Conference tecrus::mormonism

82.0. "Moonmen" by CACHE::LEIGH () Wed Mar 02 1988 12:55

This information is from the following booklet.

    How Could A Prophet Believe In Moonmen?, by Van Hale, Miscellaneous
    response series #4, Mormon Miscellaneous, 8865 South 1300 East, Sandy,
    Utah 84092 (801) 561-5103

The footnotes in the booklet have not been included.

-------------------------

In 1892 the following one-page article appeared in the 'Young Women's Journal'.
Its author Oliver B. Huntington wrote:

    Astronomers and philosophers have, from time almost immemorial until
    very recently, asserted that the moon was uninhabited, that it had no
    atmosphere, etc.  But recent discoveries, through the means of powerful
    telescopes, have given scientists a doubt or two upon the old theory.

    Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have,
    in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to
    prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet.

    As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men
    and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age
    than we do--that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years.

    He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing
    quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.

    In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet,
    in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I would preach the gospel to the
    inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and--to the inhabitants of the
    moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes.

Opponents of Mormonism have tried to use Huntington's striking assertion
that Joseph Smith believed in moonmen in order to discredit Mormonism.  "Can
you respect a religious organization that will publish such nonsense?" they
ask.  No true prophet could make a mistake of such magnitude.

Admittedly, in this scientific age 1000-year-old moonmen in Quaker dress
being visited by Mormon missionaries do sound a bit farfetched.  It becomes
important, therefore, to set Huntington's account into context.  What is the
authenticity or accuracy of the account, for example?  How outlandish would
such ideas have seemed in the nineteenth century?  Then one might more fairly
judge whether Joseph's prophetic mantle is at stake.

The first question, of course, is what were Huntington's sources for his
article, his own reminiscence or that of a second party?  He made reference
to two separate incidents--a statement of Joseph Smith and his own patriarchal
blessing.  These two incidents will be looked at separately.

Most have assumed his source for the Joseph Smith statement was his own
memory and have thus questioned its credibility because he was only 11 years
old in 1837, and 55 years separated his recollection from the event.  Actually,
Huntington was not relating his own memories but someone else's.  The
immediate source for his article was an 1881 entry in his own personal
journal.  But that entry is part of a 10-page collection of reminiscences
he had acquired from several sources and which he had "taken some time and
pains to pick up."  The description from Philo Dibble reads as follows:

                 Inhabitants of the Moon

    The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the
    inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet in height.

    They dress very much like the quaker style and are quite general in
    style, or the one fashion of dress.

    They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years.

    This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he
    could se "See" whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see.

    I heard him say that "he could ask what he would ask of the Father in
    the name of Jesus and it would be granted" and i have no more doubt of
    it than I have that the mob killed him.

The question must now be asked, what was Dibble's source?  He did not indicate
whether the story was his personal recollection or that of another party.  I
have found no further information on this except that Dibble was a collector
and had expended considerable effort to collect and produce an exhibit about
the life and death of Joseph Smith, which he presented in several Mormon
communities.  It was at one of these presentations in January of 1881 that
Huntington acquired Joseph Smith's moonmen statement from Dibble.  So at
best the moonmen statement is a sensational, late, third hand reminiscence
and, by itself, is a very poor source of dependable history.  This and one
other statement, even less impressive, represent the sum total of testimony
that Joseph Smith ever said that the moon was inhabited.

Although it has not been established that Joseph Smith believed in moonmen,
several close to him did.  Joseph Smith's own brother Hyrum stated his
belief in an inhabited moon in an 1843 sermon on the "plurality of gods
& worlds" preserved by George Laub:

    ...every Star that we see is a world and is inhabited the same as this
    world is peopled.  The Sun & Moon is inhabited & the Stars....The stars
    are inhabited the same as this Earth.

President Brigham Young stated a similar view in a sermon of 24 July 1870:

    Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of
    an evening, called the moon?  When we view its face we may see what is
    termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are
    the shadows of mountains.  But these sayings are very vague, and amount
    to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere
    you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as
    the most ignorant of their fellows.  So it is with regard to the
    inhabitants of the sun.  Do you think there is any life there?  No
    question of it; it was not made in vain.  It was made to give light
    to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets.

The second interesting claim Oliver Huntington made in the 1892 article was
that his patriarchal blessing had predicted that he might preach the gospel
on the moon.  He also mentioned this blessing in a second article for
the 'Journal' in 1894.  In the first he dated the blessing 1837 and in
the second 1836.  In both he identified Church Patriarch Joseph Smith, Sr.,
as the bestower of the blessing.  The following excerpt is undoubtedly
from this blessing.  It is dated 7 December 1836 at Kirtland, Ohio, but
the record clearly shows that the blessing was given to Oliver by his
own father, William Huntington, rather than Joseph Smith, Sr.

    I lay my hands on thee & bless thee with a father's blessing....thou
    shalt be called to preach the gospel to this generation....before thou
    art twenty one thou wilt be called to preach the fulness of the gospel,
    thou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, &
    preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient.

Although there is a discrepancy as to who gave Oliver the blessing, this is
undoubtedly the same blessing mentioned in the 'Young Woman's Journal'.
Both content and setting are similar.  In his 1894 article Huntington
recalled that he received the blessing in 1836 at a blessings meeting for
the Huntington family at the home of William Huntington.  The meeting was
appointed and conducted by Joseph Smith, Sr.  It lasted the entire day,
with Orson Pratt recording the blessings the best he could and "afterwards
filled up from memory of all present that which he could not catch from the
Patriarch's  lips."

It seems unlikely that Oliver, on two different occasions in the same year,
would have received the same blessing from two different men.  It is more
likely that Oliver, who was 10 years old at the time, was mistaken about
who actually performed the blessing since both men were present.  Or perhaps
both men participated in giving him the blessing.  Or, although I believe
this less likely, an error was made in recording the blessing.  The blessing
was not copied into the patriarchal blessings book for at least nine years,
at which time it was recorded by Albert Carrington along with several other
blessings given to other members of the Huntington family.

Ultimately the fact of this discrepancy is far less interesting than the
fact that such a blessing existed--a blessing which assumed the existence
of moonmen and was given in the presence of the Patriarch, Apostle Orson
Pratt, and the Huntington family and relatives.  The patriarchal blessings
books in the LDS archives are not open for research.  Therefore, it is not
possible at this time to determine if the idea of preaching to the inhabitants
of the moon found in this blessing to Oliver Huntington was common or unique.

To me the surprising fact is that there have not been found more Mormon
declarations of belief in an inhabited moon.  Several of the earliest
revelations, in 1830 (Moses 1) and in 1832 (D&C 76), committed Mormonism to
a belief in many inhabited worlds.  But Mormonism, it appears, seldom
speculated about which of the heavenly bodies were so inhabited.  Those who
believed in moonmen likely did so because of the prevalence of that view in
their day rather than because they believed Joseph Smith had been inspired
to reveal the existence of such beings.  From the available sources one could
hardly conclude that belief in an inhabited moon was general among Mormons
of the nineteenth century, and further, to conclude that it was a basic
position either of Joseph Smith or Mormonism is certainly false.

------------------------


In the remaining pages of the booklet, Van Hale documents from historical
sources that a belief in an inhabited moon was common during the nineteenth
century.  Hale concluded with the following.

------------------------

Belief in intelligent moon life continued for many years.  According to
Moore, the last great advocate of intelligent life on the moon was W. H.
Pickering, who authored a 1904 photographic atlas and wrote many papers
about the moon.

Perhaps the most valuable point in all this is that the credibility of figures
of one generation cannot be judged fairly by the standards of a later 
generation.  It may be that today a person's credibility should be questioned
if he believes in a moon civilization in need of evangelizing.  But that
would not have been the case for someone professing such a few in the
nineteenth century.

The other question still remains: Did Joseph Smith believe in an inhabited
moon?  From the historical evidence now available the answer must be: Not
proven.  But, all things considered, the possibility, or probability, that
he did cannot reasonably be denied.  For all others of that era the question
seems quite insignificant, especially given contemporary beliefs.  But in the
case of Joseph Smith, he claimed to be a prophet.  Some extremists contend
that his claim demands that his knowledge in every area be superior to that of
others in his era.  If he believed any false notion of his day, so these
critics say, his credibility must be doubted.  Others, not so demanding of
infallible insight in a prophet, would be more comfortable with a description
of God's revelation which allowed for the human 'and' the divine.  As
Rev. J. R. Dummelow so aptly described the authors of the Bible in his
'One Volume Bible Commentary', so might one say of Joseph Smith:

    Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit, men
    each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition--each with his
    own way of looking at things--each influenced differently from another
    by the different experiences and disciplines of his life.  Their
    inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it 
    did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them
    into machines--it left them men.

    Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of
    their contemporaries....

Dummelow's description of the author of Genesis is equally applicable:

    His scientific knowledge may be bounded by the horizon of the age in
    which he lived, but the religious truths he teaches are irrefutable
    and eternal.

Certainly some critics will persist in their belief that Oliver B.
Huntington's 1892 article has devastated both Joseph Smith and Mormonism.
Some determined Mormons will dogmatically deny to the end that Joseph Smith
ever for a moment believed in moonmen.  And I suspect that some ardent
fundamentalists will yet testify fervently that when men really do travel
around the moon they will be greeted by an elderly Quaker-like gentleman,
proving empirically the divine inspiration of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

    My opinion is that belief in moonmen is absolutely silly.
    
    Having said that, I need to reconcile my statement with my belief
    in the teachings of the Church. If Joseph Smith brought forth many
    of those teachings, how could he at the same time believe in Quaker
    moonmen?
    
    While I believe that Joseph Smith brought forth many truths unknown to
    the world at the time, there is no requirement to believe that he
    himself understood all that was revealed through him. Why should he?
    Why would it be necessary? If God had to *explain* everything He ever
    revealed to the receiver of the revelation in terms the receiver could
    understand, as a prerequisite to giving revelation, well, I have no
    doubt that Moses would *still* be on the mount. 
    
    The original apostles probably believed the earth was flat (explaining
    Biblical references to 'the ends of the earth'). Yet, so far as we
    know, Jesus did not bother to set them straight, though, of course, He
    knew the earth was not flat. The apostles did not have to have a
    God-like understanding of all truth in order to receive and record
    revelation. Revelation is often brought forth for *future* people to
    understand and use. It may not be necessary for *contemporary* people
    to understand. 
    
    The actual revelations, as Allen has pointed out, refer to 'other
    worlds' where there are inhabitants. In-and-of-itself, this does not
    seem farfetched today to many scientists. There have been times when
    such a statement *was* farfetched to nearly all scientists. What has
    changed? The context of our available knowledge has changed. 
    
    Joseph, in the context of *his* available knowledge, interpreted this
    statement to refer to the moon, among other things. We think of such an
    interpretation today as silly (although it probably didn't seem silly
    then) but the underlying revelation is intact, unchanged, and has
    nothing to do with moonmen. We should focus on the actual revelation,
    not on Joseph's imperfect understanding of it. 
    
    Happy in Christ's Enduring Love,
    /kevin                                        

    Isn't this crawling around out on the far branches?  Hang Gliding 
    is my passion, so heights are not the problem. ( must be lack of
    grey stuff ) I have been cautioned before not to spend to much 
    time crawling around out on the "far branches" of the theology.  
    I was told to hold fast the the trunk of the Gospel, the simple 
    beautiful truths the savior taught.  I believe this would mean 
    to concern myself with FAITH, REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, LOVE etc and 
    not concern myself  with the vain mysteries such as "Does the 
    Pearly Gates swing in or out". I frapped my Glider into the side
    of the mountian once and recieved 25 plus fractures.  I crawled
    out on a theological limb that snapped and I fell away from my
    Christ.  If you could compare the jig saw X-rays of my body with
    some spiritual X-Rays of my soul you would see that my body has
    faired better than my spirit.  I also found out why Jesus is 
    my personal savior.
     
    
    I am far from an authority on anything and feel out of my league
    concerning the LDS church even though I am a Mormon, and out of
    my league intellectually as I have not sufficient to parry with
    the likes of those who have all ready participated.  I do have an
    area of accomplishment (?)... I am a sinner.  I just wanted to clarify
    least I be accused of presumptuous pontification (what does that
    mean ?)   I do enjoy the far branches.  Always have.  I think 
    this is fascinating and I have a specualtion.  
    
    If satan and a third of our brothers and sister were cast out of
    heaven and down to the earth, would that include the moon?  Mormons
    believe our spirit bodies are similar to our physical body ( I hope
    they are better... can a spirit be fat and dumpy?) so maybe what
    he saw was our rebellious spirit brothers....   did I hear the crack
    of a branch?  
    
    I heard that Joseph Fielding Smith, another Moromon Prophet, said
    that, "man would never see the back side of the Moon".  Of course
    he was wrong.  This illustrates once more that prophets are human.
    I know that it is bad form to say an unsubstantiated thing like the
    above, allegedly from Joseph Fielding Smith, but I could find nothing
    on it and wondered if Alan, Rich or anyone else has heard anything
    on this.  
    
    On the subject of prophetic fallability or humaness, I have the
    journal of an ancestor who emigrated to America, became converted to
    the LDS faith and met the the Prophet Joseph Smith.  His entries
    are fascinating but the one that applys here is when he talks of
    how he was in a room with Ridgon, the Prophet and others and heard
    them discussing mundane things like boot black, candel molds and
    horses.  He felt that a Prophet should walk around Prophecying.
    (My words) and had a hard time seeing him as a human.  He recognized
    it as a fault within himself and his own learned set of expectations.
    
    There was a time that I questioned Joseph Smith's authenticity 
    and doubted the truthfullness of him and the Book of Mormon.  I
    I studied other philosophys and religions. I read, talked and 
    listened.  Many had what I believed was a lot of truth in them.I 
    accepted Moroni's challenge and read the book of Mormon with real 
    intent and a desire to know the truth.  When I stripped away my 
    preconcieved notions and ideas and struggled in prayer for a long 
    time ( You can't jive God as he can see what is in you heart), I 
    did recieve the witness.  I asked for.  In a day I went from feeling 
    contempt for thoughs who bore this wittness to sharing their desire 
    to tell of the wonderful Love of the Father for us as evidenced by 
    the light shed forth in that precious scripture.   From there I
    invested some time studying the life of the Prophet and came to know
    him as a man.  Mormons are intstructed to pray for knowledge of
    the truth in everything we hear, even from a Prophet.  I did.  More
    slowly this time, the truth concerning this brother distilled on
    me and seeped into my soul.  Now I have come to revere him second
    only to God.  The Holy Ghost is the conduit of truth and light from
    Father and knowledge gained on this level is more valid to me than
    through my mortal senses.  I dare not deny it. I feel that bearing
    my witness is the least I can do for this precious gift.  I believe
    that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. He was also a man. 
   
  
With Love in Christ,
    -gary