Why do Mormons Accept the Canon of the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just because there isnt any evidence whatsoever that the BOM is historically accurate doesn’t mean its false. All we need to do is see the golden plates for ourselves. Does anyone have Elton John’s phone number handy? I suspect he has golden spectacles we could use in viewing the reformed Egyptian Heiroglyphics. 🙂
Please remember that most Mormons believe that being made fun of is a form of persecution and thus proving that they are the “true church”. I know it’s not always easy, and there is nothing wrong with a spirited debate, but try and treat all individuals as though they are Christ Himself. 😉
 
Please remember that most Mormons believe that being made fun of is a form of persecution and thus proving that they are the “true church”. I know it’s not always easy, and there is nothing wrong with a spirited debate, but try and treat all individuals as though they are Christ Himself. 😉
I understand that to be the case. Also by that measure, the Catholic church has endured 1800 more years of martyrdom and persecution for whatever thats worth.

My attempt at mormon humor failed and I do sincerely apologize for any perceived insult. My original question stands.
 
That is a good laugh. Anybody who knows anything at all about LDS theology knows that it has nothing to do with Protestantism.

zerinus
Sorry, I forgot to respond to this part of your post. Your statement above reflects a sensitivity that Mormons appear to have when they are accused of being derived from Protestantism. About three months ago I had a mini-debate with a group of eight Mormons. When I told them that Mormonism derives from Protestant base material, I got a strong response. The response, as I recall, went something like this: Mormons are actually closer to Catholics than Protestants, since we have reinstituted the true priesthood, which had been lost due to the apostasy; the practice of private confession before the bishop; and perhaps some other things I can’t recall just now. They didn’t want to delve into the very obvious Protestant things that characterize Mormon behaviors and beliefs, such as rejection of the Eucharist in terms of Body Blood Soul and Divinity, not to mention the clear-as-the-nose-on-my-face signature of acceptance of the entire Protestant canon of scripture and the simultaneous rejection, along Protestant lines, of the deuterocanonicals. One also notices very Protestant things in Mormon churches, such as an absence of art, or even a crucifix, or for that matter, a barren wooden cross. In this respect Mormon churches appear like most Baptist churches do. In the Mormon life of faith we find no Communion of Saints in the manner of Catholics, nor Marian devotions. In other words, Mormons appear Protestant, because they derive their theology from Protestantism. I wonder if JS knew any Catholics? I’ve surmised that there were few, if any, Catholics in his area, yet the woods were chock full of revivaling Protestants, which is what I meant by mentioning the Second Great Awakening.
 
However, the thread is about the acceptance by Mormons of the orthodox canon. Therefore, that really is the question. Correct me if I’m wrong (I don’t have the post in front of me) but you stated that JS didn’t consider Song of Solomon to be inspired. I realize that JS considered the biblical renditions to be faulty, evidently by means of mistranslations or deliberate modifications. But, what causes Mormons to consider Song of Solomon to be non-scriptural, if in fact they do not.
That is a good question. Actually, “officially speaking,” the Song of Solomon is in the LDS canon, and you can read it in the LDS edition of the Bible. However, it is known that Joseph Smith when he made his inspired translation of the Bible, wrote a statement to the effect that the Song was not inspired, and I express it as my personal opinion that that is a true statement. The LDS Church has not taken an official position on that subject.
I knew that Mormons reject the so-called apocrapha, but did not realize that they also reject other parts of the orthodox canon.
That is right, they don’t. That was my own personal opinion backed up by a statement known to have been made by Joseph Smith.
My understanding is that these so-called apocraphal books were considered scripture a good thousand years before Trent. Trent’s affirmation was a response to the Protestant rejection of them. Correct me if I am mistaken in this, as I, like you, am no expert.
I am no expert either. But according to the wikipedia, for what it is worth, the apocrypha was not universally accepted by early Christians.

zerinus
 
Speaking of wikipedia…

Can you explain why mormons try to convert Christians to mormonism in light of the 11th tenant of faith?
 
While rather stridently evangelical/fundamentalist in its orienation, Richard Abane’s One Nation Under Gods mentioned that JS DID have access to the DT’s–via his Mom’s (Lucy Mack Smith) KJV with “aprocrapha”–and at least one DT story was cribbed (plagarized) into the BoM. Since I don’t have a copy of Abane’s book right handy, anyone here who might know the pertinent DT and BoM citations?
 
I am no expert either. But according to the wikipedia, for what it is worth, the apocrypha was not universally accepted by early Christians.

zerinus
By “universally” do you mean has there ever been one person in the Church who opposed the Septuagint canon of the OT before the year 1,500? Of course there have been. Many people like to try and throw St. Jerome at us because he tried to translate the Hebrew OT into Latin. However, they forget that St. Jerome was just an individual who was heavily rebuked by many in the Church and eventually yielded.

The Septuagint version was the Bible of the Greek-speaking, or Hellenist, Jews, whose intellectual and literary centre was Alexandria. The oldest extant copies date from the fourth and fifth centuries of our era, and were therefore made by Christian hands; nevertheless scholars generally admit that these faithfully represent the Old Testament as it was current among the Hellenist or Alexandrian Jews in the age immediately preceding Christ
 
… From months of watching the BYU Channel I’ve gotten the impression that modern Mormons see JS as a meek, Christ-like person. Mr. Abanes shows that, to the contrary, he was apparently quite ambitious and even arrogant. Prints of JS in military uniform as general of the Mormon Militia, as well as a rising presidential candidate, are telling.
In many ways, JS was a would-be American Muhammed. His disadvatage was he entrenched in a populous country (unlike 7th Century Arabia), with reasonably strong (state & federal) governments to prevent him from taking over like the other “prophet” did–and also a STRONG vigilante strain in American culture (at that time) that eventually lead to his demise.
 
… The Jews know what was inspired scripture long before the Catholic Church decided to “canonize” it. …zerinus
There was NO “Jewish” agreement on the canon of the “Tanach” (OT) untill WELL after the last apostle died–like over 200 years! The claim that the council of Jabneh/Jamniah “settled” the OT canon is a fallacious one cited by ONE protestant theologian with NO textual evidence!

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

and

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4sb.asp
 
That is right, they don’t. That was my own personal opinion backed up by a statement known to have been made by Joseph Smith.

I am no expert either. But according to the wikipedia, for what it is worth, the apocrypha was not universally accepted by early Christians.

zerinus

Thank you for the clarifications. The notes in my Catholic Study Bible say that Song of Solomon was controversial from the beginning. Yet, it was included with the canon, and has been reaffirmed there, many times, over the course of 2k years of Catholic history. It is contained in all orthodox Bibles, and even is found in LDS versions of the KJV.

Joseph Smith claims to have received direct instructions from the Lord that (just coincidentally?) support the near-universal Protestant opinion that the deuteros are not inspired and do not belong in the Bible. Yet, he apparently plagarized from them. Are you familiar with the specific uses that JS made of the deuterocanonicals, and adapted into the BoM? The reason I ask is, I am currently reading through a book by Richard Abanes in which he lists four specific examples of BoM segments that appear to be sourced from the Apocrypha.
 
While rather stridently evangelical/fundamentalist in its orienation, Richard Abane’s One Nation Under Gods mentioned that JS DID have access to the DT’s–via his Mom’s (Lucy Mack Smith) KJV with “aprocrapha”–and at least one DT story was cribbed (plagarized) into the BoM. Since I don’t have a copy of Abane’s book right handy, anyone here who might know the pertinent DT and BoM citations?
Abanes has a chart that shows the following:

2 Maccabees 2:23, 26, 28, 31 being used in 1 Nephi 1:17, Words of Mormon 3, Mormon 5:9, and Moroni 1:1.

Then 1 Maccabees 14:48-49 (cf. 1 Maccabees 8:22; 14:18-19, 27) relating to 1 Nephi 4:20, 24.

Then 2 Maccabees 1:34, 36 relating to 2 Nephi 5:8.

Then 2 Esdras 13:1 relating to 1 Nephi 8:2.

I copied this directly out of Abanes’ notes in the book, but do not know enough about the BoM, or the Apocrypha for that matter, to be able to judge their accuracy. That’s why I earlier asked Z’s opinion of these. I assume that Mormon apologists are well familiar with these and can shoot them down.
 
Joseph Smith claims to have received direct instructions from the Lord that (just coincidentally?) support the near-universal Protestant opinion that the deuteros are not inspired and do not belong in the Bible.
Actually, it doesn’t quite say that. If you read the revelation I had linked to, you will find that it says that parts of it is true, and parts are not. And then it says whoever reads by the Spirit will benefit therefrom. If you want to find a “coincidence” behind everything you can; but I don’t. I have no doubts in my mind that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and the Book of Mormon is true.
Yet, he apparently plagarized from them.
If you wanted to bring the charge of plagiarism against the Book of Mormon, that is easy to do. You don’t have to go to the Apocrypha to do it. Extensive passages form the Bible (notably of Isaiah) has been quoted in the Book of Mormon. Its detractors see that as plagiarism. But those who have a testimony of its truth, as I do, don’t.
Are you familiar with the specific uses that JS made of the deuterocanonicals, and adapted into the BoM?
No! Tell me about it!
The reason I ask is, I am currently reading through a book by Richard Abanes in which he lists four specific examples of BoM segments that appear to be sourced from the Apocrypha.
There are hundreds of those kinds of books around. You are welcome to trust them if you like, but I don’t.

zerinus
 
Joseph Smith apparently belived that it was not, and I am inclined to agree with him on that. There is no “why” about it. It isn’t because it isn’t! It isn’t scripture for the same reason that the New York Times isn’t. It wasn’t revealed or inspired by God, or by the Holy Ghost, and therefore it isn’t scripture.

zerinus
How do you know that the New York Times isn’t Scripture?

Did God tell Joseph Smith The Song of Solomon isn’t Scripture, or was it simply his opinion?
 
JS finds some value in the Apocrypha, but doesn’t include them in his Bible. Interesting. Why wouldn’t he have included the “true” parts and omitted the untrue parts? Or, as was done with the main LDS Bible, include all the apocryphal books but notate where they are in error. And BTW, I hardly think that these things happened by mere coincidence. As I stated, Mormonism is obviously descended from Protestantism, so that these various things which point in that direction wouldn’t be mere coincidence, but rather, Mormonism being what it is by the design of its creator: Protestant. What I’ve read of JS’s early religious formation, it was all Protestant.

I don’t know about a legal definition of plagarism, but my understanding is that it involves a lack of attribution. I admit that I can’t stand to read the BoM, and one of the reasons is the incessant stealing of biblical phrases, and from what I can see, it is WAY more than just Isaiah. I suppose that, if one buys the notion that the source of the BoM is the same as the source of the Bible, ie God, then it would be natural to have the same phrases show up in both. Is that the Mormon position?

See the post I gave to Lion of Narnia which has some copy from the Abanes book regarding so-called plagarisms from the Apocrypha. I see you are already familiar with this, so there’s no point in dragging that out. FWIW I can see your point of view perfectly. As long as you are convinced that JS is all that he himself claimed to be, then everything else falls right into place, including apparent instances of plagarism. But, from my point of view, JS has a lot of 'splaining to do, especially with regard to his claim to be a prophet. Are you aware of any JS prophesies that either did not come to pass, or didn’t come to pass as he said they would? If any JS prophesies failed to come to pass, would that cast any doubt in your mind as to the truth of his claim to be a true prophet of God?

Zerinus wrote: ““There are hundreds of those kinds of books around. You are welcome to trust them if you like, but I don’t.””

Wow. Hundreds. I’ve only seen maybe three, and only bought one: The Richard Abanes book, One Nation Under Gods, a History of the Mormon Church. I did not realize that there were so many more. The thing about the Abanes book is that it is extremely well-backed-up with an extensive notes section. Every statement is documented with a source. Have you read any of it?
 
JS finds some value in the Apocrypha, but doesn’t include them in his Bible. Interesting.
Joseph Smith didn’t do any of those things, the Lord did.
Why wouldn’t he have included the “true” parts and omitted the untrue parts? Or, as was done with the main LDS Bible, include all the apocryphal books but notate where they are in error.
Because that was not Joseph Smith’s decision. That is how the Lord wanted it to be done.
And BTW, I hardly think that these things happened by mere coincidence.
I am sure. You can find conspiracy theories anywhere you care to look for them.
As I stated, Mormonism is obviously descended from Protestantism, . . .
Obviously? Ummm. :rolleyes: Obvious to whom? To you it maybe; but not to me!
. . . that these various things which point in that direction wouldn’t be mere coincidence, but rather, Mormonism being what it is by the design of its creator: Protestant. What I’ve read of JS’s early religious formation, it was all Protestant.
Joseph Smith lived in a predominantly Protestant community and environment; so does that automatically mean that his religious movement was a by-product of that environment, and consequently his claims to independent revelation is discredited? It sounds like a strange kind of logic to me. Suppose he had lived in a Catholic (or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Islamic) environment; then I suppose you would have said that his religious movement was the by-product of that environment, and therefore his claims to independent revelation is discredited? So what kind of religious environment do you think he should have lived in to make his claims to independent revelation a valid one?
I don’t know about a legal definition of plagarism, but my understanding is that it involves a lack of attribution. I admit that I can’t stand to read the BoM, and one of the reasons is the incessant stealing of biblical phrases, and from what I can see, it is WAY more than just Isaiah. I suppose that, if one buys the notion that the source of the BoM is the same as the source of the Bible, ie God, then it would be natural to have the same phrases show up in both. Is that the Mormon position?
The Book of Mormon is about 500 pages long. The direct and indirect quotes from the Bible found in it amount to at the most 30 pages. The rest is original work. So what do you think the LDS Church needs to do to calm your “conspiratorial” mind?
Wow. Hundreds. I’ve only seen maybe three, and only bought one: The Richard Abanes book, One Nation Under Gods, a History of the Mormon Church. I did not realize that there were so many more. The thing about the Abanes book is that it is extremely well-backed-up with an extensive notes section. Every statement is documented with a source. Have you read any of it?
There are more than hundreds of anti-Mormon books, histories, magazine articles, websites etc that have been published ever since it came into existence. If I wanted to learn more about the Catholic Chruch, I would go to reliable Catholic sources; not to anti-Catholic, Protestant, or Evangelical sources. My advice to you is to do the same with Mormonism (or anything else for that matter).

zerinus
 
Zerinus wrote: ““Joseph Smith didn’t do any of those things, the Lord did.””

Do we have any authority, other than JS, that the Lord did these things? I assume that you do not buy into any of the other cult leaders’ claims simply because they said so. I assume that you don’t take JS with such blind faith that you don’t have evidences other than his written word that “the Lord did” these things, ie specify how to modify the Bible and which books to include in it, among many others.

Zerinus wrote: ““I am sure. You can find conspiracy theories anywhere you care to look for them.””

Where is the conspiracy theory to which you refer? The fact that Mormonism is obviously Protestant-derived is simply a fact that cannot be denied. Why are Mormons so sensitive to this? Why do they get so bothered to think that Mormonism sprang from the loins of Luther and Calvin? One Mormon told me that the restoration began with the Reformation, and was completed with JS. I don’t know whether this jives with current Mormon thinking, but if it is true, then there should be no need to be ashamed of being a child of the Reformation.

Zerinus wrote: ““Joseph Smith lived in a predominantly Protestant community and environment; so does that automatically mean that his religious movement was a by-product of that environment, and consequently his claims to independent revelation is discredited?””

If JS lived in a Protestant environment, and his religious inventions had almost all the theological earmarks of Protestantism, then the conclusion is an obvious one. If he had lived in a Catholic environment, and yet produced a religion looking the way Mormonism looked in, say, 1844, ie largely Protestant, then THAT would make it less likely that he was merely subject to the ambience of time and place. Take the Lord’s Supper for instance. The Mormon practice is virtually identical to many other Protestant practices, and shares pretty much zero with Catholicism. If Mormonism existed during apostolic times, why would the Mormon church practice a Eucharistic model that is so utterly Protestant, unless it was a product of the Reformation?

Zerinus wrote: ““The Book of Mormon is about 500 pages long. The direct and indirect quotes from the Bible found in it amount to at the most 30 pages. The rest is original work. So what do you think the LDS Church needs to do to calm your “conspiratorial” mind?””

Again, I don’t see this as being conspiratorial at all, and am unsure what you mean by that. I will pull BoM out when I’m looking for something in particular, and on those occasions I see lifts from the Bible all over the place. I find it hard to believe that they amount to such a small fraction of the whole. But, since I will not try to prove it one way or the other, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that issue. As far as what the LDS church needs to do to “calm my conspiratorial mind” I doubt there is anything possible. My mind is not “conspiratorial” and it is not uncalm. I had the advantage of having studied orthodox Christianity at some length over the course of several excursions into various denominations. It seems to me that people most likely to become Mormon (or any other cult, for that matter) are those with very little grounding in orthodoxy, and therefore having no substantial tools with which to judge the claims of Mormonism.

Zerinus wrote: ““There are more than hundreds of anti-Mormon books, histories, magazine articles, websites etc that have been published ever since it came into existence. If I wanted to learn more about the Catholic Chruch, I would go to reliable Catholic sources; not to anti-Catholic, Protestant, or Evangelical sources. My advice to you is to do the same with Mormonism (or anything else for that matter).””

Thanks, and that is the same advice I’ve gotten from by girlfriend’s family recently. However, I am not steeped in anti-Mormon literature. I’ve got the Abanes book, and an evangelical pamphlet titled “How to Witness to Mormons.” That is my entire anti-Mormon library, LOL. I have done a fair amount of reading of Mormon sources, such as the Talmage Jesus the Christ, and the LDS web site, here and there out of the BoM and D&C. Still, without knowing anything at all about Mormonism, I would reject it for the same reason I reject all other Protestant sects: They are not in communion with the Catholic Church, with the Pope. That’s all I really need to know. I began moving towards the Catholic Church when I noticed how miserably fractured Protestantism is. I see LDS as just another heretical branch of Protestantism. An interesting branch, to be sure, but not particularly important in the overall scheme of things.
 
That is right. Whey you do not have any valid arguments to bring, mock, and geer, and sneer, and scoff, and ridicule. How very Catholic of you!

zerinus
Oh Zerinus funny of you to say this in judgment of another. I am sure well over a dozen of your posts many of us could argue were extremely rude and uncalled for.

Peace Be with you all,

Regis University Student
 
Do we have any authority, other than JS, that the Lord did these things? I assume that you do not buy into any of the other cult leaders’ claims simply because they said so. I assume that you don’t take JS with such blind faith that you don’t have evidences other than his written word that “the Lord did” these things, ie specify how to modify the Bible and which books to include in it, among many others.

Where is the conspiracy theory to which you refer? The fact that Mormonism is obviously Protestant-derived is simply a fact that cannot be denied. Why are Mormons so sensitive to this? Why do they get so bothered to think that Mormonism sprang from the loins of Luther and Calvin? One Mormon told me that the restoration began with the Reformation, and was completed with JS. I don’t know whether this jives with current Mormon thinking, but if it is true, then there should be no need to be ashamed of being a child of the Reformation.

If JS lived in a Protestant environment, and his religious inventions had almost all the theological earmarks of Protestantism, then the conclusion is an obvious one. If he had lived in a Catholic environment, and yet produced a religion looking the way Mormonism looked in, say, 1844, ie largely Protestant, then THAT would make it less likely that he was merely subject to the ambience of time and place. Take the Lord’s Supper for instance. The Mormon practice is virtually identical to many other Protestant practices, and shares pretty much zero with Catholicism. If Mormonism existed during apostolic times, why would the Mormon church practice a Eucharistic model that is so utterly Protestant, unless it was a product of the Reformation?

Again, I don’t see this as being conspiratorial at all, and am unsure what you mean by that. I will pull BoM out when I’m looking for something in particular, and on those occasions I see lifts from the Bible all over the place. I find it hard to believe that they amount to such a small fraction of the whole. But, since I will not try to prove it one way or the other, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that issue. As far as what the LDS church needs to do to “calm my conspiratorial mind” I doubt there is anything possible. My mind is not “conspiratorial” and it is not uncalm. I had the advantage of having studied orthodox Christianity at some length over the course of several excursions into various denominations. It seems to me that people most likely to become Mormon (or any other cult, for that matter) are those with very little grounding in orthodoxy, and therefore having no substantial tools with which to judge the claims of Mormonism.

Thanks, and that is the same advice I’ve gotten from by girlfriend’s family recently. However, I am not steeped in anti-Mormon literature. I’ve got the Abanes book, and an evangelical pamphlet titled “How to Witness to Mormons.” That is my entire anti-Mormon library, LOL. I have done a fair amount of reading of Mormon sources, such as the Talmage Jesus the Christ, and the LDS web site, here and there out of the BoM and D&C. Still, without knowing anything at all about Mormonism, I would reject it for the same reason I reject all other Protestant sects: They are not in communion with the Catholic Church, with the Pope. That’s all I really need to know. I began moving towards the Catholic Church when I noticed how miserably fractured Protestantism is. I see LDS as just another heretical branch of Protestantism. An interesting branch, to be sure, but not particularly important in the overall scheme of things.
You make a lot of generalizations and general assertions about the LDS Church, without giving specific examples and citing specific cases that can be examined, that it is not really possible to answer your objections properly. The only answer I can give you is to assure you that I know more about Mormonism than you probably do, and I do not concur with your views. My investigations do not lead me to the same conclusions that yours do.

zerinus
 
You make a lot of generalizations and general assertions about the LDS Church, without giving specific examples and citing specific cases that can be examined, that it is not really possible to answer your objections properly. The only answer I can give you is to assure you that I know more about Mormonism than you probably do, and I do not concur with your views. My investigations do not lead me to the same conclusions that yours do.

zerinus
There really is only the one main assertion: That Mormonism grew out of Protestant theologies. I’ve claimed that JS was heavily influenced by the overwhelmingly Protestant atmosphere in the place(s) he lived. What religious upbringing he had was Protestant. During his formative years, the country was in the grips of the Second Great Awakening, and it is apparent from what he wrote that he was captivated by the revivalism of it.

I actually have provided several concrete examples. I’ll try to touch on them again. The Mormon communion (eucharist, small e), which is almost identical, from a ceremonial point of view at least, to that practiced in most Protestant churches. I’m not familiar with Mormon theology concerning transsubstantiation or the Lord’s Supper. Mormons claim to have reinstituted the real priesthood that was lost thru the general apostasy, so it would seem to me that they’d have a Eucharist with the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity Real Presence as taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles and the Chruch Fathers. That fact that they evidently do NOT do this is, to me, telling.

The specific rejection by Mormons of art and icons in their churches is very identical to that of other Protestants. Mormons go even further, however, in a manner that supports the opinion of the orthodox that they are not, in fact, Christians. They reject even the bare cross as a signature. In a Baptist church, one is likely to see at least a wooden cross or two on a wall. A Mormon church looks more like a school theater.

The specific rejection by Mormons, which I assume is related to some specific teaching, against formulaic prayer, such as the Lord’s Prayer, or the Hail Mary, or the Salve Regina, or, for that matter, the Creed. This is very utterly Protestant.

And speaking of Mary: The utter rejection of any Mariology whatever. Mormons relegate the Mother of God onto the same backbench that other Protestants do.

And speaking in more general terms of Mary: the apparent rejection by Mormons of a Communion of Saints. Given the elaborate afterlife notions of Mormons, this seems odd to me.

OK, so there are four (or five) things that I’ve observed that make me think that Mormonism is Protestant-derived. Why don’t you address those, and after you’ve shot them down, I’ll try to give you some more.
 
Allweather:

Let’s not forget the very strong Freemasonry ties:

**Prominent leaders in Mormonism who were also Masons include: **

Joseph Smith
Founder of Mormonism

Joseph Smith, Sr.
Joseph Smith’s father

Hyrum Smith
Joseph Smith’s brother

Samuel Smith
Joseph’s brother

William Smith
Joseph’s brother

Brigham Young
Mormonism’s second president

John Taylor
Mormonism’s third president

Wilford Woodruff
Mormonism’s fourth president

Lorenzo Snow
Mormonism’s fifth president

Sidney Rigdon
Counselor to Joseph Smith

John C. Bennett
Assistant president to the First Presidency

Willard Richards
Second counselor to Brigham Young

Newell K. Whitney
Presiding Bishop

Heber C. Kimball
First counselor to Brigham Young

Orson Pratt
Mormon apostle

Parley P. Pratt
Mormon apostle

Orson Hyde
Mormon apostle

Orrin Porter Rockwell
Joseph Smith’s bodyguard

Lyman Johnson
Mormon apostle

William Law
Second counselor to Joseph Smith

William Marks
Nauvoo Stake president

Erastus Snow
Mormon apostle

William Clayton
Joseph Smith’s secretary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top