Intro:

(Purpose: These thoughts are not intended to persuade people who are convinced that the Mormon concept of God is flawed in anyway. It’s designed primarily for Latter-Day Saints to understand the LDS concept of God and people of other faiths who interested in understanding the LDS concept of God.)

It is important to know who and what God is.

- “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. 1938, p. 345.)

- The Prophet Joseph Smith, in his lectures on Faith, said, “For faith could not center in a Being of whose existence we have no idea, because the idea of his existence in the first instance is essential to the exercise of faith in him.” Not only is knowing that God exists important but so is having “a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes”, for without it. “the minds of men could not have sufficient power with God to the exercise of faith necessary to the enjoyment of eternal life.” (Lectures on Faith, delivered to a school of the elders, Kirtland Ohio, December 1834. Emphasis added)

- “Could you gaze into heaven for five minutes," he said, "you would know more than you would by reading all that was ever written on the subject." Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1972), 324.

- Joseph's understanding of God as a supremely perfect, embodied person, humanlike in form, departed radically from the traditional Christian understanding as typified by the Westminster Confession of Faith: "There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in Being and perfection, a most pure Spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions." The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), chapter II; Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 3:606.

However, there is a lot of confusion about God and who he is.

First and Second Centuries

- “God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later controversies prove (e.g., Orig. contra Melito; see also Tertull. De anima). In the case of the cultured, the idea of a corporeality of God may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured, popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament literally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images…In the second century . . . realistic eschatological ideas no doubt continued to foster in wide circles the popular idea that God had a form and a kind of corporeal existence." Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma.

- Note: First Century Judaism also taught an anthropomorphic God:

o In all of rabbinic literature [covering both the tannaitic (70–200 a.d.) and amoraic (220–500 a.d.) periods] there is not a single statement that categorically denies that God has body or form. In my understanding, the question of whether the rabbis believed in a God who has form is one that needs little discussion. . . . Instead of asking, "Does God have a body?" we should inquire, "What kind of body does God have?" Alon Goshen Gottstein, "The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature," Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 172. See also Arthur Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God (1937; reprint, New York: Ktav, 1968), which deals with the literal versus allegorical interpretation of scripture in rabbinic tradition. Marmorstein suggests that the allegorical interpretations among the rabbis were moving away from anthropomorphic conceptions of God.

o The rabbinic interpretation of the image of God as referring to the body is clearly shown in the following representative selection, a story about Rabbi Hillel: His disciples asked him: "Master, whither are you bound?" He answered them: "To perform a religious duty." "What," they asked, "is this religious duty?" He said to them: "To wash in the bath-house." Said they: "Is this a religious duty?" "Yes," he replied, "if the statues of kings, which are erected in theatres and circuses, are scoured and washed by the man who is appointed to look after them, and who thereby obtains his maintenance through them—nay more, he is exalted in the company of the great of the kingdom—how much more I, who have been created in the Image and Likeness." Midrash Rabbah Leviticus 34:3, in Midrash Rabbah, trans. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon (London: Soncino, 1983), 4:428.

o

- BYU scholar Stephen Robinson has pointed out that the LDS idea of God is one of the theological tensions that cause many other Christian denominations to fight against the church, as well as out rejection of the post-biblical creeds. (see Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols., New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1992, s.v. “Apostasy,” “doctrine,” “God the Father,” and “Godhead”).

- Robert Wilken remarks that it was only with the second-century apologists, who “began to offer a reasoned and philosophical presentation of Christianity to pagan intellectuals,” that Christian thinkers began to claim that “they worshipped the same God honored by the Greeks and Romans, in other words, the deity adored by other reasonable men and women. Indeed, Christians adopted precisely the same language to describe God as did pagan intellectuals. The Christian apologist Theophilus of Antioch described God as ‘ineffable . . . inexpressible . . . uncontainable . . . incomprehensible . . . inconceivable . . . incomparable . . . unteachable . . . immutable . . . inexpressible . . . without beginning because he was uncreated, immutable because he is immortal." . . . This view, that God was an immaterial, timeless, and impassible divine being, who is known through the mind alone, became a keystone of Christian apologetics, for it served to establish a decisive link to the Greek spiritual and intellectual tradition.” Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 151.

- In view of "the post-biblical importance of monotheism, the relative rarity of its expression in the Bible is quite striking." Origins of Biblical Monotheism 154. Was early Israel monotheistic in the sense under discussion here? Probably not. See ibid., 11, 91, 149. Exodus 15:11 ("Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Yahweh], among the gods?") seems to entail the existence of other gods, as do Psalm 82 and many other passages. On this, see Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 471–594.

-

- Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

LDS Concept of the Godhead

Distinction of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost

- The first Article of Faith states “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”

- The distinctness of the Godhead is made even more clear in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also: but the Holy Ghost has a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell with in us.”

- Joseph Smith said in a Sabbath day address in Nauvoo (11June 1943), “Any person that had seen the heavens opened knows that there are three personages in the heavens who hold the keys of power, and one presides over all.”

- President Hinckley has said “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are distinct beings but they are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God. (John 17:20-21) It is perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead.” (The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, booklet [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], pp. 12-13.)

- The preincarnate Jesus was revealed to ancient Israel as the Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible. Many biblical scholars now recognize that El (or El Elyon, "the Highest") and Yahweh were originally distinct. See, for example, Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 140–47. Even such mainstream reference works as the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible and the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (sponsored by the SBL) speak of the original distinction between Yahweh and El. It is striking that, in the New Testament, Jesus is "the Son of the Highest" (as, for example, at Luke 1:32).

- Early biblical monotheism, if we choose to use the term, includes a divine council of gods. It is only just prior to the exile that explicit monotheistic rhetoric in something like the modern sense appears in Israel. (Later, as we all know, the seventy divine sons of El and Asherah become, in Jewish tradition, the angels of the seventy nations.) Elohim, of course, is plural in form. And, sometimes, it is clearly plural in meaning. But even when it refers to a single divine person, it implies plurality. Elohim includes all gods; the fulness of deity is comprehended in him. Thus the word is equivalent to "deity" or "Godhead." In this sense it is used in the priestly account of Creation: "Then Elohim said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'" (Gen. 1:26). The passage presupposes the conception of the heavenly council . . . ruled over by God. . . . Despite this court imagery, the priestly view is clearly monotheistic, for Elohim embraces the divine plurality in unity, and elsewhere in the priestly account [though not here] the divine name is accompanied by verbs in the singular.

-

Are We Polytheists?

- We love and worship both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (though nowhere in our doctrine does it say that we worship the Holy Ghost necessarily.). From Mormon.org “We love Christ. We worship Christ. He is our example and our Savior.” (Emphasis added) The doctrine of the Godhead begs the question of polytheism; “Because you guys believe in multiple Gods, isn’t that blasphemous or anti-monotheistic?” It should be pointed out that this doctrine of the Godhead isn’t polytheistic (its more tri-deistic than anything, if you really feel a need to use these type of terms), but a belief in three all powerful Gods who are one in purpose. I would avoid using any labels like these however because of how different, difficult and loaded the terms are. In explaining and understanding our belief in God, we believe, as a revealed word of God, the doctrine of the Godhead isn’t blasphemous but beautiful. The fact that Jesus and the Holy Ghost both are considered Gods does not somehow take away from the Supremacy of Eloheim, nor from Their essential oneness. Here is what some LDS scholars and General Authorities have said on the matter:

- “The Latter-day Saints, who believe in the Godhead, are no more polytheistic than are Christians who believe in the Trinity. God and Christ are the objects of our worship. Even though Mormons believe in the ultimate deification of man, I am unaware of any reference in LDS literature that speaks of worshiping any being other than the ones within the Godhead. Latter-day Saints believe in "one God" in the sense that they love and serve one Godhead, one divine presidency, each of whom possesses all of the attributes of Godhood.” Robert Millet, The Mormon Faith: A New Look at Christianity

- “Primitive and pagan peoples often believe in and worship many supposed gods. They imagine that there are gods of birth, marriage, and death, of war and peace, of the mountains, forests, and plains, and so forth. It is falsely supposed by uninspired religious scholars that Yahweh or Jehovah was the tribal God of the Hebrew peoples, that he gradually came to have pre-eminence over the gods of other nations, and that he was finally accepted as the One Supreme Being. The fact is, however, that monotheism did not grow out of polytheism, rather polytheistic concepts are apostate perversions of the original truth about God which was revealed to Adam and the ancient patriarchs. It should be remembered that polytheism has reference to pagan deities to whom reverence, devotion, and worship are given. It is not to be confused with the gospel truth that there are "gods many, and lords many, But to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 8:4-7.) The saints are not polytheists.” Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine

One in Purpose

- Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, while distinct beings, are still one in a very important sense that I believe all Christians should be able to agree on. In John 17 Jesus prays in verse 11; “Holy Father keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may one, as we are.” Verse 20-22 continue “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as though, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them that they may be one, even as we are one.” It is clear from these verses that Heavenly Father and Jesus are one. However, you have to really distort the scriptures to make that oneness have a metaphysical meaning. Jesus is praying that His disciples will be one with both Him and the Father. For Latter-Day Saints, this a beautiful doctrine of coming unto God and being unified with Them, one in purpose. How weird is it if this somehow meant that Jesus was praying for us to physically become one with God, like some sort of human transformer. This is God’s doctrine and he has given it to us so that “[Y]ou may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fullness.” (D&C 93:19)

-

Note on Abinadi’s Christology

Mosiah 15:1-4 “God himself shall come down among the children of men . . . being the Father and the Son…The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son…And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.”

Some believe Abinadi's Christology is incompatible with current Latter-day Saint Christology. Even if you accept the ideology that the former and the latter are different, a differing Christology does not mean a contradictory Christology. (This verse assumes a separation of Father and Son by the use of the pronoun ‘they’.) We will look at what the confusion is and attempt at clearing it up by looking at what we as Latter-Day Saints believe.

Chart

This chart may help illustrate how Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same:

Jehovah is Jesus
	Old Testament	New Testament
Jehovah/ Jesus Creator of the World	Isaiah 45:11-12	John1:1,3
Jehovah/Jesus is Savior	Hosea 13:4	Luke 2:11
Jehovah/ Jesus is Redeemer	Isaiah 43:14	Galations 3:13
Jesus/ Jehovah will deliver from death	Hosea 13:14	1 Corinthians 15:20-22
Jews to Look on Jehovah/Jesus, who was pierced.	Zechariah 12:10	John 19:34, 36
Jehovah/ Jesus Followed Israel in the Wilderness	Exodus 13:21-22	1 Corinthians 10:1-4
Jehovah/Jesus is Husband/ Bridegroom	Isaiah 44:6	Revelations 1:8
Jehovah/Jesus is First and Last	Isaiah 44:6	Revelations 1:8

More Biblical Confirmation

The word used for God over 2,500 times in the Bible (See Genesis 1:1, for example) is the word Elohim. This Hebrew word broken up means God (elo) and him is a masculine plural or many! (Parenthetically, Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages and the Arabic word for God, Allah, and the Hebrew word, Elo, are virtually the same word.)

Distinct Attributes of God As Evident in Each Person of the Godhead
	The Father	Jesus Christ	The Holy Spirit
omnipotent (all-powerful)	Genesis 18:14 Isaiah 43:13 Jeremiah 32:17, 27 Matthew 19:26	Daniel 7:13, 14 Matthew 28:18 1 Peter 3:22 John 3:31, 35; 17:2	Psalms 104:30
omniscient (all-knowing)	1 Chronicles 28:9 2 Chronicles 6:30 Job 34:21, 22 Psalms 139:1-6, 11-18; 147:5 Isaiah 48:5; 66:18 Acts 15:18 Romans 11:33-36 1 John 3:20	John 4:25, 26, 29; 6:64; 13:11; 19:28; 21:17 He knew their thoughts: Matthew 9:4; 12:25; 22:18 Mark 2:8; 12:15 Luke 5:22; 6:8; 9:47; 11:17 John 2:24,x25;x5:42; 6:6;x16:19,x30; Acts 1:24 He knew the future: Matthew 16:21; 20:18, 19 John 2:19, 21, 22; 12:23, 24, 32, 33	Isaiah 40:13 John 14:26 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11
immutable (unchanging)	Malachi 3:6	Hebrews 13:8	1 Corinthians 12:4
eternal (everlasting)	Genesis 21:33 Exodus 3:14 Psalms 90:2; 102:27 Isaiah 41:4 Romans 1:23; 16:27 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16 Revelation 4:8	Isaiah 44:6; 48:12 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16 Revelation 1:4, 5, 8, 11, 17; 2:8; 21:6; 22:13 Hebrews 7:25 pre-existent to creation: Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 ("...us...our...our...") Proverbs 8:22-36 Isaiah 48:12, 16 Micah 5:2 John 1:1-3, 10; 3:13; 6:62; 8:35, 58; 17:5, 24 Romans 11:36 1 Corinthians 8:6 Ephesians 3:9 Philippians 2:5 Colossians 1:15-19 Hebrews 1:2 Revelation 3:14	Hebrews 9:14

THE GODHEAD: Three Distinct Personalities

.I. The Father is a distinct personality apart from the Spirit:

Matthew 3:16, 17
Isaiah 48:16

II. The Spirit is a distinct personality apart from the Son:

Matthew Luke 12:10
John 16:7, 13, 14
1 John 5:6-8

III. The Son is a distinct personality apart from the Father:

Matthew 10:32; 11:25-27
Mark 13:32
Luke 17:5
John 5:19, 20, 30; 6:37-39; 14:12, 28, 31; 16:5, 16; 32:17
Ephesians 1:17, 20
1 Corinthians 3:23; 11:3
Colossians 3:1
Hebrews 1:1-3

More Distinctions Between the Members of the Godhead in the New Testament

Matthew 1:20, 21 "the Lord (the Father) ... the Holy Spirit ... Jesus"
Matthew 3:16, 17 "Jesus ... the Spirit of God ... a Voice from heaven (the Father)"
Matthew 12:18 "I ... My Spirit ... on Him"
Matthew 22:42, 43 "Christ ... the Spirit ... Lord (the Father)"
Mark 1:9-11 "Jesus ... the Spirit ... a Voice from heaven ... My beloved Son"
Mark 12:35, 36 "Christ ... the Holy Spirit ... the Lord (the Father)"
Luke 1:35 "the Holy Spirit ... the Highest ... the Son of God"
Luke 2:26, 27 "the Holy Spirit ... Christ ... Jesus"
Luke 3:21, 22 "Jesus ... the Holy Spirit ... a Voice from heaven ... My beloved Son"
Luke 10:21 "Jesus ... the Spirit ... Father"
Luke 12:9, 10 "God ... the Son ... the Holy Spirit"
John 3:5 "Jesus ... the Spirit ... God"
John 3:34, 35 "God ... the Spirit ... the Father ... the Son"
John 4:24, 25 "God ... a Spirit ... Messiah ... Christ"
John 14:16, 17, 26 "the Comforter ... the Father ... in My name"
John 15:26 "the Comforter ... the Father ... of Me"
John 20:21, 22 "Jesus ... Father ... the Holy Spirit"
Acts 2:32, 33 "Jesus ... God ... the Father ... the Holy Spirit"
Acts 2:38, 39 "Jesus Christ ... the Holy Spirit ... God"
Acts 4:30, 31 "Jesus ... the Holy Spirit ... God"
Acts 5:31, 32 "God ... a Prince and Savior ... the Holy Spirit"
Acts 7:55 "the Holy Spirit ... Jesus ... God"
Acts 8:14-16 "God ... the Holy Spirit ... Jesus"
Acts 10:38 "God ... Jesus ... the Holy Spirit"
Acts 10:46-48 "God ... the Holy Spirit ... the Lord"
Acts 11:16, 17 "the Lord ... the Holy Spirit ... God ... the Lord Jesus Christ"
Acts 20:21-23 "God ... Jesus ... the Holy Spirit"
Romans 1:1, 3, 4 "God ... His Son, Jesus Christ ... the Spirit"
Romans 5:5, 6 "God ... the Holy Spirit ... Christ"
Romans 8:2, 3 "the Spirit ... Jesus ... God ... His own Son"
Romans 8:8, 9 "God ... the Spirit ... the Spirit of Christ"
Romans 8:16, 17 "the Spirit ... God ... Christ"
Romans 14:17, 18 "the Holy Spirit ... Christ ... God"
Romans 15:12, 13 "Root of Jesse (Jesus) ... God ... Holy Spirit"
Romans 15:16 "Jesus ... God ... the Holy Spirit"
Romans 15:30 "The Lord Jesus Christ ... the Spirit ... God"
1 Corinthians 6:10, 11 "God ... the Lord Jesus ... the Spirit"
1 Corinthians 12:4-6 "Spirit ... Lord ... God"
1 Corinthians 7:39, 40 "the Lord Jesus ... the Spirit ... God"
1 Corinthians 8:2 "the Lord Jesus ... the Spirit ... God"
2 Corinthians 3:3, 4 "the Spirit ... Christ ... God"
2 Corinthians 13:14 "Jesus ... God ... the Holy Spirit"
2 Corinthians 5:5, 6 "God ... the Spirit ... the Lord (Jesus)"
Galatians 4:6, 7 "God ... the Spirit ... Son ... Father ... God ... Christ"
Ephesians 2:18 "through Him (Jesus) ... Spirit ... the Father"
Ephesians 2:21, 22 "the Lord ... God ... the Spirit"
Ephesians 3:14, 16 "the Father ... Jesus Christ ... His Spirit"
Ephesians 4:4-6 "Spirit ... Lord (Jesus) ... God and Father"
Ephesians 5:18-20 "Spirit ... Lord (Jesus) ... God ... Father"
Colossians 1:6-8 "God ... Christ ... Spirit"
1 Thessalonians 4:6-8 "Lord (Jesus) ... God ... Holy Spirit"
1 Thessalonians 5:18, 19 "God ... Father ... Christ ... Jesus ... Spirit"
2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14 "God ... Lord ... God ... Spirit ... Lord Jesus Christ"
Titus 3:4-6 "God ... Holy Spirit ... Jesus Christ"
Hebrews 2:3, 4 "Lord (Jesus) ... God ... Holy Spirit"
Hebrews 3:4, 6, 7 "God ... Christ ... Holy Spirit"
Hebrews 6:4-6 "Holy Spirit ... God ... Son"
Hebrews 9:14 "Christ ... Spirit ... God"
Hebrews 10:29-31 "Son of God ... Spirit ... Lord ... God"
1 Peter 1:2 "God the Father ... Spirit ... Jesus Christ"
1 Peter 3:18 "Christ ... God ... Spirit"
1 Peter 4:14 "Christ ... Spirit ... God"
2 Peter 1:21 "God ... Holy Spirit ... Lord (Jesus)"
2 Peter 2:1 "God ... Holy Spirit ... Lord (Jesus)"
1 John 4:2 "Spirit ... Jesus ... God"
1 John 4:13, 14 "Spirit ... Father ... Son ... Savior"
1 John 5:7 "Father ... Word ... Holy Spirit"
Jude 20, 21 "the Holy Spirit ... God ... Lord ... Jesus Christ"
Revelation 1:9, 10 "Jesus Christ ... God ... Jesus Christ ... Spirit"
Revelation 3:5-7 "Father ... Spirit ... He that hath the key of David (Jesus)"
Revelation 14:12, 13 "God ... Jesus ... Lord ... Spirit"
Revelation 21:9, 10 "Lamb ... Spirit ... God"
Revelation 22:16-18 "the offspring of David (Jesus) ... Spirit ... God"

God Has a Body

Scriptures Showing God Has a Body

Gen. 1: 27	(Moses 2: 27) God created man in his own image.
Gen. 5: 1	God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.
Gen. 9: 6	in the image of God made he man.
Gen. 18: 33	Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing.
Gen. 32: 30	I have seen God face to face.
Ex. 24: 10	they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet.
Ex. 31: 18	(Deut. 9: 10) written with the finger of God.
Ex. 33: 11	Lord spake unto Moses face to face.
Ex. 33: 23	thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not.
Num. 12: 8	With him will I speak mouth to mouth.
Matt. 3: 17	a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son.
Matt. 4: 4	every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matt. 17: 5	a voice out of the cloud.
Luke 24: 39	for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
John 14: 9	he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.
Acts 7: 56	the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Rom. 8: 29	predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.
2 Cor. 4: 4	Christ, who is the image of God.
Philip. 2: 6	who, being in the form of God.
Philip. 3: 21	our vile body . . . fashioned like unto his glorious body.
Col. 1: 15	Who is the image of the invisible God.
Heb. 1: 3	the express image of his person.
James 3: 9	men which are made after the similitude of God.
1 Jn. 3: 2	when he shall appear, we shall be like him.
Rev. 22: 4	they shall see his face.
Mosiah 7: 27	(Ether 3: 15) image after which man was created.
D&C 20: 18	he created man, male and female, after his own image.
D&C 110: 3	his eyes were as a flame of fire.
D&C 130: 1	Savior shall appear . . . see that he is a man like ourselves.
D&C 130: 22	Father has a body of flesh and bones.
Moses 1: 16	thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten.
Moses 6: 9	In the image of his own body . . . created he them.
Abr. 3: 11	Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face.
Abr. 4: 27	Gods went down to organize man in their own image.

See also Gen. 33: 10; Deut. 4: 28; Acts 17: 29; Col. 3: 10.

Early Christians Persecuted for Teaching (Among Other Things) That God Has a Body

An anti-Christian writer of the day (A.D. 178) attacked the Christians for their teachings of a comprehensible God who had a body in the image of man’s:

The Christians say that God has hands, a mouth, and a voice; they are always proclaiming that “God said this” or “God spoke.” “The heavens declare the work of his hands,” they say. I can only comment that such a God is no God at all, for God has neither hands, mouth, or voice, nor any characteristics of which we know. And they say that God made man in his own image, failing to realize that God is not at all like a man, nor vice versa; God resembles no form known to us. They say that God has form, namely the form Logos, who became flesh in Jesus Christ. But we know that God is without shape, without color. They say that God moved above the waters he created-but we know that it is contrary to the nature of God to move. Their absurd doctrines even contain references to God walking about the garden he created for man; and they speak of him being angry, jealous, moved to repentance, sorry, sleepy-in short, as being in every respect more a man than a God. They have not read Plato, who teaches us in the Republic, that God (the Good) does not even participate in being. (Celsus, On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman (New York University Press, 1987)

Eloheim is the Father of Our Spirits

Eloheim will always be our Eternal Father in Heaven because he is the Father of our spirits. From the church sponsored website Mormon.org:

“Jesus taught that God is “Our Father which art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9). We call God Heavenly Father because He is the Father of our spirits.”

- Psalms 82:6 “All of you are children of the most High.”

- Acts 17:29 “We are the offspring of God.”

- Gen. 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

- 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 “But to us there is but one God, the Father.”

- Philippians 2:5-6 “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

- Romans 8:16-17 “The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ”

- “The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.” Boyd K Packer “The Pattern of Our Parentage” Ensign, Nov. 1984

Jesus is Jehovah, God of the Old Testament

This may be one of the most confusing things about this discussion. Many times in the Old Testament, Jehovah (not Elohim) speaks as though he is Elohim. Is Jehovah of the Old Testament, who would become Jesus Christ of the New, the Father? Yes. Is He still distinct from Elohim? Yes. Is Elohim still our Eternal Father? Yes. Is this a contradiction? No. There are different meanings of the term Father, and Jesus inhabits many of them while still being subordinate to His Father in Heaven. Lets look at what the First presidency said about the Jesus as Father back in 1916.

1. Father as Creator

“One “scriptural meaning of “Father” is that of Creator; e.g., in passages referring to any one of the Godhead as “the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are” (Ether 4:7; see also Alma 11:38–39; Mosiah 15:4). God is not the Father of the earth as one of the worlds in space, nor of the heavenly bodies in whole or in part, not of the inanimate objects and the plants and the animals upon the earth, in the literal sense in which He is the Father of the spirits of mankind. Therefore, scriptures that refer to God in any way as the Father of the heavens and the earth are to be understood as signifying that God is the Maker, the Organizer, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. With this meaning, as the context shows in every case, Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called “the Father,” and even “the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (see passages before cited and also Mosiah 16:15). With analogous meaning Jesus Christ is called “The Everlasting Father” (Isa. 9:6; compare 2 Ne. 19:6). The descriptive titles “Everlasting” and “Eternal” in the foregoing texts are synonymous. That Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation is set forth in the book Jesus the Christ, chapter 4 [by James E. Talmage]. Jesus Christ, being the Creator, is consistently called the Father of heaven and earth in the sense explained above; and since His creations are of eternal quality He is very properly called the Eternal Father of heaven and earth.”

2. Jesus Christ as Father of those who abide in His Gospel

“Jesus Christ is regarded as the “Father” has reference to the relationship between Him and those who accept His gospel and thereby become heirs of eternal life.” Here are two scripture references that illustrate this:

“Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the life and the light of the world. “I am the same who came unto mine own and mine own received me not; “But verily, verily, I say unto you, that as many as receive me, to them will I give power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on my name. Amen” (D&C 11:28–30). To Orson Pratt the Lord spoke through Joseph the seer, in 1830: “My son Orson, hearken and hear and behold what I, the Lord God, shall say unto you, even Jesus Christ your Redeemer; “The light and the life of the world, a light which shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not; “Who so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God. Wherefore you are my son” (D&C 34:1–3).”

3. Jesus Christ as Father by Divine Investiture of Authority

“[T]he title “Father” to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30; see also John 17:11, 22); yet He declared, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and further, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43; see also John 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 20:35; 3 Ne. 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D&C 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority, and godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.

“We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that angel the Lord said, “Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him” (Ex. 23:21).

“The ancient Apostle John was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (Rev. 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: “And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. “Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God” (Rev. 22:8–9).And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” (Rev. 22:12–13)…

“Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.” (A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from Improvement Era, Aug. 1916, 934–42; capitalization, punctuation, paragraphing, and spelling standardized.)

The Doctrine of the Godhead and the Divine Progression of Man Taught Anciently

1. “As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be” –Lorenzo Snow (President Snow often referred to this couplet as having been revealed to him by inspiration during the Nauvoo period of the church. See, for example, Deseret Weekly, 3 November 1894, 610)
2. “Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, ‘I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.’ . . . For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.” - Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (about a.d. 130-200, Against Heresies, bk. 5, preface, 4.38 (4); compare 4.11 (2): “But man receives progression and increase towards God. For as God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always progress towards God.”)
3. "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." - Clement of Alexandria (about a.d. 150-215 Exhortation to the Greeks, 1, The Instructor, 3.1. See his Stromateis, 23)
4. In the beginning men "were made like God, free from suffering and death," and that they are thus "deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest." - Justin Martyr (about a.d. 100-165 Dialogue with Trypho, 124)
5. "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. . . . Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life… He became man that we might be made divine." (Athanasius, Against the Aryans, 1.39, 3.34., On the Incarnation, 54.)
6. "But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of god, we have also been made gods." Augustine of Hippo a.d. 354-430, On the Psalms, 50.2.)
7. "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship…" The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, Collier Books, 1980), 18.
8. “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.” Lewis, Mere Christianity, 174–75.

Conclusion:

With President Hinkley I bare witness that it is a “Miracle of miracles and wonder of wonders, they are interested in us, and we are the substance of their great concern. They are available to each of us. We approach the Father through the Son. He is our intercessor at the throne of God. How marvelous it is that we may so speak to the Father in the name of the Son.

I bear witness of these great, transcendent truths. And I do so by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost.”

This topic has never held much interest for me, but it comes up from time to time, and here is a good article in next month's Ensign that gives the church's position on perhaps the darkest episode in the Church's history:

Richard E. Turley Jr., “The Mountain Meadows Massacre,” Ensign, Sep 2007

This September marks the 150th anniversary of a terrible episode in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On September 11, 1857, some 50 to 60 local militiamen in southern Utah, aided by American Indian allies, massacred about 120 emigrants who were traveling by wagon to California. The horrific crime, which spared only 17 children age six and under, occurred in a highland valley called the Mountain Meadows, roughly 35 miles southwest of Cedar City. The victims, most of them from Arkansas, were on their way to California with dreams of a bright future.

For a century and a half the Mountain Meadows Massacre has shocked and distressed those who have learned of it. The tragedy has deeply grieved the victims’ relatives, burdened the perpetrators’ descendants and Church members generally with sorrow and feelings of collective guilt, unleashed criticism on the Church, and raised painful, difficult questions. How could this have happened? How could members of the Church have participated in such a crime?

Two facts make the case even more difficult to fathom. First, nothing that any of the emigrants purportedly did or said, even if all of it were true, came close to justifying their deaths. Second, the large majority of perpetrators led decent, nonviolent lives before and after the massacre.

As is true with any historical episode, comprehending the events of September 11, 1857, requires understanding the conditions of the time, only a brief summary of which can be shared in this article. For a more complete, documented account of the event, readers are referred to the forthcoming book Massacre at Mountain Meadows.1

Historical Background

In 1857 an army of roughly 1,500 United States troops was marching toward Utah Territory, with more expected to follow. Over the preceding years, disagreements, miscommunication, prejudices, and political wrangling on both sides had created a growing divide between the territory and the federal government. In retrospect it is easy to see that both groups overreacted—the government sent an army to put down perceived treason in Utah, and the Saints believed the army was coming to oppress, drive, or even destroy them.

In 1858 this conflict—later called the Utah War—was resolved through a peace conference and negotiation. Because Utah’s militiamen and the U.S. troops never engaged each other in pitched battle, the Utah War has been characterized as “bloodless.” But the atrocity at Mountain Meadows made it far from bloodless.

As the troops were making their way west in the summer of 1857, so were thousands of overland emigrants. Some of these emigrants were Latter-day Saint converts en route to Utah, but most westbound emigrants were headed for California, many with large herds of cattle. The emigration season brought many wagon companies to Utah just as Latter-day Saints were preparing for what they believed would be a hostile military invasion. The Saints had been violently driven from Missouri and Illinois in the prior two decades, and they feared history might repeat itself.

Church President and territorial governor Brigham Young and his advisers formed policies based on that perception. They instructed the people to save their grain and prepare to cache it in the mountains in case they needed to flee there when the troops arrived. Not a kernel of grain was to be wasted or sold to merchants or passing emigrants. The people were also to save their ammunition and get their firearms in working order, and the territory’s militiamen were put on alert to defend the territory against the approaching troops if necessary.

These orders and instructions were shared with leaders throughout the territory. Elder George A. Smith of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles carried them to southern Utah. He, Brigham Young, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric against the enemy they perceived in the approaching army and sought the alliance of Indians in resisting the troops.

These wartime policies exacerbated tensions and conflict between California-bound emigrants and Latter-day Saint settlers as wagon trains passed through Utah’s settlements. Emigrants became frustrated when they were unable to resupply in the territory as they had expected to do. They had a difficult time purchasing grain and ammunition, and their herds, some of which included hundreds of cattle, had to compete with local settlers’ cattle for limited feed and water along the trail.

Some traditional Utah histories of what occurred at Mountain Meadows have accepted the claim that poisoning also contributed to conflict—that the Arkansas emigrants deliberately poisoned a spring and an ox carcass near the central Utah town of Fillmore, causing illness and death among local Indians. According to this story, the Indians became enraged and followed the emigrants to the Mountain Meadows, where they either committed the atrocities on their own or forced fearful Latter-day Saint settlers to join them in the attack. Historical research shows that these stories are not accurate.

While it is true that some of the emigrants’ cattle were dying along the trail, including near Fillmore, the deaths appear to be the result of a disease that affected cattle herds on the 1850s overland trails. Humans contracted the disease from infected animals through cuts or sores or through eating the contaminated meat. Without this modern understanding, people suspected the problem was caused by poisoning.

Escalating Tensions

The plan to attack the emigrant company originated with local Church leaders in Cedar City, who had recently been alerted that U.S. troops might enter at any time through southern Utah’s passes. Cedar City was the last place on the route to California for grinding grain and buying supplies, but here again the emigrants were stymied. Badly needed goods weren’t available in the town store, and the miller charged a whole cow—an exorbitant price—to grind a few dozen bushels of grain. Weeks of frustration boiled over, and in the rising tension one emigrant man reportedly claimed he had a gun that killed Joseph Smith. Others threatened to join the incoming federal troops against the Saints. Alexander Fancher, captain of the emigrant train, rebuked these men on the spot.

The men’s statements were most likely idle threats made in the heat of the moment, but in the charged environment of 1857, Cedar City’s leaders took the men at their word. The town marshal tried to arrest some of the emigrants on charges of public intoxication and blasphemy but was forced to back down. The wagon company made its way out of town after only about an hour, but the agitated Cedar City leaders were not willing to let the matter go. Instead they planned to call out the local militia to pursue and arrest the offending men and probably fine them some cattle. Beef and grain were foods the Saints planned to survive on if they had to flee into the mountains when the troops arrived.

Cedar City mayor, militia major, and stake president Isaac Haight described the grievances against the emigrant men and requested permission to call out the militia in an express dispatch to the district militia commander, William Dame, who lived in nearby Parowan. Dame was also the stake president of Parowan. After convening a council to discuss the matter, Dame denied the request. “Do not notice their threats,” his dispatch back to Cedar City said. “Words are but wind—they injure no one; but if they (the emigrants) commit acts of violence against citizens inform me by express, and such measures will be adopted as will insure tranquility.”2

Still intent on chastening the emigrants, Cedar City leaders then formulated a new plan. If they could not use the militia to arrest the offenders, they would persuade local Paiute Indians to give the Arkansas company “a brush,” killing some or all of the men and stealing their cattle.3

They planned the attack for a portion of the California trail that ran through a narrow stretch of the Santa Clara River canyon several miles south of the Mountain Meadows. These areas fell under the jurisdiction of Fort Harmony militia major John D. Lee, who was pulled into the planning. Lee was also a federally funded “Indian farmer” to local Paiutes. Lee and Haight had a long, late-night discussion about the emigrants in which Lee told Haight he believed the Paiutes would “kill all the party, women and children, as well as the men” if incited to attack.4 Haight agreed, and the two planned to lay blame for the killing at the feet of the Indians.

The generally peaceful Paiutes were reluctant when first told of the plan. Although Paiutes occasionally picked off emigrants’ stock for food, they did not have a tradition of large-scale attacks. But Cedar City’s leaders promised them plunder and convinced them that the emigrants were aligned with “enemy” troops who would kill Indians along with Mormon settlers.

On Sunday, September 6, Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate. Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President Young about the matter. Saying he hadn’t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done.

A Five-Day Siege

But the next day, shortly before Haight sent the letter to Brigham Young, Lee and the Indians made a premature attack on the emigrant camp at the Mountain Meadows, rather than at the planned location in the Santa Clara canyon. Several of the emigrants were killed, but the remainder fought off their attackers, forcing a retreat. The emigrants quickly pulled their wagons into a tight circle, holing up inside the defensive corral. Two other attacks followed over the next two days of a five-day siege.

After the initial attack, two Cedar City militiamen, thinking it necessary to contain the volatile situation, fired on two emigrant horsemen discovered a few miles outside the corral. They killed one of the riders, but the other escaped to the emigrant camp, bringing with him the news that his companion’s killers were white men, not Indians.

The conspirators were now caught in their web of deception. Their attack on the emigrants had faltered. Their military commander would soon know they had blatantly disobeyed his orders. A less-than-forthcoming dispatch to Brigham Young was on its way to Salt Lake City. A witness of white involvement had now shared the news within the emigrant corral. If the surviving emigrants were freed and continued on to California, word would quickly spread that Mormons had been involved in the attack. An army was already approaching the territory, and if news of their role in the attack got out, the conspirators believed, it would result in retaliatory military action that would threaten their lives and the lives of their people. In addition, other California-bound emigrant trains were expected to arrive at Cedar City and then the Mountain Meadows any day.

Ignoring the Council’s Decision

On September 9 Haight traveled to Parowan with Elias Morris, who was one of Haight’s two militia captains as well as his counselor in the stake presidency. Again they sought Dame’s permission to call out the militia, and again Dame held a Parowan council, which decided that men should be sent to help the beleaguered emigrants continue on their way in peace. Haight later lamented, “I would give a world if I had it, if we had abided by the deci[s]ion of the council.”5

Instead, when the meeting ended, Haight and his counselor got Dame alone, sharing with him information they had not shared with the council: the corralled emigrants probably knew that white men had been involved in the initial attacks. They also told Dame that most of the emigrants had already been killed in these attacks. This information caused Dame, now isolated from the tempering consensus of his council, to rethink his earlier decision. Tragically, he gave in, and when the conversation ended, Haight left feeling he had permission to use the militia.

On arriving at Cedar City, Haight immediately called out some two dozen militiamen, most of them officers, to join others already waiting near the emigrant corral at the Mountain Meadows. Those who had deplored vigilante violence against their own people in Missouri and Illinois were now about to follow virtually the same pattern of violence against others, but on a deadlier scale.

The Massacre

On Friday, September 11, Lee entered the emigrant wagon fort under a white flag and somehow convinced the besieged emigrants to accept desperate terms. He said the militia would safely escort them past the Indians and back to Cedar City, but they must leave their possessions behind and give up their weapons, signaling their peaceful intentions to the Indians. The suspicious emigrants debated what to do but in the end accepted the terms, seeing no better alternative. They had been pinned down for days with little water, the wounded in their midst were dying, and they did not have enough ammunition to fend off even one more attack.

As directed, the youngest children and wounded left the wagon corral first, driven in two wagons, followed by women and children on foot. The men and older boys filed out last, each escorted by an armed militiaman. The procession marched for a mile or so until, at a prearranged signal, each militiaman turned and shot the emigrant next to him, while Indians rushed from their hiding place to attack the terrified women and children. Militiamen with the two front-running wagons murdered the wounded. Despite plans to pin the massacre on the Paiutes—and persistent subsequent efforts to do so—Nephi Johnson later maintained that his fellow militiamen did most of the killing.

Communication—Too Late

President Young’s express message of reply to Haight, dated September 10, arrived in Cedar City two days after the massacre. His letter reported recent news that no U.S. troops would be able to reach the territory before winter. “So you see that the Lord has answered our prayers and again averted the blow designed for our heads,” he wrote.

“In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements,” Young continued, “we must not interfere with them untill they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should also possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property ever remembering that God rules.”6

When Haight read Young’s words, he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, “Too late, too late.”7

Aftermath

The 17 spared children, considered “too young to tell tales,” were adopted by local families.8 Government officials retrieved the children in 1859 and returned them to family members in Arkansas. The massacre snuffed out some 120 lives and immeasurably affected the lives of the surviving children and other relatives of the victims. A century and a half later, the massacre remains a deeply painful subject for their descendants and other relatives.

Although Brigham Young and other Church leaders in Salt Lake City learned of the massacre soon after it happened, their understanding of the extent of the settlers’ involvement and the terrible details of the crime came incrementally over time. In 1859 they released from their callings stake president Isaac Haight and other prominent Church leaders in Cedar City who had a role in the massacre. In 1870 they excommunicated Isaac Haight and John D. Lee from the Church.

In 1874 a territorial grand jury indicted nine men for their role in the massacre. Most of them were eventually arrested, though only Lee was tried, convicted, and executed for the crime. Another indicted man turned state’s evidence, and others spent many years running from the law. Other militiamen who carried out the massacre labored the rest of their lives under a horrible sense of guilt and recurring nightmares of what they had done and seen.

Families of the men who masterminded the crime suffered as neighbors ostracized them or claimed curses had fallen upon them. For decades, the Paiutes also suffered unjustly as others blamed them for the crime, calling them and their descendants “wagon burners,” “savages,” and “hostiles.” The massacre became an indelible blot on the history of the region.

Today, some massacre victims’ descendants and collateral relatives are Latter-day Saints. These individuals are in an uncommon position because they know how it feels to be both a Church member and a relative of a victim.

James Sanders is the great-great-grandson of Nancy Saphrona Huff, one of the children who survived the massacre. “I still feel pain, I still feel anger and sadness that the massacre happened,” said Brother Sanders. “But I know that the people who did this will be accountable before the Lord, and that brings me peace.” Brother Sanders, who serves as a family history consultant in the Snowflake Fifth Ward, Snowflake Arizona Stake, said that learning his ancestor had been killed in the massacre “didn’t affect my faith because it’s based on Jesus Christ, not on any person in the Church.”

Sharon Chambers of the 18th Ward, Ensign Salt Lake City Utah Stake, is the great-granddaughter of child survivor Rebecca Dunlap. “The people who did this had lost their way. I don’t know what was in their minds or in their hearts,” she said. “I feel sorrow that this happened to my ancestors. I also feel sorrow that people have blamed the acts of some on an entire group, or on an entire religion.”

The Mountain Meadows Massacre has continued to cause pain and controversy for 150 years. During the past two decades, descendants and other relatives of the emigrants and the perpetrators have at times worked together to memorialize the victims. These efforts have had the support of President Gordon B. Hinckley, officials of the state of Utah, and other institutions and individuals. Among the products of this cooperation have been the construction of two memorials at the massacre site and the placing of plaques commemorating the Arkansas emigrants. Descendant groups, Church leaders and members, and civic officials continue to work toward reconciliation and will participate in various memorial services this September at the Mountain Meadows.