to get them buried quickly so those truths could not be revealed.That bit of misinformation has been enormously damaging. It is one of those myths that all of you who understand history know how these things happen shows up in one book and pretty soon a graduate student puts it in his dissertation and pretty soon it’s in ten other books and pretty soon it’s the truth.So the “truth” is, my friends, that we had twenty-nine partial remains that were going to tell us the Mormons–not Indians–killed these people and because the Mormon Church didn’t want that information out it conspired to get those bones buried quickly in order to hide the truth. That is the “truth” now.And if you want to stand up in front of a crowd like I’ve done over and over again and try to persuade folks that isn’t the truth–you’re wasting your time. But let me tell you in just a couple of sentences how you don’t have to take my word that it’s not the truth.In 1859 of May of that year, Major Carleton came up out of California with a bunch of guys. They’d met some other guys from Camp Floyd who were already there. And Carleton, surveyed the remains that were strewn all over the Meadows by wolves and wolverines or badgers or whatever they are. Major Carleton said this; it’s on our website,1it’s everywhere. It’s been public record for 144 years: “…nearly every skull I saw had been shot through with rifle or revolver bullets.”So what truths were there in the bones? Well were they smokers? Did they; were they malnourished? What did they eat? It didn’t tell us who killed them any better than we already knew. Who killed them? Who had guns in Iron County in 1857? Who? The Mormons. Did Carleton’s sentence tell how they were killed? Yes, a coup de gr‚ce, they were shot in the head. So the idea that there was a new truth here, that the Church had to be afraid of is just hogwash.And secondly, it is also hogwash there’s (in 10 minutes on the phone you can demonstrate this) J.K. Fancher is not a Mormon. He’s a distinguished citizen of Harrison. He has no sympathy for the Mormon Church. He’s a lateral descent of Alexander Fancher. He’ll tell you, ‘I called Dixie and said, you better get your son to bury those bones or there’s going to be hell to pay.’ That’s how it happened. And Mike Leavitt called the state archaeologist and said, ‘Turn them over to those people so they can bury them or there’s going to be trouble.’But the truth is not the truth anymore because Chris Smith said otherwise and so forth.Let me get to the last incident. I was not in favor of the Olympics. You say, ‘So what?’ Well what the ‘so what’ is, is as soon as I saw everybody celebrating about the Olympics and as soon as I heard from my president at the University that we would be dismissing classes so they could use the ice sheet there for something called curling my wife and I began to save our money and our sky miles and planned a trip to Maui for twenty-two days (laughter) figuring that, ‘Hey it’s the last chance I’ll ever have to go to Maui in February in my racket unless I take a sabbatical and even then I probably won’t be able to.So we were in Maui, and the second day before we came home, the Olympics were over. We were coming home on Tuesday, it was a Monday, I think the closing ceremonies were on Sunday. I’m sitting on the beach and this very piece of–whatever it is–rings. (Laughter) It rings and it’s John Hollenhorst, Channel 5 News, and he says, ‘Hey what do you think of this lead sheet they found down at Lee’s Ferry?’ I said, ‘What lead sheet?’ He says, ‘Where have you been man?’ I say, ‘In Maui, I’m still in Maui.’Well you’re all familiar with the lead sheet and my friend Steve Mayfield here and I have had a lot of conversations. I don’t know if you’ll be able to see this. You’ve probably seen this and some of you may not be able to see this real well, but here’s a pretty poor rendition of what this–but anyways here’s what the thing looks like and a park service worker at Lee’s Ferry before the Olympics found this thing in a building at an old fort there. Steve tells me they’re pretty sure it was put where they found it in about 1998 or ’99, something like that. Right Steve?It’s an old piece of lead; recent metallurgical studies have shown that it was mined in the (inaudible) Ozark Plateau in southern Missouri not far from the homeland of the massacred people before 1865. The script on it, in case you haven’t seen it, and I–this is my own attempt to try to copy it (Steve’s done better work) and his friends, George Throckmorton and others, says that basically, ‘Lee’s at the Paria River. It’s January of 1872, he’s sick, he’s tired, he knows he’s going to be taken pretty soon but he doesn’t really care–he’ll take the blame, he doesn’t fear death. Brigham Young through George A. Smith ordered this done.’Well of course this created an enormous media frenzy, ‘smoking gun,’ ‘boy this is it, now we know for sure, Lee admits it’ and so on. Well somebody right away, one of my friends, wrote and said, ‘Well didn’t Lee say that in the Confessions of John D. Lee/Mormonism Unveiled?’ and the answer is yes but nobody paid any attention because everybody knew his lawyer wrote that book. Got any lawyers in here? We won’t go further with that. (Laughter) But we’ll say this, I think you know that Lee’s lawyer was working pro bono ‘almost.’ The second trial, his deal with Lee was, ‘I’ll defend you but I get your book and the rights to your book.’ And then he had the book for several months after Lee’s death and no one doubts that he manufactured much of what’s in the latter part of it because it’s so inconsistent with the rest of his work.Anyway, long story made short, I jumped in really quickly and said, ‘It’s a hoax.’ And my reasons were (inaudible) handwriting analysis, my reasons were that the message is inconsistent with Lee’s diary at the same time. He was at the Paria but he was not saying stuff like this. In fact the day after this was supposed to be written Lee went on a five-day horse-packing trip with one of his sons looking for the location for a new ranch and was really looking forward to it. He’d just finished two houses, he put a (inaudible) in one of them and he had everything going for him at that moment–he really thought he was out of the woods and he was okay.And if you read the rest of his diary, and six months on either side, he’s very defensive about Mountain Meadows. If anybody suggests Brigham Young does it he calls them a damn liar, I could tell you some specific incidents but I read very carefully the whole journal and six months on either side when I finally got home. I told Hollenhorst from Maui that I thought it was a hoax and he read it to me over the phone, I said, ‘That’s not Lee. It just isn’t Lee.’Well later on–misspellings are another issue–later on, Steve and his friends in the criminal justice/criminology racket did handwriting analysis and so on and found it entirely inconsistent with Lee not only when he wrote on paper but when he writes things scratched into rocks and things like that–it’s just completely different.He used ampersands instead of the word “and;” he didn’t use the dashes. This hoaxster tried to imitate his double line of capital letters, didn’t notice that Lee only did it on the verticals instead of; and did not do it on the horizontal so it’s a clumsy hoax.Well, I bring this to your attention because to this day more than a year later people like Sally Denton and numerous others are still blowing this all over the place as the ‘smoking gun’ despite the fact that I think people like Steve and his associates and people in my end of things, historians like the late Dean May, he and I talked this a lot, are just utterly bemused that anyone with a brain in his head could continue to think that this is a genuine historical document. And there’s always the chance that it is, but if it is, boy there’s an awful lot of things we’ve got to explain to believe that it is.Now why is this? And I’m going to conclude with this. I find it enormously amusing that people who hate Mormons and who hate Mormonism believe that the best way to attack Mormonism is to attack somebody like Brigham Young. This may not be a popular thing to say but I think one could very easily look at what happened at Mountain Meadows–what really happened at Mountain Meadows. It wasn’t a conspiracy; there was no order from Salt Lake to kill these people. What really happened at Mountain Meadows may call into question some other flaws that existed in the nineteenth-century Mormon Church; other flaws that exist in the way decision-making took place and so forth and make criticism that way. But for some reason people from Bagley to Denton to Krakauer and whoever else- Chris Smith; the web is full of this invective. The only thing they can do to satisfy their bloodlust is to go after Brigham Young on this. It seems to me stupid. If I were one of those people, so what? A conspiracy manipulated by a rotten guy like Brigham Young, it seems to me much less damning than if you try to call attention to some other things that may have been going on in Mormonism at the time that will allow ordinarily decent men to commit such a crime.Anyway the point is I think for you folks and your interest, this is a good example it seems to me of how people can pick up a piece of history, some of it accurate–much of it inaccurate–twist it, turn it just a little bit. It becomes a powerful tool and there are literally thousands of people out there now who reading these books think they now understand the real nature of nineteenth-century Mormonism and nothing could be further from the truth.And by the way Steve has a whole bunch of photographs where the Lee lead sheet was found and pictures of the location, the man who found it, better pictures of it other than I showed you, so Steve I’m sure you wouldn’t mind afterwards if people want to come up and ask you questions about it.The information just continues to come in–Steve nod your head or shake it if I’m right or wrong–is that this is a very, very bad clumsy hoax but nobody wants to believe that outside of Mormonism. Everybody wants desperately for this to be. We’ve got a former Mormon who is now a born-again Christian secretary down the hall from me and I was preparing some materials a year ago to give a talk and she came in and she saw that and she said, ‘Oh wow that’s great can I have copies of all that?’ I said, ‘Well, I’m sorry Carol; it’s a hoax.’ And she said, ‘You’re kidding.’ That brought her down to tears!I don’t know what else you’d like me to say about that except that, and my own belief is, let me summarize this way–that looking at incriminating statements, corroborating those incriminating statements the participants made for years afterwards, looking at other evidence that is incontrovertible–this was a bad decision made by local leaders. One bad decision followed by another. It’s like you teach your kids: you tell a lie, you’ve got to tell another lie to cover up the lie you just told and another lie to cover up the lie that you told to cover up the first lie. It goes on and on and on and that’s what happened that week in September of 1857 in Cedar City.But I’ll also mention to you that the Glenn Leonard, Richard Turley and Ron Walker book is as I understand it finished. Some of you may have better information on that? Glenn Leonard, the Church Museum Director; Ron Walker from BYU; and Richard Turley, the Director of the Archives of the Church–they have had full access to everything the Church has including the Jenson papers, including the Morris affidavits and so on that neither Bagley nor Brooks were allowed to see and Denton didn’t even come to Salt Lake to ask if she could see.And those materials, by their promise in public, will be available for the public to peruse when their book has been published will actually mean (inaudible) and I’ve had the privilege of seeing much of that manuscript and I’m enormously impressed with what those men are doing. I think it’s going to be an honest, painfully accurate depiction of what happened there and the cascading series of bad decisions and events that led to this horrible atrocity committed by Mormons with the help of the Paiutes.I also believe without any question, even though the Paiutes might deny loudly that they were involved, that there indeed were. At the beginning of the attack; at the beginning of the week somewhere in the neighborhood of three hundred Paiutes–there may have been only a handful left by the end of the week when the actual murders took place–but they were involved from the beginning and anyone who suggests otherwise is just missing enormous amounts of evidence.So that’s my view; and I also believe, when I was reading Will’s manuscript, that if you accept his thesis then you have to deny that just about everything we know about what happened down there. It doesn’t make any sense in light of what we know happened that week: the decision-making process, the people who were involved, all that has to be just entirely ignored if you believe that it was a conspiracy hatched in Salt Lake and conveyed there by George A. Smith.So that’s my own personal view on it. I hope this is the kind of presentation you were hoping for, I wasn’t really sure exactly what you wanted from me today but I think that summarized it pretty well.Q: I’m sorry but I’ve come to this discussion very late and I just want to know what is the evidence or non-evidence that there were rapes, that there were women and children who were seriously harmed before they were murdered?SESSIONS: Okay most scholars I respect don’t think there were such events occurred, unless there were Paiutes who took people away from the scenes of the killings. And the main reason that we don’t believe any of those stories is because it happened so fast. One scholar–Robb Briggs from California who has done a really fine study of this from the point of view of an attorney–made this statement which is kind of chilling. He said, ‘Whatever you say about the Mountain Meadows Massacre it was really carried out well. It was timed beautifully, it was carried out with precision, there was correlation. They wiped them out in just a few minutes and there wasn’t time for any of that to happen.’ So those who suggest that I think they’re going to have to revisit their thinking. I don’t accept the accounts of those kinds of events for me are specious. That doesn’t say they didn’t happen, but it doesn’t seem to be likely at all.Q: My question relates to Brigham Young’s involvement. Is there any; does the historical evidence vague enough that the connections to Brigham Young are based primarily on your bias? I mean just taking those vague events and if you’re against Mormonism well okay then maybe we can jump to this conclusion, or is it pretty much just bad research?SESSIONS: Some of all of that. In the case of Will Bagley, he started with the premise that Brigham Young ordered it done and that’s been suggested for years.Let me tell you this, if you go to Arkansas today and talk to the descendants–and I know dozens of them now–they all believe Brigham Young ordered it done. They all do and they’re; when you say well why did he order it done? They almost all of them believe it was done for greed. That Brigham Young was in a tough spot, and the Mormons were poor and this train comes through with all this money and cattle (inaudible) killed for their money.So if you decide that at the beginning obviously, and then you can go back and find–‘Oh aha! See, oh yeah, see?’ And that’s what, in my view, Bagley did. And I tried to change his mind about that for years as he was working on the book, I was pretty good friends with him and we took a couple of trips to the Meadows together, and we had a lot of time to sit in the car together. And I could see him making that very mistake you decide upon.As far as evidence, again, on the first of September Brigham Young met with a bunch of Paiutes; sub-chiefs brought up to Salt Lake by Jacob Hamblin. Dimick Huntington wrote in this journal (he was in the meeting) that Brigham Young said, ‘You can have the cattle on the California road.’ And Bagley makes a lot of that as a smoking gun kind of thing. In fact at one time he thought that was going to make his book. But as it turns out he also told the Utes that, he also told the Shoshone that. He was trying to get the Indians on his side in the coming Utah War; he thought there was going to be a big fight. Other than that, I don’t know of any verifiable evidence at all that Brigham Young ordered that.The only other piece of the story that might suggest that he did is that just before the massacre happened, George A. Smith was sent on a long speech-making trip through Southern Utah. We don’t know a lot of what he said in his speeches. We know about some of what he said but they were tough speeches about standing up to the army and the Americans and it was incendiary. And so, there are those who think that Smith was sent down there with that kind of invective and then when he got done with his speech, he’d pull a stake president or a few bishops aside and say, ‘And by the way don’t hesitate to kill anybody you can.’ But that’s all speculation.I think most scholars who are honest about this, the trail doesn’t lead to Brigham Young–it just doesn’t in my view at all.Q: For anyone who is interested in the context that this all took place, read Gene’s book on his biography of Jedediah Grant.2It’s an excellent background to all of this.SESSIONS: It’s out of print.Q: Go find it. I certainly agree with your assessment of Bagley’s book. As I read it I found it is all this prodigious research but Will just can’t seem to say probable, I mean, he always says probable when he should say possible if not definite. His bias would get in the way.What would your advice be to a roomful of LDS apologists when they are confronted with the argument that, okay, and this is argument certainly Brooks made and certainly Bagley made that, whether or not Brigham Young ordered it done, he was involved in the cover-up. What’s your advice?SESSIONS: I don’t think there’s a way to apologize for that because frankly, he was. And I think if you want to apologize for it, the only thing you can do is say, well let’s figure out why he committed the cover-up–and he did.In my view if the Civil War hadn’t happened, you and I might not be here today and the Cougars might not be playing football because the momentum generating in Arkansas in 1860 for example, to come out here and do a full scale investigation was getting really intense. Then the Civil War happened and the whole thing just went away and it wasn’t until the early ’70s that it kicks back up again and by that time the crime is 15 years old and so yeah, there was a cover-up and it was done well.In fact some people like Will like to point to statements Brigham Young made in the aftermath, like it had to be done and, when Dudley Leavitt in his diary described the tearing down of the monument there was a cross on it that quoted the Bible that, “Vengeance is mine…saith the Lord”3and Brigham Young said, according to Leavitt, ‘It should read, “Vengeance is mine, and I have taken some.” Bagley makes a big thing out of that as well.Now that’s all part, in my view, of the cover-up. He had to put forth this rhetoric that said, ‘Keep your mouths shut. This had to happen.’ But, it’s clear to me from other accounts that we have of Brigham Young in late ’57-early ’58 that he was furious about it. As you know he knew how to swear and he used a lot of nasty words to describe how mad he was that this had occurred.The Lee family tradition on… (I’m positive some of you are in the Lee family. They’re everywhere.) The Lee family tradition is that when Lee went to tell Brigham about the event, Brigham already had some inkling that his worst fears were true and that it had been done by Mormons and not the Indians.But he was very, very angry. And then in the aftermath of that meeting with Lee, he was despondent for days. We’ve got solid evidence for that. Then his reaction was, and to answer your question, well we’ve got to keep under- this would kill the Church. This is going to set the Church back, this could destroy it. So, surely, he did an excellent cover-up. The only thing he could do was say was there a good reason for it and if you were a practicing Mormon well, to save the Church. I guess that’s the best-Q: Why did the massacre happen?SESSIONS: In my view there’s one word that tells you why and the word is fear; these guys were scared. All the settlements had been pulled back, Cedar City was ordered to stand. It was the last major settlement between here and California going on the southern route. There were a couple of little, you know, Harmony and there were a few people living down in Washington down that way–but Cedar was it. There were six hundred people in all of Iron County between Parowan and Cedar City. These people were absolutely scared to death. They had been hearing for years the wind over the passes that the Californians were going to come and wipe them out.You want to have a great (inaudible) if you’re interested in this. You want to see how blessed you are to just get the anti-Mormon stuff that’s out there now. Pick up the Sacramento Bee for the 1850s–hardly a week goes by that in that paper, there isn’t an editorial saying, ‘We need to raise an army and go wipe the Mormons off the face of the earth.’ And the folks in Cedar were scared, in my view, out of their minds that that was exactly what was going to happen.On Wednesday, some militiamen who were coming out–the massacre happened on Friday–on Wednesday night some militiamen were coming out to- they were told when they were rounded up they were going to go out and bury some people that got killed by the Indians and some of them were coming out and near Pinto Junction they came upon three people from the party making their way back to Cedar City for help.And not knowing what’s going on, they killed them. They fired on these people. They killed young William Aiden who was, had been a Mormon and was leaving with the party to come to California. Two of these guys, there are various accounts, some say two got away there- or one got away, anyway at least one got away. They killed all three of them eventually. But on Wednesday when only one got away they were just convinced that he made it back to the wagon circle and were telling them, ‘This is not Indians, this is Mormons.’And I don’t doubt at all that that was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. The decision was made the next day to kill them and it was made out at the Meadows; and Major Higby reported in various accounts, ‘Kill everyone who is old enough to tell the tale.’ And Mormons interpreted that as people at the age of accountability so they tried to pick the kids who looked like they were under eight to save, and killed the rest.So in my view it was naked fear–they were just scared to death that these guys were going to go on to California and report that Mormons had attacked them and this would bring them in a mob out of California. That’s my view and the view of many other historians as well.Q: First of all who do they think did the lead sheet, is that still linked to Hofmann?SESSIONS: Steve? You can come up here. Steve’s done a lot more work on that than I have.STEVE MAYFIELD: First of all, it’s alright. As Scott mentioned, at Sunstone this next week on Thursday morning, the forensic examination that was done on the scroll and the background will be presented by George Throckmorton and myself. So that’s okay. First of all, does anybody not recognize George Throckmorton? George Throckmorton is a trained forensic document examiner; he’s presently the manager of the Salt Lake City Police Crime Lab where I work. He is also one of the two forensic document examiners that exposed the Mark Hofmann forgeries and he was invited by the Park Service to look at the scroll.Now back to your question, who did it and if it’s a forgery which to get to the end–yes it is. I can give you a hundred dollar answer or the ten-cent answer and they’re both the same!Who did it? I don’t know. Like Brother Keller said, ‘I don’t know. We don’t know.’ Part of my presentation next Thursday will be discussing the possibilities that Hofmann did it or not. After the discovery of the document last year, KSL TV and Deseret News asked Jack Ford down at the State Prison to, ‘Ask Mark.’ And so Jack Ford who is the PR man for the State Prison system, and who says he does this on a monthly basis where he’ll go over and ask Mark, ‘Will you talk to the press.’ And he says, ‘No,’ and he comes back and says, ‘Sorry.’So he, on behalf of the press went and asked Mark, ‘Did you have anything to do with the scroll? Yes or no question.’ And Mark’s answer was, ‘I have nothing to say about it at this time.’ That’s where it stands. I wrote a letter two weeks ago to Mark asking him the same question and it came back to me with a stamp on it. We cannot deliver without his full booking name and number, like you know, this famous guy in prison and they don’t know where he is (laughter). The letter came back okay so. Come to Sunstone and we’ll discuss the matter.SESSIONS: Linda Sillitoe who did the book Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders and now works at Weber in our library and I had a long chat. I asked her what she thought and she initially thought it could very likely be Mark. You may ask, ‘Well gosh he’s been in the slammer since ’86-7, but there was, Steve right? The possibility that it was put there…MAYFIELD: What I have here is a photocopy. In 1988-89, Mark Hofmann attempted suicide–this is the second one which they took him out to the hospital. At that time he was in the hospital in Salt Lake they did a shakedown in his cell. That’s basically where they search for things. They came across a one-page piece of paper on stationary from the prison in which Mark had listed: ‘Mormon and Mormon-related autographs I have forged’ and on the other side was ‘Non-Mormon forgeries’ and down near the bottom he has listed ‘John D. Lee.’You start asking anybody who have dealt with the forgeries says, ‘We have nothing that we are aware of that–John D. Lee.’This was in ’89. So when this comes up, the right reaction is, when you find something like this where was Mark and has he ever been down there? Now the problem you have down there at the Fort, down there at Page, one of the investigators, Farnsworth, says, ‘In their investigations, the background- his whereabouts, (inaudible) information that he was ever down in that area.’ I’ve even asked Mark’s ex-wife Doralee the same thing, she said, ‘No, he’s never been down there.’ So if he had anything to do with it he did not most likely did not put it down there.SESSIONS: Okay. Thanks Steve. The point that I was going to make was that Linda said, ‘Well if they ask him, he’ll say I don’t have any comment about that.’ And I said, ‘Well that’s too bad.’ Which is what he said. And then she said, ‘But it wouldn’t matter if he said yes or no, you still wouldn’t know! (Laughter) So that’s the fix we’re in with Hofmann.I don’t think…somebody said, ‘Oh it was probably done by Will Bagley.’ (Laughter) We disagree about a lot of things, in fact we’re not really very close anymore because he got angry because I was telling the story about, ‘I can pin it on Brigham Young’ I guess. But I don’t think…I really don’t think so.Q: I’m just wondering how well Will Bagley’s book has been received in the historical community?SESSIONS: Depends on who the historical person is. Dave Bigler who is a former Mormon, born-again Christian thinks it’s the best thing that’s ever been done or will be done. Dean May, who died a few months ago who was the Dean of Utah History in the state I believe (inaudible) Thomas Alexander, the two of them probably share that title, have little regard for it. Tom’s comment to me was, ‘This is history by rumor.’ And so it depends who you talk to about it.Q: You said that it was fear basically that caused the September 11 executions. They were afraid the wagon trains would get back to California and say it was the Mormons. But what caused the initial attack that started off the whole thing?SESSIONS: Good question. As I was answering the other question I realized I was skipping past that.There was a meeting held on Sunday, the High Council met, and the initial decision was not to attack and there had been a lot of trouble with these folks coming down the road and the same motivation, it seems to me, was involved: ‘If they get to California and tell the Californians how weak we are and how poorly defended we are, we’re in big trouble.’I think that also provoked the initial attack. There was a sense of anger at these folks for what they’d done but there was also this sense of, ‘Gosh, if they get out of here and tell the folks in California, ‘Yeah we went through there and we can do whatever we want. We think they’re poorly armed, they’re poor, they’re living in 10×10 dugouts–no problem.”See Brigham Young’s gamble was, and you know this in the Utah War, that he could bluff his way through to a good conclusion. Will (inaudible) he thinks Brigham Young thought that Christ was going to come and save us from the mob and that’s part of his thesis but most historians think he was trying to bluff his way by convincing people that the Indians were with us; that we had…we were well armed. That anybody who comes in here we’re going to use them up and the Fancher party knew that was all a lie and if they got to California, same thing.Q: You mentioned about a book that is just completed and will be coming out very soon on this and, by Greg Turley? I mean he’s-SESSIONS: There are three scholars.UNIDENTIFIED: It’s going to be awhile.SESSIONS: Is it?UNIDENTIFIED: From what I understand the final manuscript will be in the spring so it will be some time after that.SESSIONS: Okay, for those of you who can’t hear, that the final manuscript appears to be still being done.I met with those guys and did a commentary at Kirtland in May at the Mormon History Association–they were predicting then (inaudible) summer and I assumed it was done. I think they were finding more material and wanted to make sure they were very complete in what they’re doing.Q: I haven’t finished my question- because you know, I had briefly stopped (inaudible) Turley and some information, wanted to make sure that it was being utilized. Can you tell us who had, (inaudible) writing this book?SESSIONS: It’s defensive. The Church came to the conclusion with Bagley’s book that there had to be another version of the story that the Church brought forth. My advice to them was to bring in a non-Mormon scholar, for example, (inaudible) a highly respected historian in Arkansas. They chose not to do that. I think that was a (inaudible) mistake but, to make up for that they have announced rather loudly that, ‘Here’s our book, once you’ve read it, everything we looked at is available.’ It will be really hard for those guys to tell any lies even if they were inclined to do so.Q: Don’t you think there will be a lot of good information and, like, for us that are here now to not really form any conclusions until we–if we have a sincere interest in wanting to know what really is happening–to get a hold of that book and read it?SESSIONS: I’m telling everyone–friend or foe alike–hold your judgment until you read their book and it’s going to tell, I think, a very close story to the truth.Q: What were the three authors again?SESSIONS: [Glen] Leonard, [Richard] Turley, and [Ronald] Walker.Thank you.UpdateEditor’s note: The following information was provided by Gene Sessions on February 6, 2007:When I spoke at the FAIR Conference some time ago on the Mountain MeadowsMassacre, I talked about a good friend from Arkansas named J.K.Fancher. J.K. read the transcript of my speech on the FAIR Web siteand contacted me to correct a couple of statements I made about hisrole in the 1999 reburial of remains at the Meadows. I indicated inmy remarks that J.K. “is no friend of the Mormons.” I only meant bythat remark that he is not a Mormon apologist and on the other hand iscertainly a concerned member of the victims’ family. J.K. definitelyis a friend to the Mormon people and has spent his life kindly andpositively relating to Mormons and participating in bridging the gapbetween Mormons and descendants of the victims of the Massacre.I also reported false information I had received that J.K. had beeninvolved directly in getting Governor Leavitt to release victims’remains for reburial at the Meadow on September 10, 1999. J.K. tellsme categorically that he was not involved in that fashion at all andasked me to post a correction on the FAIR site that would fix this bitof mythmaking I had unwittingly perpetuated.In spite of thiscorrection to that detail of the story, I stand by my contention thatthe bones were reburied quickly to satisfy the wishes of their kin andnot to hide the truths they might reveal about the Massacre.Anti-Mormons continue to report that the Church conspired with theState and the Mountain Meadows Association to get the bones quicklyback into the ground because they threatened to tell a more damagingversion of what happened. This is a blatant falsehood that has becomeaccepted history. Thank you for allowing me to correct thesestatements.—Gene SessionsNotes1Brevet Major J.H. Carleton, Special Report on the Mountain Meadow Massacre, U.S.A. May 25, 1859.(last accessed on 9 December 2005).2Gene Allred Sessions, Mormon Thunder: A Documentary History of Jedediah Morgan Grant (University of Illinois Press) 1982.3Romans 12:19.

Every state has specific items listed in their statute which are considered to be violations which can result in denial of approval to take the initial licensure examination or revocation of probation of an existing license. I am most familiar with the MO statute, so will use it as an example. When I read through the list, nothing jumps out at me that looks like “disorderly conduct” but you say this is a “charge”. Did you plead guilty to the charge? Did you receive a sentence in court? Did you pay a fine? What are the details of the offense? What was the situation? Was it “reasonably related to the qualifications, functions or duties of the practice of nursing?” Was there any “essential element of which is fraud, dishonesty or an act of violence?” Did the offense “involve moral turpitude?” (These questions are included in section (2) ). These are the types of questions that you will want to be prepared for.014 Missouri Revised StatutesTITLE XXII OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS (324-346)Chapter 335 NursesSection 335.066 Denial, revocation, or suspension of license, grounds for, civil immunity for providing information--complaint procedures.Universal Citation: MO Rev Stat § 335.066 (2014)335.066. 1. The board may refuse to issue or reinstate any certificate of registration or authority, permit or license required pursuant to chapter 335 for one or any combination of causes stated in subsection 2 of this section or the board may, as a condition to issuing or reinstating any such permit or license, require a person to submit himself or herself for identification, intervention, treatment, or rehabilitation by the impaired nurse program as provided in section 335.067. The board shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for the refusal and shall advise the applicant of his or her right to file a complaint with the administrative hearing commission as provided by chapter 621.2. The board may cause a complaint to be filed with the administrative hearing commission as provided by chapter 621 against any holder of any certificate of registration or authority, permit or license required by sections 335.011 to 335.096 or any person who has failed to renew or has surrendered his or her certificate of registration or authority, permit or license for any one or any combination of the following causes:(1) Use or unlawful possession of any controlled substance, as defined in chapter 195, or alcoholic beverage to an extent that such use impairs a person's ability to perform the work of any profession licensed or regulated by sections 335.011 to 335.096;(2) The person has been finally adjudicated and found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, in a criminal prosecution pursuant to the laws of any state or of the United States, for any offense reasonably related to the qualifications, functions or duties of any profession licensed or regulated pursuant to sections 335.011 to 335.096, for any offense an essential element of which is fraud, dishonesty or an act of violence, or for any offense involving moral turpitude, whether or not sentence is imposed;(3) Use of fraud, deception, misrepresentation or bribery in securing any certificate of registration or authority, permit or license issued pursuant to sections 335.011 to 335.096 or in obtaining permission to take any examination given or required pursuant to sections 335.011 to 335.096;(4) Obtaining or attempting to obtain any fee, charge, tuition or other compensation by fraud, deception or misrepresentation;(5) Incompetency, gross negligence, or repeated negligence in the performance of the functions or duties of any profession licensed or regulated by chapter 335. For the purposes of this subdivision, "repeated negligence" means the failure, on more than one occasion, to use that degree of skill and learning ordinarily used under the same or similar circumstances by the member of the applicant's or licensee's profession;(6) Misconduct, fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty, unethical conduct, or unprofessional conduct in the performance of the functions or duties of any profession licensed or regulated by this chapter, including, but not limited to, the following:(a) Willfully and continually overcharging or overtreating patients; or charging for visits which did not occur unless the services were contracted for in advance, or for services which were not rendered or documented in the patient's records;(b) Attempting, directly or indirectly, by way of intimidation, coercion or deception, to obtain or retain a patient or discourage the use of a second opinion or consultation;(c) Willfully and continually performing inappropriate or unnecessary treatment, diagnostic tests, or nursing services;(d) Delegating professional responsibilities to a person who is not qualified by training, skill, competency, age, experience, or licensure to perform such responsibilities;(e) Performing nursing services beyond the authorized scope of practice for which the individual is licensed in this state;(f) Exercising influence within a nurse-patient relationship for purposes of engaging a patient in sexual activity;(g) Being listed on any state or federal sexual offender registry;(h) Failure of any applicant or licensee to cooperate with the board during any investigation;(i) Failure to comply with any subpoena or subpoena duces tecum from the board or an order of the board;(j) Failure to timely pay license renewal fees specified in this chapter;(k) Violating a probation agreement, order, or other settlement agreement with this board or any other licensing agency;(l) Failing to inform the board of the nurse's current residence;(m) Any other conduct that is unethical or unprofessional involving a minor;(7) Violation of, or assisting or enabling any person to violate, any provision of sections 335.011 to 335.096, or of any lawful rule or regulation adopted pursuant to sections 335.011 to 335.096;(8) Impersonation of any person holding a certificate of registration or authority, permit or license or allowing any person to use his or her certificate of registration or authority, permit, license or diploma from any school;(9) Disciplinary action against the holder of a license or other right to practice any profession regulated by sections 335.011 to 335.096 granted by another state, territory, federal agency or country upon grounds for which revocation or suspension is authorized in this state;(10) A person is finally adjudged insane or incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction;(11) Assisting or enabling any person to practice or offer to practice any profession licensed or regulated by sections 335.011 to 335.096 who is not registered and currently eligible to practice pursuant to sections 335.011 to 335.096;(12) Issuance of a certificate of registration or authority, permit or license based upon a material mistake of fact;(13) Violation of any professional trust or confidence;(14) Use of any advertisement or solicitation which is false, misleading or deceptive to the general public or persons to whom the advertisement or solicitation is primarily directed;(15) Violation of the drug laws or rules and regulations of this state, any other state or the federal government;(16) Placement on an employee disqualification list or other related restriction or finding pertaining to employment within a health-related profession issued by any state or federal government or agency following final disposition by such state or federal government or agency;(17) Failure to successfully complete the impaired nurse program;(18) Knowingly making or causing to be made a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact, with intent to defraud, for payment pursuant to the provisions of chapter 208 or chapter 630, or for payment from Title XVIII or Title XIX of the federal Medicare program;(19) Failure or refusal to properly guard against contagious, infectious, or communicable diseases or the spread thereof; maintaining an unsanitary office or performing professional services under unsanitary conditions; or failure to report the existence of an unsanitary condition in the office of a physician or in any health care facility to the board, in writing, within thirty days after the discovery thereof;(20) A pattern of personal use or consumption of any controlled substance unless it is prescribed, dispensed, or administered by a provider who is authorized by law to do so;(21) Habitual intoxication or dependence on alcohol, evidence of which may include more than one alcohol-related enforcement contact as defined by section 302.525;(22) Failure to comply with a treatment program or an aftercare program entered into as part of a board order, settlement agreement, or licensee's professional health program.3. After the filing of such complaint, the proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 621. Upon a finding by the administrative hearing commission that the grounds, provided in subsection 2 of this section, for disciplinary action are met, the board may, singly or in combination, censure or place the person named in the complaint on probation on such terms and conditions as the board deems appropriate for a period not to exceed five years, or may suspend, for a period not to exceed three years, or revoke the license, certificate, or permit.4. For any hearing before the full board, the board shall cause the notice of the hearing to be served upon such licensee in person or by certified mail to the licensee at the licensee's last known address. If service cannot be accomplished in person or by certified mail, notice by publication as described in subsection 3 of section 506.160 shall be allowed; any representative of the board is authorized to act as a court or judge would in that section; any employee of the board is authorized to act as a clerk would in that section.5. An individual whose license has been revoked shall wait one year from the date of revocation to apply for relicensure. Relicensure shall be at the discretion of the board after compliance with all the requirements of sections 335.011 to 335.096 relative to the licensing of an applicant for the first time.6. The board may notify the proper licensing authority of any other state concerning the final disciplinary action determined by the board on a license in which the person whose license was suspended or revoked was also licensed of the suspension or revocation.7. Any person, organization, association or corporation who reports or provides information to the board of nursing pursuant to the provisions of sections 335.011 to 335.259* and who does so in good faith shall not be subject to an action for civil damages as a result thereof.8. The board may apply to the administrative hearing commission for an emergency suspension or restriction of a license for the following causes:(1) Engaging in sexual conduct ** as defined in section 566.010, with a patient who is not the licensee's spouse, regardless of whether the patient consented;(2) Engaging in sexual misconduct with a minor or person the licensee believes to be a minor. "Sexual misconduct" means any conduct of a sexual nature which would be illegal under state or federal law;(3) Possession of a controlled substance in violation of chapter 195 or any state or federal law, rule, or regulation, excluding record-keeping violations;(4) Use of a controlled substance without a valid prescription;(5) The licensee is adjudicated incapacitated or disabled by a court of competent jurisdiction;(6) Habitual intoxication or dependence upon alcohol or controlled substances or failure to comply with a treatment or aftercare program entered into pursuant to a board order, settlement agreement, or as part of the licensee's professional health program;(7) A report from a board-approved facility or a professional health program stating the licensee is not fit to practice. For purposes of this section, a licensee is deemed to have waived all objections to the admissibility of testimony from the provider of the examination and admissibility of the examination reports. The licensee shall sign all necessary releases for the board to obtain and use the examination during a hearing; or(8) Any conduct for which the board may discipline that constitutes a serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of a patient or the public.9. The board shall submit existing affidavits and existing certified court records together with a complaint alleging the facts in support of the board's request for an emergency suspension or restriction to the administrative hearing commission and shall supply the administrative hearing commission with the last home or business addresses on file with the board for the licensee. Within one business day of the filing of the complaint, the administrative hearing commission shall return a service packet to the board. The service packet shall include the board's complaint and any affidavits or records the board intends to rely on that have been filed with the administrative hearing commission. The service packet may contain other information in the discretion of the administrative hearing commission. Within twenty-four hours of receiving the packet, the board shall either personally serve the licensee or leave a copy of the service packet at all of the licensee's current addresses on file with the board. Prior to the hearing, the licensee may file affidavits and certified court records for consideration by the administrative hearing commission.10. Within five days of the board's filing of the complaint, the administrative hearing commission shall review the information submitted by the board and the licensee and shall determine based on that information if probable cause exists pursuant to subsection 8 of this section and shall issue its findings of fact and conclusions of law. If the administrative hearing commission finds that there is probable cause, the administrative hearing commission shall enter the order requested by the board. The order shall be effective upon personal service or by leaving a copy at all of the licensee's current addresses on file with the board.11. (1) The administrative hearing commission shall hold a hearing within forty-five days of the board's filing of the complaint to determine if cause for discipline exists. The administrative hearing commission may grant a request for a continuance, but shall in any event hold the hearing within one hundred twenty days of the board's initial filing. The board shall be granted leave to amend its complaint if it is more than thirty days prior to the hearing. If less than thirty days, the board may be granted leave to amend if public safety requires.(2) If no cause for discipline exists, the administrative hearing commission shall issue findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order terminating the emergency suspension or restriction.(3) If cause for discipline exists, the administrative hearing commission shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law and order the emergency suspension or restriction to remain in full force and effect pending a disciplinary hearing before the board. The board shall hold a hearing following the certification of the record by the administrative hearing commission and may impose any discipline otherwise authorized by state law.12. Any action under this section shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any discipline otherwise in the board's power to impose and may be brought concurrently with other actions.13. If the administrative hearing commission does not find probable cause and does not grant the emergency suspension or restriction, the board shall remove all reference to such emergency suspension or restriction from its public records. Records relating to the suspension or restriction shall be maintained in the board's files. The board or licensee may use such records in the course of any litigation to which they are both parties. Additionally, such records may be released upon a specific, written request of the licensee.14. If the administrative hearing commission grants temporary authority to the board to restrict or suspend the nurse's license, such temporary authority of the board shall become final authority if there is no request by the nurse for a full hearing within thirty days of the preliminary hearing. The administrative hearing commission shall, if requested by the nurse named in the complaint, set a date to hold a full hearing under the provisions of chapter 621 regarding the activities alleged in the initial complaint filed by the board.15. If the administrative hearing commission refuses to grant temporary authority to the board or restrict or suspend the nurse's license under subsection 8 of this section, such dismissal shall not bar the board from initiating a subsequent disciplinary action on the same grounds.16. (1) The board may initiate a hearing before the board for discipline of any licensee's license or certificate upon receipt of one of the following:(a) Certified court records of a finding of guilt or plea of guilty or nolo contendere in a criminal prosecution under the laws of any state or of the United States for any offense involving the qualifications, functions, or duties of any profession licensed or regulated under this chapter, for any offense involving fraud, dishonesty, or an act of violence, or for any offense involving moral turpitude, whether or not sentence is imposed;(b) Evidence of final disciplinary action against the licensee's license, certification, or registration issued by any other state, by any other agency or entity of this state or any other state, or the United States or its territories, or any other country;(c) Evidence of certified court records finding the licensee has been judged incapacitated or disabled under Missouri law or under the laws of any other state or of the United States or its territories.(2) The board shall provide the licensee not less than ten days' notice of any hearing held pursuant to chapter 536.(3) Upon a finding that cause exists to discipline a licensee's license, the board may impose any discipline otherwise available.(L. 1975 S.B. 108 § 12, A.L. 1981 S.B. 16, A.L. 1995 S.B. 452, A.L. 1999 H.B. 343, A.L. 2007 H.B. 780 merged with S.B. 308, A.L. 2013 H.B. 315)*Section 335.259 was repealed by S.B. 52, 1993.**Word "in" appears here in original rolls.Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Missouri may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.For example, here is a link to a Missouri RN renewal of expired license application: https://pr.mo.gov/boards/nursing/RNPetition.pdfIf you go to page 2 there is a list of questions you would need to respond to about your disorderly conduct charge and if you answer “yes” to any of these items, you would be required to provide additional information as described.You can look at similar documents on the Board of Nursing website in the state where you are interested in licensure, or call the Board and ask to speak to a Nurse Consultant to discuss the issue. Hope this info is useful.

Let me first start by a quote that Jesus said:Matthew 24:5 - For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.Mark 13:6 - For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many.Luke 21:8 - And He said: “Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time has drawn near.’ Therefore do not go after them.If the fulfillment of this is not seen in the the observation of hundreds of branches of Christianity, I am not sure what else it could be. I mean, think about it, which Jesus does one follow? Do you follow the Catholic Jesus, the Presbyterian Jesus, the Lutheran Jesus, the Methodist Jesus, the Non-Denominational Jesus, the Jehovah’s Witness Jesus, the 7th Day Adventist Jesus, the Mennonite Jesus, the Quaker Jesus - or here in question, the Mormon Jesus?To answer this question you need to dig into the core beliefs of the branch. Because each branch has something a little different about the Jesus they believe in. If you wish to skip it all, I could sum it up with this: it is not about religion, but relationship with God.2 Cor. 14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:“I will dwell in themAnd walk among them.I will be their God,And they shall be My people.”17 Therefore“Come out from among themAnd be separate, says the Lord.Do not touch what is unclean,And I will receive you.”18 “I will be a Father to you,And you shall be My sons and daughters,Says the Lord Almighty.”Go and read Revelation chapter 2 about there being 7 different types of churches and what Jesus says to them all. There are indeed people from each of them that Jesus brings home to Himself, NOT just the Mormon church; but there are also those whom He has to send away within those same churches.Now here is the question that ultimately needs to be answered, does Jesus in fact consider the Mormons to BE one of those churches? The answers to that, again, is found within their core beliefs.Mormonism began in 1820 when a teen-aged boy in western New York named Joseph Smith was spurred by a Christian revival where he lived to pray to God for guidance as to which church was true. In answer to his prayers he was visited by God the Father and God the Son, two separate beings, who told him to join no church because all the churches at that time were false, and that he, Joseph, would bring forth the true church. This event is called "The First Vision."In 1823 Joseph had another heavenly visitation, in which an angel named Moroni told him of a sacred history written by ancient Hebrews in America, engraved in an Egyptian dialect on tablets of gold and buried in a nearby hill. Joseph was told it was the history of the ancient peoples of America, and that Joseph would be the instrument for bringing this record to the knowledge of the world. Joseph obtained these gold plates from the angel in 1827, and translated them into English by the spirit of God and the use of a sacred instrument accompanying the plates called the "Urim and Thummim." The translation was published in 1830 as The Book of Mormon, now revered by Mormons as scripture, along with the Bible.The Book of Mormon is a religious and secular history of the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere from about 2200 BC to about 421 AD. It tells the reader that three groups of immigrants settled the uninhabited Americas. They were led by God from their original homes in the Near East to America.The first group came from the Tower of Babel, about 2200 BC, and two other groups came from Jerusalem just before the Babylonian Captivity, about 600 BC.They had prophets of God who had been inspired with the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is thus preserved in their history, the Book of Mormon. Many of the descendants of these immigrants were Christians, even before Christ was born in Palestine, but many were unbelievers. Believers and unbelievers fought many wars, the last of which left only degenerate unbelievers as survivors, who are the ancestors of the American Indians. The most important event during this long history was the visit of Jesus Christ to America, after his crucifixion, when he ministered to (and converted) all the inhabitants.Joseph Smith was directed by revelation from God to reestablish ("restore") the true church, which he did in 1830. He was visited several times by heavenly messengers, who ordained him to the true priesthood. He continued to have revelations from God to guide the church and to give more knowledge of the Gospel. Many of these revelations are published in the Doctrine and Covenants, accepted by Mormons as scripture, along with the Bible and the Book of Mormon. They also add as Scripture the Pearl of Great Price, which Smith translated from Egyptian papyri.Joseph Smith and his followers were continually persecuted for their religious beliefs, and driven from New York State to Ohio, then to Missouri, then to Illinois, where Joseph Smith was murdered in 1844 by a mob, a martyr to his beliefs. The church was then led by Brigham Young, Joseph's successor, to Utah, where the Mormons settled successfully.The LDS church is led today by the successors of Joseph Smith. The present president of the church is a "prophet, seer and revelator" just as Joseph Smith was, and guides the members of the church through revelations and guidance from God.The modern LDS church is the only true church, as restored by God through Joseph Smith. Other churches, derived from the early Christian church, are in apostasy because their leaders corrupted the scriptures, changed the ordinances of the original church, and often led corrupt lives, thus losing their authority.The most reliable way to determine whether the Book of Mormon is true, and whether the Mormon church is "the only true church" is by sincerely asking God in prayer.By accepting baptism into the LDS church you take the first step necessary toward your salvation and your ultimate entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven (the "Celestial Kingdom").It’s amazing how hard they work, trying to prove themselves worthy to reach the highest level of Heaven. And they are working so hard for a lie!They almost always introduce themselves as “Elder XYZ.”If you only have a few minutes to spend with them, you can review the Biblical qualifications for being an elder (1 Tim 3:2-6; Titus 1:5-9).Ask, “What do you think Paul meant by “a husband of one wife?” (He meant that an elder must not be a polygamist, at least). Was Brigham Young an elder? Did he meet this standard?What the Missionaries will not tell you!Here is a summary of important facts about the Mormon church, its doctrine, and its history that the missionaries will probably not tell you. I’m not suggesting that they are intentionally deceiving you -- most of the young Mormons serving missions for the church are not well educated in the history of the church or in modern critical studies of the church. They probably do not know the all the facts themselves.They have been trained, however, to give questioners "milk before meat," that is, to postpone revealing anything at all that might make a questioner hesitant, even if it is true.Each of the following facts has been substantiated by thorough historical scholarship. And this list is by no means exhaustive!The "First Vision" story in the form presented to you was unknown until 1838, eighteen years after its alleged occurrence and almost ten years after Smith had begun his missionary efforts. The oldest (but quite different) version of the vision is in Smith's own handwriting, dating from about 1832 (still at least eleven years afterwards), and says that only one personage, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. It also mentions nothing about a revival. It also contradicts the later account as to whether Smith had already decided that no church was true. Still a third version of this event is recorded as a recollection in Smith's diary, fifteen years after the alleged vision, where one unidentified "personage" appeared, then another, with a message implying that neither was the Son. They were accompanied by many "angels," which are not mentioned in the official version you have been toldabout. Which version is correct, if any? Why was this event, now said by the church to be so important, unknown for so long?Careful study of the religious history of the locale where Smith lived in 1820 casts doubt on whether there actually was such an extensive revival that year as Smith and his family later described as associated with the "First Vision." The revivals in 1817 and 1824 better fit what Smith described later.In 1828, eight years after he supposedly had been told by God himself to join no church, Smith applied for membership in a local Methodist church. Other members of his family had joined the Presbyterians.Contemporaries of Smith consistently described him as something of a confidence man, whose chief source of income was hiring out to local farmers to help them find buried treasure by the use of folk magic and "seer stones." Smith was actually tried in 1826 on a charge of moneydigging.It is interesting that none of his critics seemed to be aware of his claim to have been visited by God in 1820, even though in his 1838 account he claimed that he had suffered "great persecution" for telling people of his vision.The only persons who claimed to have actually seen the gold plates were eleven close friends of Smith (many of them related to each other). Their testimonies are printed in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon. No disinterested third party was ever allowed to examine them. They were retrieved by the angel at some unrecorded point. Most of the witnesses later abandoned Smith and left his movement. Smith then called them "liars."Though witnesses signed affidavits saying they had seen the plates from which Smith translated the BOM, most later left the LDS church and several stated they had only seen a cart with a tarp draped over the “tablets” or had been encouraged by Smith until they had a ‘vision’ of the plates and the angel MoroniIf the tablets were gold, as Smith claimed, they would weighed over 1 tonSmith produced most of the "translation" not by reading the plates through the Urim and Thummim (described as a pair of sacred spectacles), but by gazing at the same "seer stone" he had used for treasure hunting. He would place the stone into his hat, and then cover his face with it. For much of the time he was dictating, the gold plates were not even present, but in a hiding place.The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle,sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture.But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas.The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story.LDS scholars cannot locate the precise location of a single city mentioned in the BOMIn addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian.As much as 1/3 of the BOM is directly taken from the KJVAn early draft of the first portion of the BOM was burned. Smith never “re-translated” the burned portion, but substituted other “books.” Did he have a problem recalling exactly what the lost portion contained?The people of the Book of Mormon were supposedly devout Jews observing the Law of Moses, but in the Book of Mormon there is almost no trace of their observance of Mosaic law or even an accurate knowledge of it.Although Joseph Smith said that God had pronounced the completed translation of the plates as published in 1830 "correct," many changes have been made in later editions.Besides thousands of corrections of poor grammar and awkward wording in the 1830 edition, other changes have been made to reflect subsequent changes in some of the fundamental doctrine of the church.For example, an early change in wording modified the 1830 edition's acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus allowing Smith to introduce his later doctrine of multiple gods. A more recent change (1981) replaced "white" with "pure," apparently to reflect the change in the church's stance on the "curse" of the black race.Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon contained the "fulness of the gospel." However, its teaching on many doctrinal subjects has been ignored or contradicted by the present LDS church, and many doctrines now said by the church to be essential are not even mentioned there.Examples are the church's position on the nature of God, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, polygamy, Hell, priesthood, secret organizations, the nature of Heaven and salvation, temples, proxy ordinances for the dead, and many other matters.Many of the basic historical notions found in the Book of Mormon had appeared in print already in 1825, just two years before Smith began producing the Book of Mormon, in a book called View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith (no relation) and published just a few miles from where Joseph Smith lived.A careful study of this obscure book led one LDS church official (the historian B. H. Roberts, 1857-1933) to confess that the evidence tended to show that the Book of Mormon was not an ancient record, but concocted by Joseph Smith himself, based on ideas he had read in the earlier book.The source documents may also have included an unpublished text by Solomon Spaulding called “A Manuscript Found,” written in a pseudo-Biblical style.Although Mormons claim that God is guiding the LDS church through its president (who has the title "prophet, seer and revelator"), the successive "prophets" have repeatedly either led the church into undertakings that were dismal failures or failed to see approaching disaster. To mention only a few: the Kirtland Bank, the United Order, the gathering of Zion to Missouri, the Zion's Camp expedition, polygamy, the Deseret AlphabetA recent example is the successful hoax perpetrated on the church by manuscript dealer Mark Hofmann in the 1980s. He succeeded in selling the church thousands of dollars worth of manuscripts which he had forged. The church and its "prophet, seer and revelator" accepted them as genuine historical documents.The church tried to suppress the documents, as they revealed JS to be a charlatan, who was interested – obsessed – with obtaining wealth.The church leaders learned the truth not from God, through revelation, but from non-Mormon experts and the police, after Hofmann was arrested for two murders he committed to cover up his hoax. This scandal was reported nationwide.The secret temple ritual (the "endowment") was introduced by Smith in May, 1842, just two months after he had been initiated into Freemasonry. The LDS temple ritual closely resembles the Masonic ritual of that day.Smith explained that the Masons had corrupted the ancient (God-given) ritual by changing it and removing parts of it, and that he was restoring it to its "pure" and "original" (and complete) form, as revealed to him by God. In the years since, the LDS church has made many fundamental changes in the "pure and original" ritual as "restored" by Smith, mostly by removing major parts of it.Many doctrines which were once taught by the LDS church, and held to be fundamental, essential and "eternal", have been abandoned. Whether we feel that the church was correct in abandoning them is not the point; rather, the point is that a church claiming to be the church of God takes one "everlasting" position at one time and the opposite position at another, all the time claiming to be proclaiming the word of God. Some examples are: - The Adam-God doctrine (Adam is God the Father); - the United Order (all property of church members is to be held in common, with title in the church); - Plural Marriage (polygamy; a man must have more than one wife to attain the highest degree of heaven); - the Curse of Cain (the black race is not entitled to hold God's priesthood because it is cursed; this doctrine was not abandoned until 1978); - Blood Atonement (some sins - apostasy, adultery, murder, interracial marriage - must be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner's blood, preferably by someone appointed to do so by church authorities); All of these doctrines were proclaimed by the reigning prophet to be the Word of God, "eternal," "everlasting," to govern the church "forevermore." All have been abandoned by the present church.Joseph Smith's early revelations were collected and first published in 1833 in the Book of Commandments. God (as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants Sections 1 and 67) supposedly testified by revelation that the revelations as published were true and correct.Because the Book of Commandments did not receive wide distribution (most copies were destroyed by angry opponents of the Mormons in Missouri, where it was published), they were republished - with additional revelations - as the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835 in Kirtland, Ohio. However, many of the revelations as published in Kirtland differed fundamentally from their versions as originally given.The changes generally gave more power and authority to Smith, and justified changes he was making in church organization and theology.The question naturally arises as to why revelations which God had pronounced correct needed to be revised.Joseph Smith claimed to have received the priesthood (the only valid priesthood recognized by God) directly from resurrected beings (angels): the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist and the Melchizedek (higher) Priesthood from Peter, James and John. However, the accounts of these visitations are contradictory and questionable.Biblically, who is the only member of the Melchzekek Priesthood?See Ps 110:4, quoted in Hebrews no less than 4 times!Joseph Smith claimed to be a "translator" by the power of God. In addition to the Book of Mormon, he made several other "translations": - The Book of Abraham, from Egyptian papyrus scrolls which came into his possession in 1835. He stated that the scrolls were written by the biblical Abraham "by his own hand." Smith's translation is now accepted as scripture by the LDS church, as part of its Pearl of Great Price. Smith also produced an "Egyptian Grammar" based on his translation.Smith didn’t think the Egyptian Hieroglyphics would ever be deciphered – but he didn’t know about the Rosetta Stone, a translation of which was first published in 1858. Who knows what the Rosetta Stone is?Hieroglyphics, Demotic, Classical GreekModern scholars of ancient Egyptian agree that the scrolls are common Egyptian funeral scrolls, entirely pagan in nature, having nothing to do with Abraham, and from a period 2000 years later than Abraham. The "Grammar" has been said by Egyptologists to prove that Smith had no notion of the Egyptian language. It is pure fantasy: he made it up.The "Inspired Revision" of the King James Bible. Smith was commanded by God to retranslate the Bible because the existing translations contained errors. He completed his translation in 1833, but the church still uses the King James Version.The "Kinderhook Plates," a group of six metal plates with strange engraved characters, unearthed in 1843 near Kinderhook, Illinois, and examined by Smith, who began a "translation" of them. He never completed the translation, but he identified the plates as an "ancient record," and translated enough to identify the author as a descendant of Pharaoh. Local farmers later confessed that they had manufactured, engraved and buried the plates themselves as a hoax. They had apparently copied the characters from a Chinese tea box.Joseph Smith claimed to be a "prophet." He frequently prophesied future events "by the power of God." Many of these prophecies are recorded in the LDSscripture Doctrine and Covenants. Almost none have been fulfilled, and many cannot now be fulfilled because the deeds to be done by the persons named were never done and those persons are now dead. Many prophecies included dates for their fulfillment, and those dates are now long past, the events never having occurred.Joseph Smith died not as a martyr, but in a gun battle in which he fired a number of shots. He was in jail at the time, under arrest for having ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper which dared to print an exposure (which was true) of his secret sexual liaisons.Since the founding of the church down to the present day the church leaders have not hesitated to lie, to falsify documents, to rewrite or suppress history, or to do whatever is necessary to protect the image of the church.Many Mormon historians have been excommunicated from the church for publishing their findings on the truth of Mormon history.Trying to determine the truth by relying entirely on the feelings one gets after praying is not a reliable way to learn the truth. One can easily deceive oneself into "feeling" something that is really not true at all. The only reliable way to get to the truth is to examine verifiable facts.Mormonism includes many other unusual teachings which you will probably not be told about (at least, not until you have been in the church for a long time). These teachings are not revealed to investigators or new converts because those people are not yet considered ready to have more than "milk" as doctrine. The Mormons also probably realize that if investigators knew of these unusual teachings they would not join the church. In addition to those mentioned elsewhere in this presentation, the following are noteworthy:Mormons are actually polytheistic – they believe there are more gods in the universe than all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth.The only three Gods with whom we should concern ourselves with are the Father, Son, and Holy GhostThese are three Gods, three “separate personages” that appeared to Smith in the official version of the First Vision.Thus, they deny the Trinity.They believe there are 3 levels of Heaven:Celestial Kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom, and Telestial KingdomHell is reserved for the very few Sons of Perdition (those who do truly heinous things).Angels are dead humans, eg. Moroni, who was a character in the BOM, the last member of his race.God was once a man like us, living a righteous, though sinful, life on a planet like ours.He experienced “eternal progression” and eventually rose to become our God.God has a tangible body of flesh and bone.We all must obtain flesh and bone bodies in order to reach the highest heavenThis begs the question: What about the Holy Ghost? How did He obtain a body, since He is now a Spirit?God lives on a planet near the star Kolob.God ("Heavenly Father") has at least one wife, our "Mother in Heaven," but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her nor pray to her.We can become like God and rule over our own universe.Godhood is reserved for those righteous Mormons who achieve the highest heaven.Jesus and Satan ("Lucifer") are spirit brothers, and they are our brothers - we are all spirit children of Heavenly FatherJesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having intercourse with Mary, who was temporarily his wife.He is, thus, the literal Father of Jesus.We should not pray to Jesus, nor try to feel a personal relationship with him.The "Lord" ("Jehovah") in the Old Testament is the being named Jesus in the New Testament, but different from "God the Father" ("Elohim").But see Deut. 6:4!In the highest degree of the celestial kingdom some men will have more than one wife.But see Matt. 22:30!Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a "pre-existence", during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life.The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere.Mormons should avoid traveling on water, since Satan rules the waters.A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple.They practice “baptism for the dead” in which departed relatives and friends “receive” baptism by proxy.This is why they think genealogy is so important.I’ve heard that even Hitler has been proxy-baptised!They have a works-based plan of salvationIf you aren’t a Mormon, the best you can hope for is the terrestrial kingdomBut even a devout Mormon can’t ever be sure he’s done enough to achieve the highest heaven.They must be baptized by an Elder who has the Melchezediek Priesthood.They must marry a good Mormon spouse and must be “sealed for time and eternity” in a Mormon temple.Marriage is forever! Mark 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.They must receive a Temple endowmentThey must live a sin-free life, or repent for each and every sin they commit. Better have a good memory!Follow the Articles of Faith (see Appendix) In short, one must do all one can PLUS believe! (2 Nephi 25:23)LDS ScripturesTimeline for the LDS Scriptureso 1830 – First Edition of Book of Mormon publishedo 1830 – Smith begins his translation of Genesiso 1833 – First Edition of the Doctrine & Covenants publishedo 1835 – Second Edition of D&C published (many changes)o 1835 – Smith purchases the “Anthon Papyri”, purported to be the last book of Abrahamo 1842 - First Edition of the Pearl of Great Price publishedo 1921 – Edition of D&C published minus “Lectures on the Faith” If the LDS Scriptures are God’s Word, we would expect them to originate from the hand of an Apostleo LDS claim Joseph was a prophet and apostle If the LDS Scriptures are God’s Word, we would expect them to be consistent with the Bibleo LDS interpret the Bible in such a way as to conclude it does contain LDS theology If the LDS Scriptures are God’s Word, we would expect them to be consistent with themselves Test Case – Are the LDS Scriptures consistent with themselves?The Mormon Doctrine of Godo Evolving view of GodOne God (Monotheism)“Trinitarian” in some sense, with a strong influence of modalismo “Modalism” = One God in three distinct rolesE.;g., I am a son, a father, and a brother.Plurality of Gods (polytheism)o God is limited by natural lawWhat does this imply?That God is not transcendent; there is something more powerful than God.o God is neither all-powerful nor all-knowing“God cannot create a rock He cannot lift – this illustrates a very important concept – namely, that God is not All-Powerful” – Related to me by a Mormon in casual conversation.This “illustrates” that God cannot do anything absurd – for example, He can’t make a square circle. It’s not a matter of power, it’s a matter of logic.o God created the universe from eternal, pre-existing matterAgain, God is not transcendent - there is something in the universe older than HimSome Questions to Ask Mormon MissionariesMormons will often ask people if they have read the Book of Mormon and prayed about it. They assume that if someone believed it he would accept the rest of Mormonism. Here are a few questions to ask:Since the Introduction to the Book of Mormon states that it contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel" can you give me verses that teach the doctrines of pre-earth existence, plural gods with wives, temple marriage, chance to repent after you die, temple rituals for the dead, three levels of heaven, etc.?Where do I find your concept of eternal marriage in the Book of Mormon?If you truly believe the Book of Mormon, doctrinally, how do you accept the Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price since these books teach different concepts?Why do Mormons approach people with the Book of Mormon if it doesn't contain their most important doctrines? Why don't they give out copies of their other scriptures instead of the Book of Mormon?This gives us a chance to talk about the value of the Book of Mormon, as opposed to the Bible. Ask them:What specific doctrine of Mormonism is in the Book of Mormon that isn't in the Bible?The Book of Mormon declares that the Bible has been deliberately altered (see 1 Nephi 13:26-28). Mormons will often point to all the different translations of the Bible as proof that it has been changed. You can ask them something like:Does translation always lessen scripture's value or change its teaching?What about the Book of Mormon? How many translations have been made of it? Is it less reliable in French or German?Does the church put a disclaimer on the Book of Mormon in other languages as they do with the Bible? If not, why not?If professional LDS translators can reliably take the English Book of Mormon into French, why can't professional translators take the Greek New Testament into English?If the Bible is in such bad shape, which verses are wrong, so I won't use them?Mormons will often claim the Bible is incomplete, that various books have been left out of our current Bible.Why doesn't your prophet restore the lost books or correct the translation?If your prophet has not felt the need to restore these missing books of the Bible how important can they be?Which books were left out? Which ones should be added?Joseph Smith did a revised version of the Bible, why doesn't the LDS Church print it? They print extracts from it at the back of their Bible—why not use the whole thing? Smith did not add any lost books to his revision. In fact, he left out the book Song of Solomon.Remind them that even though we don't have all of the words of Jesus, John assured us that we have all that we need to know about gaining eternal life (see John 20:30-31). Also, Jesus promised "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35)If Mormonism is a restoration of original Christianity they would need to demonstrate that LDS doctrines were originally in the Bible but later deleted. However, there is no manuscript evidence of revisions of the New Testament that eliminated cardinal doctrines. Also, the scripture quotes in the writings of the early church fathers show that there were no doctrinal changes.A good book on the reliability of the Bible is The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, by F.F. Bruce.We have over 5,000 ancient versions of the GNT! If a key doctrine had been removed, we would certainly have evidence!When discussing grace with them you could also ask about 2 Nephi 25:23, "by grace we are saved, after all we can do."If grace only applies after all you can do, how do you know when you have done enough? Have you truly done ALL you could do? If not, then it would seem that grace would not apply. That is why a Christian rejoices in grace (unmerited favor) as presented in the Bible.We need to explain that good works are a result of grace, not a way to achieve it (Gal. 5:22-23 and Eph. 2). One doesn't earn or pay for a gift. You will need to explain that grace is not a license to sin, that those who truly love God will want to please Him.Since Mormonism teaches that almost everyone will be saved (resurrected) to some level in heaven, how do they reconcile that with Matt. 7:13-14? Jesus taught that only a few would gain heaven. They seem to have reversed the broad way and the narrow way.Some Biblical “Proof Texts” ConsideredArticle #8 of the Articles of Faith reads:o We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly.o This allows them an out, if the Bible contradicts the BOM or other “essentials” of the LDS faith.“The Bible has been translated so many times, it’s not funny!” – A Mormon friend in casual conversation.How many times has the Bible been translated?BOM in the Bible?In context, these verses are prophetic of the reuniting of Israel and Ephraim; the sticks have the names of tribes written on them:Baptism for the DeadPaul refers to these people in the third person – if it were meant to be normative, he would probably have written “we.”He would have mentioned it elsewhere in Scripture.It is always dangerous to take an obscure passage and build a doctrine on it.BTW, baptism for the dead do not appear anywhere in the BOM.Salvation by faith AND worksThe context is that this is all unsaved people, and it is true that they will be judged on the basis of works.ConclusionLDS apologists have offered sophisticated arguments attempting to prove the BOM’s authenticity as an ancient text. Some are very powerful – yet a simple review of the issues we’ve discussed (and dozens of other we could have) demonstrates a number of problems with the LDS Scriptures, particularly the BOMStudying the Bible will prepare us to evaluate the BOM and other LDS Scriptures from the standpoint of inerrancy, consistency, historical accuracy, and hermeneutics. If we apply the ‘Berean test’ (Acts 17:11), the LDS scriptures fail!Finally, the absolute nail in the coffin:The Bible and the amount of books therein and thus, also without, were prophesied 2,000 years before they were ever compiled. I present to you the truth about the Mormon Scriptures claiming to be an addendum to the Bible:It is found within the Golden Candlestick of the Tabernacle of Moses.Here are the scriptures describing it:Exodus 22:17 And he made the candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work made he the candlestick; his shaft, and his branch, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, were of the same:18 And six branches going out of the sides thereof; three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof, and three branches of the candlestick out of the other side thereof:19 Three bowls made after the fashion of almonds in one branch, a knop and a flower; and three bowls made like almonds in another branch, a knop and a flower: so throughout the six branches going out of the candlestick.20 And in the candlestick were four bowls made like almonds, his knops, and his flowers:21 And a knop under two branches of the same, and a knop under two branches of the same, and a knop under two branches of the same, according to the six branches going out of it.22 Their knops and their branches were of the same: all of it was one beaten work of pure gold.23 And he made his seven lamps, and his snuffers, and his snuffdishes, of pure gold.24 Of a talent of pure gold made he it, and all the vessels thereof.There is only one way this can look:Psalm 119:105 - Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.It was utterly pitch black dark within the Holy Place between the outside and the Holy of Holies. The Candlestick was the only light source here. And the same in this age, the Church Age, so also is the Bible the only light source.And here is the infallible, and undeniable proof that the Mormons are being deceived and following false doctrine straight from the pit of hell:Lets count the pieces on that candlestick and compare the numbers to the Bible:Note that the scriptures in Exodus say it is to be hammered from ONE piece of gold, not many welded together…why? Because God is One and so is His Word! And nothing can be added nor taken away from it. Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Anything claiming so, is a doctrine from the pit of hell.Note the three red pieces from which the branches form:God is He whom the Scripture comes from: 3-in-1 God2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.The word “inspired” when broken down and looked at its individual Greek parts, literally translated means, “God-Breathed” …. all Scripture. And the all Scripture through those whom He breathed it, is ONLY the 66 books of the Bible.Note the tippy top of what comes out: that is, a branch of 12 pieces. It also forms from out of God. Jesus sure liked the number 12, no? So did Israel, no?So where does one go from here? If you realize you have been deceived? Call upon the true Jesus Christ, cry out to Him and He will save you. Call upon His holy Name, and He will save you. Come OUT from among them, and live a Holy and penitent life apart from sin, and tell others of the good news about Him and what He has done for you. Rely and trust in Him. Do not lean or rely on YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of things and His ways, but in everything that you say, think, and do - give Him the glory honor and praise. And He will steer and guide you through and even from out of the pitfalls of this life. He does not wish you to go to Hell and neither does He wish to send you there. Do not eject this knowledge, and neither will He reject you on that day.Hosea 4:6 - My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.