Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

The Latter Day Saints (more commonly known as Mormons) are striving with a zeal that is commendable to further their cause. Having lived in the west where they are stronger and their influence more pronounced I feel that it will be profitable to the readers of Truth Magazine to know something of their system of error.

Their preachers or “elders” go, in pairs, from house to house seeking opportunity to teach their doctrine. I find no fault with this. It is the “what” and not the “how” of their teaching that I wish to notice. “Mormonism” is a system of infidelity. I realize that this is a strong statement, but I am not excited nor in a fit of temper, and before you decide that I am altogether wrong I bid you hear me through.

If these preachers have called on you, they doubtless gave you the impression that they believe the Bible to be the Word of God. This is only partly true. If you have a copy of their articles of faith which they usually hand to those on whom they call, you will observe that one of their articles reads about like this: “We believe that the Bible is the Word of God WHERE CORRECTLY TRANSLATED. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.” The Bible is the Word of God conditionally. The Book of Mormon is the Word of God unconditionally, without qualification. Just to give you an idea of the attitude Latter Day Saints have toward the Bible I submit a quotation from Orsen Pratt, one of their apostles. They have living apostles you know. When one of the twelve dies he is replaced by another. Note the quotation: “Verses and even whole chapters have been added by unknown persons, and even we do not know the authors of some whole books; and we are not certain that all those which we do know were written by inspiration. Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation and who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide. Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original.” Orsen Pratt’s Works, page 218. Remember that this was written by an “apostle.” This is what they really think of the Bible. Don’t argue the Bible with a Mormon. He doesn’t believe the Bible. Make him defend his prophet Joseph Smith’ and Smith’s inspired scriptures, namely, The “Book of Mormon,” “Doctrine and Covenants,” and the “Pearl of Great Price.” Joseph Smith claimed that an angel appeared to him and told him where some plates were hidden upon which was written a revelation which he (Joseph) should translate. The translation is the “Book of Mormon.” As to the translation of the Book of Mormon I want to submit an interesting correspondence between my friend Geo. B. Curtis (now deceased) and Mr. Joseph Fielding Smith, a high ranking Mormon of Salt Lake City. This article from Brother Curtis is taken from “The Gospel Pilot” May 11, 1944. Read it.

THE BOOK OF MORMON AND
ITS WITNESSES

by Geo. B. Curtis

Mormonism must stand or fall by the Book of Mormon. The claimants for Mormonism say that an angel Moroni, presented a set of gold plates to Joseph Smith upon which were characters in reformed Egyptian. By the aid of two transparent stones, the Urim and the Thurnmin, Smith claimed to have translated the Egyptian characters into English. The three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris, testified that “an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates.” It has always been a matter of mystery to me why the angel brought the plates down from heaven to show them while, according to Smith, these same plates were already in his possession with stern commands from the Lord to guard them carefully or “I should be cut off.” How did the angel manage to bring them from heaven while they were in New York is a matter I’d like for some well informed Mormon to make clear to me.

Just how these plates figured in the translation of the Book of Mormon is another matter that the highest ranking Mormons of today cannot explain and continue to support their witnesses. David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses, has this to say about the translation of the Book of Mormon: “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English.” (Whitmer’s Address to All Believers. P. 12.) Let’s get the picture: (1) Joseph’s head in the hat, (2) All light excluded, (3) The seer stone in the hat, (4) The plates were not in the hat, ( 5 ) The plates could not have possibly been in sight of Smith, (6) The characters appeared upon what resembled parchment, ( 7 ) Hence, the Book of Mormon was not translated from the plates at all, but from “a piece of something resembling parchment.”

I presented this problem to the Mormon church at Salt Lake City a few weeks ago The answer coming from the “Office of Church History” is amusing in the extreme. But I shall let our correspondence tell the story. Letter No. 1:

“Box 421, Winslow, Arizona, September 13, 1943,

Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints.

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Gentlemen: I understand that the Book of Mormon was translated in part from the plates found by Joseph Smith and in part by the use of a stone in the hands of Smith. Will you please inform me just where the translation from the plates ended and the translation with the stone began? I shall appreciate this information very much. Sincerely.”

I received the following reply.

“Dear Sir: Answering your question in relation to the translation of the Book of Mormon, wherein you ask which part of the plates was translated by the stone in the hands of Joseph Smith, and which part from the plates, I will say that I think you have become somewhat confused. The entire book was translated from the plates, and the information from Joseph Smith is that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, through the use of the Urim and Thummin. Very sincerely, Joseph Fielding Smith.”

I wrote to the headquarters of the Utah church again under date of February 4, 1944 as follows.

“Church of Latter Day Saints,

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Gentlemen: Some weeks ago I wrote asking relative to the part of the Book of Mormon actually translated from the plates discovered by Joseph Smith. I received the answer that all the Book of Mormon was thus translated. Some few days ago I came into possession of Whitmer’s Address to All Believers. (1887) On page 12 of this booklet from one of the three witnesses I copy this statement: “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was the principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation woul appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift of God, and not by any power of man.” (Whitmer’s Address, 18S7, P. 12.)

If the above is true just how did the plates figure in any way in the translation? Was not Smith entirely cut off from the plates with his head in the hat and all light excluded? Does the translation in any way depend upon the plates? If so, how? Was the stone Smith used in the hat the Urim and Thummin? Were they not stones, instead of stone? Do Mormons generally accept Whitmer’s story as given above? If not, how do they credit his testimony as to the verity of the Book of Mormon? Yours in curiosity, Geo. B. Curtis.”

I received under date of February 7, 1944 the following reply:

“Dear Sir: In answer to your inquiry regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon, all I have to say is to repeat what was said before. The only authentic information we have regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon comes from Joseph Smith himself, and that is that he translated the plates through the Urim and Thummim and by the Gift of God. I call your attention to the fact that David Whitmer was never present during the time of the translation.

I do not accept his story regarding how it was done. I do accept fully his story that the angel appeared to him and his testimony as a witness of the Book of Mormon is verily true. You make the most of it. Very sincerely, Joseph Fielding Smith.”

I answered under date of February 9, 1944 thus:

“Dear Mr. Smith. Thanks for the information contained in your letter received today. There are some things, however, upon which I wish further information. You state that, ‘I call your attention to the fact that David Whitmer was never present during the time of the translation.’ Would you mind, Mr. Smith, giving me your authority for such a statement? Mr. Whitmer differs from you on that matter. Hear him: “I testify to the world that I am an eye witness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon. Part of it was translated in my father’s house in Fayette, Seneca County, N. Y. Farther on I give a description of the manner in which the book was translated.” (Whitmer’s Address, Page 11.)

Now let’s see what Mr. Whitmer has to say concerning the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. “Joseph would put the seer stone into the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing . . . Thus the book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (Whitmer’s Address, Page 12.)

Again you say, “1: do fully accept his story that the angel appeared to him and his testimony as a witness of the Book of Mormon is verily true.” Mr. Smith, why accept his testimony in the one point and reject an equally plain statement on the other?

Please do not think me over inquisitive in this matter. I want to know, I am not a Mormon, but I do not want to form any conclusion that is ungrounded. I think you will agree that here is a matter that needs reconciling. Curiously yours.”

Under date of February 15 I received the following:

“Dear Sir: Answering your question I may say, that there is no mistake and discrepancy needing attention. Very sincerely, Joseph Fielding Smith.”

My reply: (February 18, 1944.)

“Dear Mr. Smith: Your one sentence communication received this morning and appreciated. You state, “There is no mistake and no discrepancy needing attention.” Remember Mr. Smith, your claim to have the truth on the side of Mormonism. The complete fabric of Mormonism must stand or fall with the “Book of Mormon.” To that you will readily agree. Here is the situation: David Whitmer says that Smith placed his head in a hat in which there was a stone; the hat was drawn closely about his face so as to exclude all light; a piece resembling parchment would appear on the stone with the characters and their English translation beneath; the gold plates not in use at all.

Joseph Fielding Smith says that he believes the testimony of Mr. Whitmer when he testifies that the angel of the Lord displayed to him, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris the plates, but that Mr. Whitmer’s testimony is false when he says that Joseph Smith used a hat and a stone, not stones, in translating the Book of Mormon. Mr. Joseph Fielding Smith says that Mr. Whitmer “was never present during the translation.” Mr. Whitmer says, “I testify to the world that I am an eye witness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon.” (Whitmer’s Address, Page 11.) I think, Mr. Smith, that you will agree that there is a discrepancy between you and one of your “star witnesses.” Will you kindly favor a poor “Gentile” with a better explanation than you have hitherto given. Again, curiously, Geo. B. Curtis.”

And here the matter of the head, the hat, the stone, the plates, the parchment, the Urim and Thummin rests until Mr. Smith or some other Mormon clears the matter. Could any sane man accept such a chain of evidence?

Truth Magazine, VI: 1 pp.16-19
October 1961

By Del Bassett

Recently in the evening edition of a newspaper, Dr. Howar Canon in the Episcopal Church, wrote under the heading, “Days of All Faiths.” He set forth the teaching that St. Joachim was the “father of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” and that “he and his wife, St. Anne, had been married 20 years when their prayers for a child were answered.” He stated that “Joachim must have been well-to-do, though his business or profession is not known.” The writer spoke graphically of Mary learning by miracles of the moment when her father would die, and of her sending angels to help him through his last agony. And, he said, “It was through these angels that the old man learned in his final moments that his daughter was to be the mother of the Messiah.”

Nowhere in the Bible would you get the idea that Mary had left her home before she was espoused to Joseph. When Joseph was reminded to put her away, surely her own father would have learned of an expected arrival without angels having to be sent back home by the espoused daughter. This whole article never gets close to the scriptures except to cross them! Where would one find in God’s record that Mary was ever given power to summon angels and to send them forth to do her bidding? And, remember that all this was before Jesus was born!

Nowhere does God tell us who was the mother of Mary, nor did He reveal whether or not the couple prayed for a child for 20 years. This type of imaginative indulgence satisfies only those who care not for what God has said, but love traditional legends and old wives’ tales.

It seems utterly fantastic that a reputed scholar, a Canon in the Episcopal Church (which, I assume, means a man of great influence), would engage in such mythology. But this Canon gave out a thunderous reference as proof–himself, and not one time d id he refer to any message from the word of God. To me, it seems the canon went off without being properly loaded! God declared, “The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell it as a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord” (Jer. 23: 28). Now, if this Canon had “roared” after first declaring that he dreamed the whole thing up, we might overlook his big boom, but he sets it forth as gospel truth. And when he was questioned as to the article, he gave out with the cold assestion that the Bible surely doesn’t contain all the truth, that we must have legends and traditions to further instruct us. Therefore, I assume this is the basis upon which other “Canons and Priests” set forth the doctrines of their church. While multitudes are being blindly let by these self-styled religious leaders, the Bible lies closed on the pulpit–the voice of the Lord has been stilled.

How deceitfully and successfully the Devil has lulled many good people into a deep sleep of self-righteousness. When someone dares to suggest there will actually be good people in hell, the world rebels at the very thought, usually regarding such a person as either ignorant or a radical. I will make this statement though, at the risk of being considered either or both. Merely being a religious man of influence does not make one infallible, nor does it assure him of going to heaven.

A good example of a religious person who was lost is seen in the case of Cornelius, as recorded in Acts 10. In Acts 10:2, we read several characteristics of this good man. I do not hesitate to suggest that there are but very few who read these words who are a better person than was Cornelius. But, just what kind of person was he?

First of all, he was a devout man, one who “devoted” himself to seeking God, He was, furthermore, a man who feared God. Not only did he fear God, but all of his household did also. He gave alms to the people–money and help to those less fortunate than he. Here was a man who prayed to God always; not just when he needed something, but in times of prosperity as well as poverty, in joy as well as sorrow. But, here was a man who was not a Christian. How do we know? The rest of chapter 10, as well as 11:14 shows that Cornelius and those who heard God’s word were baptized into Christ to be saved.

Not only will many good religious people be in hell unless they obey Christ as did Cornelius, but zealous workers in false religions will also be lost, as seen in Matt. 7:2123. In the day of judgement, these false religious workers will cry out to the Lord, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderous works?” The Lord shall then answer, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. ” This answer coincides with Christ’s statement in verse 21, “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”

But, religious speculation is not limited just to these realms. Repeatedly we have the statement made that it makes no difference what you believe, just so you are sincere; or, that it makes no difference what church you are a member of, as we are all trying to get to heaven and somehow we will all get there too. These two statements are the equivalent to saying that error is as good as truth, and that one who obeys error in religion has just as much hope of going to heaven as one who obeys the truth of God’s word. If this thinking be right, then Jesus came to teach the will of God in vain. People could have believed error, obeyed it, and been saved by it without the sacrifice on Jesus’ part to establish the truth of God.

Man is a free moral agent. He has the ability to believe the truth or to believe a lie. He has the ability to obey that truth or lie. God has made him thusly. The very fact he has the power to discern between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, is indicative of the fact he has the power to go either to heaven or hell in the end.

The powers of intelligence are given us that we may differentiate between error and truth. If it made no difference what you believed as long as you were honest, then there would be no need to exercise your mind at all upon religious subjects. If error can save as well as truth, if it makes no difference which church you are a member of, then the powers of discernment are useless appendages we might as well get rid of.

It has never been the right of man to establish a religion, nor to alter that established by God. It is not his prerogative to start a denomination. Yet, the whole world is full of religious groups who exist solely because some human religious leader began them. These have begun because men began speculating on the word of God.

God is the author of ONE religion–the religion of Jesus Christ. If one chooses to reject this religion and follow a false religion, although he has the liberty to do so, he will be lost. On the other hand, if one takes the religion of Christ and perverts it and twists its nature as to change the truths of God into a set of religious lies, and so divide the followers of Jesus into narrow sectarian camps–denominations, each hostile toward the other and each dependent for its very existence on some fundamental error, this perversion is no better than a heathen religion.

It cannot be denied that there are wide differences in the various denominations. Since all men are free moral agents, it follows that each of them has the power to follow whatever sect or party he may choose. Some mistake this ability on man’s part for acceptability on God’s part. The fact we can choose error in religion instead of the truth does not mean that that course will please Jehovah.

Error can never be as good as truth, and a doctrine, which did not come from God is not equal to that which did. In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden of Eden. He told them that in the day they partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they would surely die. What God told Adam was truth. Soon there came another preacher into the garden, saying that God knew in the day they ate of the tree they wouldn’t die, but would become as God. Adam and Eve were people of a free moral agency. They could either listen to God or Satan–truth or error. They had the power of deciding which of the two they would hear. The decision was made, and they listened to false doctrine rather than the word of God. Error was not as good as truth. The doctrine of the devil –and that is what all false doctrines are– resulted in their banishment from the garden. As. they stood outside the garden with the gate closed to any chance of return, facing a world of labor for their bread, what would have been their answer? Is error as good as truth? Does it make any difference whose voice one hears?

Generations later, God sent Noah, a preacher of righteousness, into the world to preach of a mighty flood coming upon the earth. Many of them laughed at him, saying, “Noah, it has not rained since the foundation of the world. Why should we become alarmed now?” He pleaded with them to believe God was about to destroy the world by water. Perhaps they thought it made no difference what they believed, that God’s mercy was sufficient to save them all, and that error was just as good as truth.

The majority of humanity disbelieved in the one way. When the floods came, those who believed only the word of God, as preached by Noah, entered the ark and were saved. Those who listened to the voice of another, following the erroneous teaching of those who withstood Noah, perished. Again, error was not as good as truth. The doctrines of men could not save them when the Lord came to fulfill his promise. Some might have claimed Noah was in the minority, and that he believed that only he and his little bunch were going to be saved. They might have called him narrow. And yet, when the time came and truth was vindicated, the opportunity for salvation had passed those who accepted anything other than the word of God.

Still another example is the children of Israel in Egyptian bondage. Moses had been sent by the Lord to persuade Pharoah to let them go. The last of the persuasion consisted of ten plagues loosed upon Egypt, closing with the death of the first-born of every family as the death angel passed over Egypt. But, the messengers of God preached the truth of God to the Israelites, saying that each man should kill a lamb and sprinkle the blood upon his doorpost. Most of the children of Israel obeyed. If there was a man in the land who thought this a narrow view, or thought that something else would do just as well as the truth of God, he died without mercy.

The truth the messengers of God taught provided the only means for men through the centuries. Those who have harkened unto the truth of God have rejoiced in the salvation they received as a result, while those who refused it or altered it bore the punishment as a result. But these readily evident principles of the Old Testament are also taught in the New Testament. Jesus promised, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8.32). He also prayed, “Father, sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth” (John 17: 17).

Paul knew people would be like they have always been. Being free moral agents, they have the power today to harken to a false teaching as well as to the truth. As Adam turned away his ear from the truth and listened to false doctrine, costing him his home in the garden; Paul also said people would arise unwilling to endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears, would beep unto themselves teachers after their own lusts, and be turned aside from the truth to fables (2 Tim. 3).

The religious world today is hopelessly divided into sectarian camps, each teaching its own peculiar doctrine. Each group has listened to some other teaching than that of the Lord, thus forming the distinctive doctrines of that group. If they refused to listen to separate leaders, there would not be separate groups–if they all had been content to hear the truth of God, they would have been one in faith and practice still today. The very fact they are divided, each teaching doctrines that conflict with the other, is evidence they have harkened to a voice other than God’s, just as did Adam.

The Bible teaches all the truth that needs to be taught in the religious realm, being the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25). There is not a single doctrine, embodying eternal truth, that God’s word does not set before us. None of the truth of God Almighty, which pertains to our salvation is left out of that book, regardless of who may contend otherwise–Canon or preacher. (See 2 Tim. 3:1617, 2 Pet. 1.3).

On the other hand, there are many differing religious practices existing today. Authority for all these cannot be found in the Bible. God’s word does not teach, for instance, the use of instrumental music in worship, the baptism of babies, sprinkling for baptism, etc. These are merely indicative of a multitude of practices, which have sprung up since apostolic times. These practices exist because they have become part of the tradition of different religious groups. For most of them, there is no divine authority claimed; they have become the established practice of congregations content to follow the speculations of various religious leaders rather than divine counsel.

If God’s word furnishes us unto every good work (2 Tim. 3.16-17) and constitutes the sum of religious truth (2 Pet. 1:3), then it naturally follows these things not found in the word of God and yet existing in denominationalism have sprung from some other source of authority that the truth of the Almighty. Again we need to emphasize that even though we are free moral agents and have the power to follow these traditions rather than the word of God if we wish, it is a fatal practice. Error has never been as good as truth, nor can the doctrines of man compare with the gospel of Christ. It was Jesus, our Lord, who said, “In vain do you worship me, teaching for your doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9). He told the pharisees, “Ye set at naught the law of God by your traditions” (15:3). Many religious services are filled with pageantry and show, governed by human creeds and confessions, wearing human names, and engaging in rituals that are purely human in their origin. And, even some in the body of Christ today are moving fast down the same paths.

The church of Christ today is divided in many ways, and unable to agree on certain subjects, as some of our most educated men, Bible scholars, differ and some teaching one thing while others teach another. It is becoming confusing to people who have been members of the church most of their lives. How can we convert the world to Christianity when we refuse to agree on many things. We should have the same church that was established on the day of Penticost. Each congregation should be teaching the same thing; there should be no difference. Paul, on his missionary journeys, did not teach one church one thing and another church something completely different. We have the same seed Paul sowed, and we should reap the same benefits. Each congregation should be alike in their teachings, practices, and organization.

It follows that if we are thoroughly furnished in all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17), there should be no division among us. The scriptures hold the answer to all our problems. Men should rid themselves of egotism and get over the idea that “I just can’t be wrong,” and recognize there is a possibility that “I may be wrong.” If only men would get over the idea “I am going to change you to my way of thinking or I just won’t march in this parade! “

If men would sit down to study the scriptures with love in their hearts toward their brethren in Christ, and really wanting to know the truth about the matter, they could come up with the true answers about many of the things causing division in the church today.

Error in the church will condemn us to a life of eternal punishment. Paul said he obtained mercy because of ignorance (1 Tim.1: 13), but we have no excuse for ignorance today. We have the written word of God, and a diligent study of it by faithful men wanting to know the truth would do away with the division among the children of God.

Teaching error is a serious thing. Many of the things we condemn denominationalism for today can be found somewhere in one of our own congregations. We can see a turning trend in the church today, slowly turning toward worldly things. Modernism is slowly creeping into the church in many places. What is the answer? A serious study of God’s word and a desire to know the truth. Elders, deacons, preachers and faithful members need to speak out against these liberal trends, error and division. If it isn’t stopped soon, we will be just another worldly organization following the doctrines of men, or the body of Christ rent asunder. Many will become what Paul warned Timothy against: lovers of self, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:1-7). Let us exhort one an-, other in a greater effort to seek the truth, to find it and then make a sincere application of it in our lives and worship.

It has been the plea of the churches of Christ through the years that all things that, have human rather than divine authority for their existence be laid aside. This applies to denominational names and practices that has divided the religious world into its sectarianism. But, let us take from our worship also those practices that did not spring from divine truth. Let us subject our entire religious structure to the acid test of God’s eternal truth. That which has truth in it, let us retain. That which is error let us cast out, for error is not as good as truth, nor can the doctrine of man be compared with the gospel of Christ.

It DOES make a difference what we believe. It DOES make a difference what we practice. Truth, and truth alone, can save our souls; but error can, and will, condemn us all if we follow it.

Truth Magazine, VI: 1 pp. 8-12
October 1961

By Dantel G. Brown, Ph. D.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article appeared in the Sept. 1st, 1961 issue of Vital Speeches of the Day. It is the manuscript of a speech delivered to the Annual Meeting of the Maryland Council on Family Relations, Baltimore, Maryland, May 11, 1961, and to The Cadets of The Second Class, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado, May 14, 1961. The entire manuscript is too long to be included in one issue, so the last part of it will be published in next month’s issue. Readers of this journal will do well to carefully consider the remarks made by Dr. Brown.)

(Editor’s Note: This discussion concerned with the psychology of fatherhood has been divided into several sections as follows: First, how does one become a father? And what does it mean to be a father? Secondly, what are some of the problems of being an adequate father? Thirdly, why are fathers so necessary? And, fourth, some concluding thoughts).

How Does One Become a Father?
What Does It Mean to be a Father?

It is perfectly obvious that no particular talent is required for biological fatherhood. Just as there are few requirements for marriage in the first place, i.e., any male, 21 years of age with an IQ over 60, can usually get married; likewise practica11y no requirements exist for becoming a biological father. One unfortunate result of this is the fact that there are tens of thousands of marriages every year in which for the most part about the only contribution of the father to his offspring is that of a single sperm! Thus, there are some 200,000 illegitimate children born every year with no legal, and usually no psychological father. It has been estimated that in Germany alone, there are some 100, 000 illegitimate children born to GI “fathers.” Most of these children are in institutions and have been denied any semblance of normal family life. There are also hundreds of thousands of children who, while legitimate, are nevertheless unplanned for and unwanted, born to fathers, many of whom are essentially indifferent, openly rejecting, or psychologically non-existent as far as the child is concerned. In other words, these men are biological fathers only, i.e., in the really significant and meaningful sense of fatherhood, they are essentially or almost completely lacking. Now the question arises in this connection, should society not demand greater responsibility of fathers than this? Should not at least some minimal qualifications be established before fatherhood occurs?

As things stand now, for example, do we even suggest that, before becoming responsible for bringing another human being into the world, that a man consider what he has to offer this new life, how much he wants to be a father, whether he will shoulder his responsibility in nurturing and training and guiding this offspring so that he or she might grow up to live a useful and productive life? Just recently there was occasion to counsel a young couple who had known each other about ten days before getting married and, one month later, the wife was pregnant. This couple was seen a few months later and the wife was completely miserable in the marriage, openly rejected and hated the husband, referred to her unborn child as the “idiot,” etc., while the husband’s attitude was indifference and unconcern with the whole affair. Now it is sad enough to observe a marriage like this, but is it not much more tragic that a child will be born into this union? What chances for normal, healthy emotional development will a baby have who is born into this kind of marriage?

This problem of fatherhood apparently has its counterpart as far as motherhood is concerned. A recent survey conducted by Dr. Richard Masland of the National Institutes of Health, indicated that approximately one half of the pregnant women interviewed were not sure they wanted their babies. Dr. Masland told a congressional subcommittee that half the women questioned were not at all sure they really wanted to have a baby. This, of course, suggests that many women are simply not adequately prepared to have children. And since this present paper is concerned with fatherhood, the question might be asked, if only about half of the pregnant mothers were not sure they wanted their babies, how many of the fathers wanted them?

One of the problems in this process whereby an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child is born to a married couple, psychologically, emotionally, or economically unprepared for parenthood, is the failure to recognize that human sexuality has two essentially separate functions. One of these major functions is procreative, in which the goal is the reproduction of life, to bring a new life into existence, to have a child. The other basic function of sex in marriage is physical love in which the goal is marital pleasure, to increase closeness and intimacy between husband and wife, to provide sexual fulfillment in marriage. Unfortunately, there are many couples who never recognize or appreciate the basic difference of these two functions and, consequently, experience intense conflict and confusion. The father, of an unplanned, unwanted, rejected child is a psychological hazard and serious risk in terms of mental health and emotional well being of that child. Too many men become fathers through accident, ignorance, irresponsibilty, indifference, or unconcern.

Freud has expressed the essence of the twofold function of sex in marriage as follows:

It would be one of the greatest triumphs of mankind . . . were it possible to raise the responsible act of procreation to the level of a voluntary and intentional act, and to free it from its entanglement with an indispensable satisfaction of a natural desire.

Similarly, the theologian, Brunner, has observed that the Christian ethic must come to stand for the independent meaning of sexual pleasure in marriage as an expression of love, and not merely as a means of procreation.

Being an adequate psychological father requires a great deal more of a man than merely being a biological father. It requires love, acceptance, respect, of one’s offspring; it involves providing generous amounts of TLC, tender loving care. It involves being a worthy example; in involves living and not simply preaching the basic values of life such as honor, integrity, kindness, etc. Psychological fatherhood in other words is what really counts in the life of a little child, and older child, and adolescent. To be wanted, to be loved, to be respected, to be supported, to be guided, to be encouraged–these things are the things that a child needs from a father and has a right to expect from a father. Unfortunately, however, mere biological fatherhood in no way guarantees that these basic needs will be supplied. In fact, being an adequate psychological father is not even related necessarily to being a biological father. Thus, an adoptive father who warmly accepts and genuinely loves his adopted child may be immeasurably better than the child’s so called “real” father, i.e. the man who accidently or inadvertently supplied the sperm for conception. (“Biological” would be a better description than “real” father, since as already noted, many biological fathers are not “real” fathers at all!) Of course, in order to become an adoptive father, one must possess at least certain elementary qualifications, such as, sincerely wanting and desiring a child, having a minimum income, adequate housing, freedom from gross physical or mental illness, etc. No wonder, then, that many adoptive fathers are superior to many biological fathers who lack one or more of these requirements, especially the most important of all, that of wanting and desiring a child.

 

What Are Some of the Problems and Difficulties in “coming an Adequate Father?

 

Lack of Preparation. One of life’s most responsible and significant challenges, namely fatherhood, often involves no training or preparation whatsoever. To drive a car, one must pass certain tests and meet certain criteria that indicate at least minimum competence; however, to become a biological father, no requirements are considered necessary and, generally, none are required.

Despite the tremendous importance of father’s role in family life and in shaping the character and personalities of succeeding generations, the majority of our sons for example will enter the first grade and graduate twelve years later without so much as a single course in preparation for family living; in addition, only a very small percentage will have the opportunity to take course work in human psychology and human relations, despite the fact that this knowledge is related to all aspects of their life for the rest of their life. And, what we have just said about the lack of preparation for family living and parental responsibilities, applies to an even greater extent when it comes to sex education. There is probably not one high school in 500 that makes any effort at all to provide a straightforward, honest discussion of the facts of life, particularly the human facts of life.

And one consequence is abysmal ignorance among otherwise intelligent and educated people. So, we seem to assume that if our children are given sufficient quantities of English, history, mathematics, and science, somehow they will also be equipped for marriage and parenthood. The fact of the matter is, however, that there are multitudes of marital and parental failures and disturbed families, and it is reasonable to assume that some of the misery and unhappiness involved could have been prevented or lessened through proper preparation and education. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the United States Air Force Academy is one of the few institutions of higher learning that has a required course in marriage and the family. There is recognition here of the significance of family relations in a man’s future life, in this case, his future military life.

A second problem in becoming an adequate father is that of deficiencies in masculinity in general and in the husband role in particular.

In recent years, a number of writers have commented on the failure of many American men to function in the masculine role and in their inadequacy as husbands. There have been discussions of such topics as “The Crisis of American Masculinity,” “The Decline of the American Male,” “The Well kept Husband,” etc. By “Crisis of American Masculinity” is meant the apparent increase of inadequate, unmasculine males in our society; by “The Decline of the American Male,” is meant the loss by many husbands and fathers of the position as “head of the house,” the position having been taken over by the wife; and by “The Well-kept Husband,” is meant the emotionally immature, overly dependent husband who is cared for by his wife along with other children in the family. We arc talking here about boys who grow up as perfectly normal biological specimens of maleness, who are intelligent, and physically fit, but, here is where the difficulty comes, who are retarded in masculine adequacy, i.e., boys who have a deficiency in being able to shoulder the responsibility of mature masculine manhood. As examples, you may recall, Brick Pollitt, in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or Jimmy Porter in Look Back In Anger, i.e., young men incapable of mature love relationships with their wives, much less becoming adequate fathers, despite the fact that such men give every observable sign of being “verile” and “masculine.” A problem here seems to be that boys who suffer inadequate fathering themselves grow up to be inadequate fathers, thus, the pattern is repeated in succeeding generations. Boys who are smothered by mother and starved by fathers are not likely to grow up and become adequate as husbands or fathers. By and large, it seems that a man is much more likely to become an adequate father if he is secure in his own masculinity to begin with and if he is able to function effectively as a husband.

Still another problem that stands in the way of becoming an adequate father is what might be called pseudo-masculine notions. What kind of an image of masculinity do we hold up for our sons? In this connection, a recent check of 8 or 10 magazines for men (Man’s Life, Rugged Men, Stag, Male, Fury, Sir, Man’s Adventure, Battle Cry, etc.) showed that, without exception, the covers of every one of these so-called “men’s magazines” depicted some form of violence, brutality, or sadism. And the majority mixed in sex with cruelty, such as a woman in a cage with a big burly man lashing at her with a long whip, or another cover showing a woman tied down to a bed with a heavy rope and a sadistic, insane-looking man lurching above her and another equally repulsive male firing a gun. Is this masculinity? Someone has observed that too many husbands in marriage resemble an orangutan trying to play the violin!

Does masculinity for men mean, as the psychoanalyst, Josselyn, has suggested such things as: belittling and looking down on women as a group? making money and acquiring power? and denying feelings of tenderness, affection etc.? In connection with the belittling of women, some men have an attitude, toward their wives that may be characterized as one of, “well, after all, she is only a woman.” Now this idea, “only” may be appropriate when applied to a child, but certainly not to one-half of the adult human race that happens to be as bright and talented and capable as the other half. As one woman has put it, “When men belittle us, they belittle half of life, and they belittle their own happiness. To demean women is to demean love and relationship, and these are the two qualities in which civilization is very weak and which it greatly needs.” (From Scott-Maxwell, Women and Sometimes Men).

The idea that masculinity is proportional to the power over others or wealth that a man can acquire is a fallacy of the first magnitude. The fact that a man may be a great success in his business or profession in no way guarantees that he will be equally successful as a husband or as a father. The denial of feelings as a characteristic of masculinity, is related to the idea that feelings of affection, compassion, kindness, etc. are feminine and, hence unmanly. Many boys tend to be driven to harshness, crudeness, and destructiveness because they have somehow equated this with the ultimate repudiation of anything that resembles being “feminine,” This “taboo on tenderness” is probably part of the basis for many fathers not being affectionate and emotionally close to their children as they should be and as their children need them to be. Fathers should not be afraid to love their children openly and as generously as mothers; after all, a child’s psychological development depends on this as much as his physical development depends on vitamins and minerals.

Gorer, a British anthropologist, has observed that American males are the most sissy-conscious group of men on earth, i.e., they continually struggle against any implication that they are other than 100% super he-men! In lamenting this false notion of masculinity, Philip Wylie has concluded that it is “about time to abandon the idiotic notion that sensitiveness is the same as sissiness.” What we are saying quite simply here is that these false notions about masculinity create problems in helping boys to grow up to become adequate fathers. And this is not only a problem in our society but found among various groups throughout the world. One writer has summed it up as follows:

In far too many cultures, men have been brought up in accordance with an unfortunate concept of masculinity. According to this concept, it is perfectly proper for a man to be coarse, vulgar, unclean, violent, lacking in self-respect, undignified in behavior, and to devote his life to the acquisition of power and material wealth. There is no gainsaying the fact that this conception of what men ought to be has been responsible for a very great part of the tragedies that fill human history. The aforementioned qualities have been exhibited by so many men over so many centuries that is not at all surprising that it should be almost universally believed they are inherent in the masculine character.

But the evidence suggests they are cultural in origin. And the evidence is right at hand for everyone to see. Men who have been brought up according to a diametrically opposed concept of masculinity are refined, dignified, civilized in bearing, possessed with self-respect, and exhibit regard for ethical, intellectual, aesthetic, and religious values. The world might become a considerable better place to live in if parents were to repudiate their barbaric concept of masculinity and bring boys up in accordance with one as civilized as that governing the rearing of girls. Men can help the process along by living their lives on the assumption that there is nothing unmanly about being civilized. (Kamiat, Feminine Superiority.)

Surely, to think of Mussolini, Hitler, or Stalin, as “masculine personalities” is to make the term synonymous with some of the worst potentiality of human nature. On the other hand, surely, Jesus, St. Francis of Assissi, or Gandhi, were not less “masculine” because of their love, compassion, and reverence for human life. In short, we are suggesting that there is a real need to re-interpret and re-evaluate the idea of masculinity and to begin rearing our sons accordingly.

The fourth and last difficulty I would like to mention is the lack of depth of fatherliness. It has been suggested that the roots of fatherliness are not as deep as those of motherliness (Josselyn). Why shouldn’t the father be as deeply significant, psychologically, to a child as the mother? This lack of depth of fatherliness is reflected in various ways in our culture. For example, it is interesting to note that in the book, Dictionary of Thought, there are many references to the word “mother,” while the word “father” doesn’t even occur. We often hear about how unselfish mother love is, how wonderful motherhood is, but what we are asking here is, what about father’s love and what about fatherhood? Why are fathers, as a group, not as wholeheartedly committed to the rearing of their children as mothers? To the extent that this is so, not only is the child denied a very significant and crucially important relationship, but the father also misses one of the most rewarding human experiences that life affords. “When men abandon the upbringing of their children to their wives, a loss is suffered by everyone, but perhaps most of all by men themselves. For what they lose is the possibility of growth in themselves for being human which the stimulation of bringing up one’s children gives.” (Montagu).

Perhaps, because of some of the factors already mentioned, fathers are not as likely to mean as much to their children as mothers. Another source of difficulty in this connection is the very limited amount of contact many fathers have with their children. A few years ago, in an article entitled, “American Men are Lousy Fathers,” Philip Wylie observed that there are 168 hours in a week. “The average man spends about 40 of them at work. Allow another 15 hours for commuting time, lunch, overtime, etc. Then set aside 56 hours, 8 each night, for sleep. That adds up to 111 hours, leaving dad 57 hours he can find time to be a father to his children.”

Now how many of these 57 hours does the average father actually spend with his children? Well, one group of 300 7th and 8th grade boys kept accurate records for a two weeks period. The average time the father and son had alone together for an entire week was 7 1/2 minutes. Thus, the price of business success or professional achievement might sometimes occur at the expense of being less adequate as a father. Certainly, this is a very real problem in many families. Of course, it is not simply a matter of quantity of time that a father spends with his child, but the quality of the relationship that counts, at least given a minimum of contact together.

Finally, Komarovsky, Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, has observed that perhaps both mothers and fathers in many instances lack sufficient depth in their role as parents.

It is quite true that building bridges, writing books, and splitting the atom, are no more essential to society or more difficult than child rearing. But, in our opinion, women cannot be made to believe it unless men believe it too; unless, that is, the whole of our society becomes oriented toward values quite different from those which dominate it today. If men believed for a moment that the rearing of children (and their role as a father) is as difficult and important as building bridges, they would demand more of a hand in it too. It would become unnecessary f or child psychologists to campaign for more active fatherhood. A man could derive prestige and self-esteem from spending weekends with his children, even if this called for a less single-minded dedication to occupational success. The conflict between occupational and family interests would then also become a problem for men and each would have to strike his own balance between the conflicting interests.

Truth Magazine, VI: 1 pp. 2-6
October 1961

By M. Norvel Young

(Ed. Note: The following article appeared in the Sept. 21, 1961, issue of the Gospel Advocate. We feel the thoughts therein deserve sincere consideration by many today.)

In several business meetings I have listened to varied suggestions on how the worship could be shortened–“use more trays” “use an auxiliary table in the rear,” “omit a song,” “cut the sermon,” “omit all announcements.” In all this thinking there seems to be the underlying premise that a shorter service is a better service–that efficiency means more efficacy.

Are we rushing through our periods of worship so that we may hasten to feed the poor, to preach to our neighbors, to lift up the heathen? No, we rush so that we can get to a tasty, sumptuous meal or so that we can watch our favorite TV program, or take a nap or read the secular paper, or play golf or go on an outing. If none of these attract us we may rush because we are nervous and have the habit of doing everything in a hurry.

We sing, “Take Time to Be Holy,” but we are too busy to take time to meditate, to praise, to listen to the word of God in a relaxed atmosphere. There is pressure by the more worldly members to “pay our respects” to God in the smallest capsule of time possible. Movies and TV programs are getting longer, but periods of worship are being compressed. Why? Is it because we are so spiritual that we don’t need more time to become holy? Or is it a lack of appetite for spiritual food? Do we hunger and thirst after righteousness or do we fret when the Lord’s supper takes more time than a newscast?

Time is precious and we should “redeem the time.” Our periods of worship should be planned so that our worship will be most effective. Time should not be wasted, but “efficiency” and “cutting” do not really save time if they reduce our exposure to God and multiply our exposure to the secular world.

Let us take time to be holy–time for more spiritual songs, for sermons that are long enough to move the sinner and edify the Christian. Let us take the time to promote activities of the church which will build us up in the most holy faith–time for Christians to exhort one another about giving and living. Time for meditation on the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Time for silence to be still and know that God is with us!

Truth Magazine VI: 2, p. 1a
November 1961