Essentials of Organizational Behavior 12th Edition Robbins Solutions Manual

Essentials of Organizational Behavior 12th
Edition Robbins Solutions Manual download
https://testbankdeal.com/product/essentials-of-organizational-
behavior-12th-edition-robbins-solutions-manual/
Find test banks or solution manuals at testbankdeal.com today!

Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at testbankdeal.com
Essentials of Organizational Behavior 12th Edition Robbins
Test Bank
behavior-12th-edition-robbins-test-bank/
Solutions Manual
Solutions Manual
Introduction to Criminal Justice Practice and Process 2nd
Edition Peak Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/introduction-to-criminal-justice-
practice-and-process-2nd-edition-peak-solutions-manual/

Sterns Introductory Plant Biology 13th Edition Bidlack
Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/sterns-introductory-plant-
biology-13th-edition-bidlack-test-bank/
Pathophysiology 4th Edition Ellen Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/pathophysiology-4th-edition-ellen-
test-bank/
International Business Law 6th Edition August Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/international-business-law-6th-
edition-august-test-bank/
Practice of Public Relations 12th Edition Seitel Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/practice-of-public-relations-12th-
edition-seitel-test-bank/
South-Western Federal Taxation 2016 Individual Income
Taxes 39th Edition Hoffman Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/south-western-federal-
taxation-2016-individual-income-taxes-39th-edition-hoffman-test-bank/

Illustrated Microsoft Office 365 and Word 2016
Introductory 1st Edition Duffy Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/illustrated-microsoft-office-365-and-
word-2016-introductory-1st-edition-duffy-solutions-manual/

Chapter 9 Foundations of Group Behavior Page
Copyright ©2014 Pearson Education Inc.
109
Chapter 9
Foundations of Group Behavior
Chapter Overview
The text thus far has been dealing with individual behavior. Another important component
of OB is group behavior. This chapter and the next will focus on how groups work and how
to create effective teams.
Chapter Objectives
After studying this chapter, the student should be able to:
1. Define group and differentiate between types of groups.
2. Identify the five stages of group development.
3. Show how role requirements change in different situations.
4. Demonstrate how norms and status exert influence on an individual’s behavior.
5. Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision-making.
Suggested Lecture Outline
I. INTRODUCTION
A. While understanding individual behavior is important, most work takes place in
group settings.
B. It is important for an effective manager to understand how people work in groups,
and how to create effective teams.
II. DEFINING AND CLASSIFYING GROUPS
A. Types of Groups. There are many different types of groups.
Being able to accurately define and classify the groups may
help explain their behavior.
1. Group: two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who come
together to achieve particular objectives.
2. The two basic types and their subtypes are:
a. Formal Groups: groups that are defined by the
organization's structure with designated work assignments that establish
tasks.
1) In these groups, acceptable behaviors are stipulated by, and directed
toward, organizational goals.
2) Command Group: determined by the organization chart, composed of
individuals who report directly to a given manager.
3) Task Groups: also organizationally determined, these groups are
comprised of people working together to complete a job task.
a) This group's boundaries are not limited to its immediate hierarchical
superior; it can span multiple functional and command relationship
lines.
PPT 9.1
PPT 9.2
PPT 9.3
PPT 9.4

110
b) All command groups are task groups, but the reverse need not be
true.
b. Informal Groups: alliances that are neither formally structured nor
organizationally determined.
1) Informal groups are natural formations in the work environment that
appear in response to the need for social contact.
2) Interest Group: people may affiliate to attain in a specific objective of
shared interest.
a) It is the formation of a united body to further its own common
interests.
3) Friendship Groups: groups that form because the individual members
have one or more common characteristics.
a) These social alliances, which frequently extend outside the work
situation, can be based on a similar demographic or sports/hobby
interest.
B. Group Joining Behavior.
1. There is no single reason why individuals join groups.
2. Because people do belong to a number of different groups, it
appears obvious that each group provides different benefits to their members.
3. Exhibit 9-1 provides some of the most popular reasons
people give for joining groups.
III. STAGES OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT
A. Groups generally pass through a standardized sequence of five developmental
stages in their evolution.
1. While not all groups follow this pattern, it’s a useful
framework for understanding group development.
B. The Five-Stage Model.
1. These progressive steps characterize the growth of groups.
a. Forming. Characterized by a great deal of uncertainty
about the group’s purpose, structure, and leadership.
1) Members experiment to determine which behaviors are acceptable.
2) The stage is complete when members think of themselves as part of a
group.
b. Storming. This stage is full of intragroup conflict as members resist the
constraints the group imposes upon them and determine leadership.
1) When complete, the team will have a relatively clear hierarchy of group
leadership.
c. Norming. The group is cohesive and develops close relationships with a
strong sense of group identity and camaraderie.
1) Stage is complete when the group structure solidifies and the group has
assimilated a common set of expectations of what defines correct
member behavior.
d. Performing. Finally, group energy moves toward performing their assigned
task.
1) The group structure is fully functional and accepted.
e. Adjourning. While permanent groups may not ever make it to this stage,
temporary groups do.
Exhibit 9.1
Exhibit 9.2
PPT 9.5
PPT 9.6

111
1) In this stage, the group prepares to disband and perhaps join other
groups.
2. Many interpreters of the five-stage model have assumed a
group becomes more effective as it progresses through the
first four stages.
a. Although this may be generally true, what makes a group effective is actually
more complex.
b. Groups proceed through the stages of group development at different rates.
1) Those with a strong sense of purpose and strategy rapidly achieve high
performance and improve over time.
2) Those with less sense of purpose actually see their performance worsen
over time.
3) Groups that begin with a positive social focus appear to achieve the
“performing” stage more rapidly.
c. Nor do groups always proceed clearly from one stage to the next.
1) Storming and performing can occur simultaneously.
2) Groups even occasionally regress to previous stages.
3. An Alternative Model for Temporary Groups with Deadlines.
a. Temporary groups with deadlines don’t seem to follow the usual five
stage model. Instead, they follow the punctuated-equilibrium model.
b. Their first meeting sets the groups direction, this first phase of group
activity is one of inertia.
c. A transition takes place exactly when the group has used up half its allotted
time. This transition initiates major changes.
d. A second phase of inertia follows the transition and the group’s last meeting
is characterized by markedly accelerated activity.
IV. GROUP PROPERTIES: ROLES, NORMS, STATUS, SIZE, AND COHESIVENESS
A. In order to understand workgroups, it is important that we
realize that the behavior of the members is shaped by the
properties of the workgroups.
1. Those workgroup properties allow us to explain and predict a large portion of
individual behavior within the group as well as the performance of the group
itself.
B. Group Property 1: Roles.
1. Roles are the set of expected behavior patterns attributed
to someone occupying a given position in a social unit.
a. Typically, people are required to play a number of
diverse roles, both on and off the job, which makes the understanding of role
behavior more difficult.
b. There are different ways to examine roles:
1) Role Perception.
a) The view of how a person is supposed to act in a given situation.
b) The interpretation of how an individual believes he or she is
supposed to behave will determine behavior.
c) Perceptions can be gained through the media, direct experience, or
observation.
2) Role Expectations.
a) How others believe a person should act in a given situation.
PPT 9.7
PPT 9.9
PPT 9.10
PPT 9.8

112
3) Role Conflict.
a) When multiple role expectations are incompatible, individuals
experience conflict.
b) Role conflict exists when an individual finds that compliance with
one role’s requirements makes it more difficult to comply with
another role's requirements.
C. Group Property 2: Norms.
1. Norms are the acceptable standards of behavior as shaped
by the group's members.
2. When accepted by the group's members, norms act as a powerful means of
influencing the behavior of group, especially in the area of performance
(performance norms).
3. The Hawthorne Studies. The importance of norms in
influencing worker behavior grew out of a series of studies
undertaken at Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne
Works in Chicago from 1924 through 1932.
a. The initial study determined that increases in productivity were caused by
the fact that the groups were receiving more attention because they were
observed, not by changes in the environmental conditions (lighting).
b. In a follow-on study, dealing with pay-for-performance, researchers
discovered that workers do not maximize individual economic rewards, but
as a group, establish and maintain the norm of a “proper day’s work” level of
output.
1) This also included strongly enforced norms of not creating too much or
too little output or “squealing” to supervisors—enforced by sarcasm or
punches.
4. Conformity. In order to be accepted, an individual will
often change his or her behavior or opinion to conform to
the group.
a. Reference Groups.
1) While an individual cannot conform to the norms of all groups, he or she
is most likely to try to conform to the norms of reference groups.
2) These are groups in which a person is aware of other members; defines
himself or herself as a member, (or would like to be a member); and
feels that the group members are significant to him or her.
b. Asch Studies.
1) In the set of classic studies by Solomon Asch, effects
of conformity were demonstrated.
2) When the subjects of the experiment were shown
lines of unequal length in the presence of a group who claimed that the
lines were of equal length, 75% of the subjects gave at least one answer
that conformed, even though they knew it was wrong. However, these
experiments are 50 years old and culture-bound: the pressures to
conform may not be as strong today as they were then.
5. Deviant Workplace Behavior (also called
Counterproductive Behavior or Employee Withdrawal).
Voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational
norms, and in doing so, threatens the well-being of the organization or its
members.
Exhibit 9.4
PPT 9.11
PPT 9.12
PPT 9.13
PPT 9.14

113
a. Like norms in general, individual employees’ antisocial actions are shaped
by the group context within which they work.
1) Evidence demonstrates that antisocial behavior exhibited by a work
group is a significant predictor of an individual’s antisocial behavior at
work.
2) In other words, deviant workplace behavior is likely to flourish where
it’s supported by group norms.
b. Workers who socialize either at or outside work with people who are
frequently absent from work are more likely to be absent themselves.
1) What this means for managers is that when deviant workplace norms
surface, employee cooperation, commitment, and motivation are likely
to suffer.
2) This, in turn, can reduce employee productivity and job satisfaction and
increase turnover.
c. Someone who ordinarily wouldn’t engage in deviant behavior might be more
likely to do so when working in a group.
1) A recent study suggests those working in a group were more likely to lie,
cheat, and steal than individuals working alone.
a) As shown in Exhibit 9.5, in this study, no
individual working alone lied, but 22 percent of
those working in groups did.
b) Those working in groups also were more likely to cheat on a task (55
percent versus 23 percent of individuals working alone) and steal
(29 percent compared to 10 percent working alone).
d. Groups provide a shield of anonymity, so someone who might ordinarily be
afraid of getting caught can rely on the fact that other group members had
the same opportunity, creating a false sense of confidence that may result in
more aggressive behavior.
e. Thus, deviant behavior depends on the accepted norms of the group—or
even whether an individual is part of a group.
D. Group Property 3:
1. Status.
a. Status is a socially defined position or rank given to
groups or group members by others.
1) Even the smallest group will develop roles, rights, and rituals to
differentiate its members.
2) Status is a significant motivator and has major behavioral consequences
when individuals perceive a disparity between what they believe their
status to be and what others perceive it to be.
2. What Determines Status?
a. According to this theory, status develops into a hierarchy, and tends to be
derived from one of three sources:
1) Power: the power of person wields over others. The more power
(control of resources) that an individual has, the higher his or her status.
2) Ability: a person's ability to contribute to a group’s goals. People whose
contributions are critical to the group success also tend to have high
status.
Exhibit 9.5
PPT 9.15

114
3) Characteristics: an individual's personal traits. When a group positively
values certain personal characteristics, people who carry those traits
receive high status.
3. Status and Norms.
a. High status members of groups often have more
freedom to deviate from norms than do low status
members.
b. High status members are also better able to resist conformity pressures, as
they are less likely to be motivated by the need for social rewards.
4. Status and Group Interaction.
a. The interactions among members of a group are influenced by status.
b. High status people tend to be more assertive, while lower status members
are more likely to be less active participants in discussions.
c. The situation may result in a lower diversity of ideas and creativity.
E. Group Property 4: Size.
1. Group size does affect the group's overall behavior, but it is
contingent upon which dependent variables are being
examined.
2. Smaller groups complete tasks faster and their individuals perform better, but
larger groups consistently do better in problem solving.
3. Group size affects:
a. Social Loafing: the tendency for individuals to expend
less effort when working collectively than when
working individually.
1) As demonstrated by Max Ringlemann, a group’s effort is not equal to the
sum of the efforts of individuals within that group.
2) Group performance does increase with group size, but the addition of
new members of the group has diminishing returns on productivity.
3) Causes of Social Loafing.
a) There are a number of possible causes of social loafing.
b) Equity theory would indicate that when an individual and the group
believes that he or she is working harder than the other group
members, that individual will reduce effort to match that of the
group.
c) Another explanation may be the dispersion of responsibility:
because the results of a group cannot be attributed to any single
individual, the relationship between an individual's input and the
group's output is clouded and difficult to measure.
4) Social loafing appears to have a Western bias. It is consistent with
individualistic cultures, and not prevalent in collective societies in which
individuals are motivated by in-group goals.
5) Preventing Social Loafing. While there is no magic bullet, these four
suggestions will help minimize its effect:
a) Set group goals so that the group had a common purpose.
b) Increase intergroup competition (increases focus on shared
outcomes).
c) Engage in peer evaluation.
PPT 9.16
PPT 9.17
PPT 9.18

115
d) Select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in
groups.
e) Distribute group rewards by partially basing them on each member’s
unique contributions.
F. Group Property 5: Cohesiveness.
1. Cohesiveness is the degree to which members are attracted
to each other and are motivated to stay in the group.
2. Cohesiveness is important because it is been found to be related to the group's
productivity.
3. Groups may become more cohesive when they spend a lot of time together, the
group size is small, or the group has experienced external threats.
4. Cohesiveness and Productivity.
a. Performance-related norms established by the group are the key
moderating variable between cohesiveness and productivity.
b. If performance-related norms are high and the group is cohesive, they will
be more productive than a less cohesive group.
c. However, a cohesive group with low performance norms will experience low
productivity.
5. Encouraging Cohesiveness.
a. The following methods may increase group
cohesiveness:
1) Decrease the size of the group.
2) Encourage group members to agree with the group's goals.
3) Increase the time members spend together.
4) Increase the status of the group and the perceived difficulty of obtaining
membership in that group.
5) Stimulate competition with other groups.
6) Give rewards to the group rather than to individual members.
7) Physically isolate the group.
G. Group Property 6: Diversity.
1. Diversity is the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or
different from, one another.
2. A great deal of research is being done on how diversity influences group
performance. Some looks at cultural diversity and some at racial, gender, and
other differences. Studies identify both costs and benefits from group diversity.
3. Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages of a
group’s tenure, which often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates.
4. Research shows that teams in which the members’ values or opinions differ tend
to experience more conflict, but leaders who can get the group to focus on the
task at hand and encourage group learning are able to reduce these conflicts and
enhance discussion of group issues.
5. Culturally and demographically diverse groups may perform better over time –
if they can get over their initial conflicts.
a. Performance-related norms established by the group are the key
moderating variable between cohesiveness and productivity.
b. If performance-related norms are high and the group is cohesive, they will
be more productive than a less cohesive group.
PPT 9.19
PPT 9.20

116
c. However, a cohesive group with low performance
norms will experience low productivity.
V. GROUP DECISION-MAKING
A. Groups versus the Individual.
1. Whether or not a group’s decisions are better than an individual’s decisions
depends on a number of factors.
2. To understand the group decision-making, we must examine its strengths and
weaknesses.
B. Strengths of Group Decision-Making.
1. The use of groups in decision-making provides the following
benefits:
a. Generates more complete information and knowledge.
b. Offers increased diversity of views.
c. Increases the acceptance of the solution.
2. Weaknesses of Group Decision-Making:
a. Typically, it takes more time to reach a solution.
b. Greater conformity pressures exist.
c. Discussion can be dominated by one or a few members.
d. Ambiguous responsibility decreases accountability.
3. Effectiveness and Efficiency.
a. Effectiveness.
1) Whether or not group decisions are more effective
than are those of an individual depends on the criteria used for defining
effectiveness.
2) Accuracy: group decisions are generally more accurate than that of the
average individual in the group, but less accurate than the judgments of
the most accurate group member.
3) Speed: individual decision-making is much faster than group decision-
making.
4) Creativity: groups tend to be more creative than are individuals.
5) Degree of acceptance: group decisions tend to be more readily accepted
than are those of an individual.
b. Efficiency.
1) Groups are far less efficient than are individual decision-makers.
2) In deciding whether to use a group, consideration should be given to
assessing whether increases in effectiveness more than offset the
reductions in efficiency.
C. Groupthink and Groupshift.
1. These two phenomena of group decision-making have the potential to affect
the group's ability to appraise alternatives subjectively and to arrive at quality
decision solutions.
2. Groupthink:
a. This occurs when group members become so enamored
of seeking concurrence with the norm that the desire for
consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action
and limits the full expression of deviant, minority, or unpopular views.
b. It describes a deterioration of an individual's mental efficiency, reality
testing, and moral judgment as a result of group pressures.
PPT 9.21
PPT 9.22
PPT 9.23
PPT 9.24

117
c. Symptoms of Groupthink.
1) Group members rationalize away any resistance to the assumptions
they have made, no matter how strong the evidence may be that those
assumptions are incorrect.
2) Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express
doubts about any of the group’s shared views or who question the
validity of arguments supporting the alternative favored by the
majority.
3) Members who have doubts or hold differing points of view keep silent
about their misgivings and may even internally minimize the
importance of their doubts.
4) The illusion of unanimity: unless a group member speaks out, his or her
silence is taken as concurrence.
5) Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Asch drew in
his experiments with a lone dissenter.
a) Individuals who hold a position different from that of the dominant
majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their
true feelings and beliefs.
b) As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in
agreement—to be a positive part of the group—
than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption is
necessary to improve the effectiveness of the
group’s decisions.
d. Minimizing Groupthink.
1) First, they can monitor group size.
a) People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases,
and, although there is no magic number that will eliminate
groupthink, individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility
when groups get larger than about ten members.
2) Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial
role.
a) Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid
expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of
deliberation.
3) In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the
role of devil’s advocate; this member’s role is to overtly challenge the
majority position and offer divergent perspectives.
4) Still another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active
discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group and
intensifying identity protection.
a) One such exercise is to have group members delay discussion of
possible gains so they can first talk about the dangers or risks
inherent in a decision.
5) Requiring members to first focus on the negatives of an alternative
makes the group less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to
gain an objective evaluation.
3. Group Shift or Group Polarization.
a. There are differences between group decisions and the
individual decisions of group members.
PPT 9.25
PPT 9.26

118
1) Sometimes group decisions are more conservative.
2) More often, they lean toward greater risk. What appears to happen in
groups is that the discussion leads members toward a more extreme
view of the position they already held.
3) Conservatives become more cautious, and more aggressive types take
on more risk.
b. The group discussion tends to exaggerate the initial position of the group.
c. We can view group polarization as a special case of groupthink.
1) The group’s decision reflects the dominant decision-making norm that
develops during discussion.
2) Whether the shift in the group’s decision is toward greater caution or
more risk depends on the dominant pre-discussion norm.
d. The shift toward risk has generated several explanations.
1) It’s been argued, for instance, that discussion makes the members more
comfortable with each other and, thus, more bold and daring.
2) Another argument is that the group diffuses responsibility.
a) Group decisions free any single member from accountability for the
group’s final choice, so greater risks can be taken.
b) It’s also likely that people take on extreme positions because they
want to demonstrate how different they are from the outgroup.
3) People on the fringes of political or social movements take on more and
more extreme positions just to prove they are really committed to the
cause.
4) So how should you use the findings on groupshift?
a) Recognize that group decisions exaggerate the initial position of the
individual members,
b) Recognize that the shift has been shown more often to be toward
greater risk, and
c) Recognize that which way a group will shift is a function of the
members’ pre-discussion inclinations.
D. Group Decision-Making Techniques.
1. One of the most common forms that groups take when
making decisions is that of interacting groups.
2. The techniques presented below are designed to reduce
many of the problems inherent in the traditional interacting group.
a. Interacting Groups: groups in which the members meet face-to-face and
rely on both verbal and nonverbal interaction to communicate with each
other.
b. Brainstorming.
1) It can overcome the pressures for conformity that dampen creativity by
encouraging any and all alternatives while withholding criticism.
2) This somewhat ineffective technique does not lead to a solution, and
may in fact lead to fewer creative alternatives than an individual could
come up with, due to production blocking (distractions to thought
caused by the technique itself).
c. Nominal Group Technique (NGT).
1) This technique restricts discussion or interpersonal communication
during the decision-making process.
PPT 9.27

Visit https://testbankdead.com
now to explore a rich
collection of testbank,
solution manual and enjoy
exciting offers!

119
a) This is why it is referred to as a "nominal" (in name only) group
technique.
2) Group members are all physically present, but operate independently.
3) A problem is presented and the following steps take place.
a) Each member independently writes down ideas on the problem
without discussing it in the group.
b) Sequentially, each member will present one idea to the group until
all ideas have been presented and recorded. No discussion is
allowed until all ideas have been recorded.
c) Group discusses ideas for clarity and evaluates them.
d) Each group member silently and independently rank orders the
ideas.
e) The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final
decision.
4) The use of NGT does not restrict independent thinking; groups that use
this technique tend to outperform brainstorming groups.
V. IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS
A. Performance. A number of group properties show a relationship
to performance.
1. There is a positive relationship between role perception and
an employee's performance evaluation.
2. When group norms support high output, managers can expect individual
performance to be markedly higher than when group norms aim to restrict
output.
3. Group norms that support antisocial behavior increase the likelihood that
individuals will engage in deviant workplace activities.
4. Status inequities can increase frustration and adversely influence productivity
and turnover.
5. Group size has an impact on both group effectiveness and efficiency.
6. Group cohesiveness can play an important part in influencing a group’s level of
productivity if the group has high performance-related norms.
B. Satisfaction
1. High congruence between a boss’s and an employee’s perception of the
employee’s job correlates strongly with high employee satisfaction.
2. Role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction.
3. Most people prefer to communicate with others at their own status level or a
higher one rather than with those below them.
a. As a result, we should expect satisfaction to be greater among employees
whose job minimizes interaction with individuals lower in status than
themselves.
4. The group size–satisfaction relationship is what we would intuitively expect:
a. Larger groups are associated with lower satisfaction.
b. As size increases, opportunities for participation and social interaction
decrease, as does the ability of members to identify with the group’s
accomplishments.
c. At the same time, having more members also prompts dissension, conflict,
and the formation of subgroups, which all act to make the group a less
pleasant entity of which to be a part.
PPT 9.28

120
VI. KEEP IN MIND
A. Group norms, roles, and identities have powerful affects on
individual behavior.
B. Conformity can be a problem: have leaders minimize initial inputs.
C. Group decision making is not always better than individual decision
making.
VII. SUMMARY
Discussion Questions
1. What is the difference between formal and informal groups? Give an example of
each.
Answer: Formal groups are those defined by the organization’s structure,
designated work assignments and established tasks. It may be in the form of the
command group or a task group. Informal groups are alliances that are neither
formally structured nor organizationally determined. Informal groups are typically
interest groups or friendship groups. Examples will vary.
2. Describe the five-stage model of group development and the caveats associated with
its use.
Answer: Five-stage model includes forming (group is unsure what is expected of it),
storming (conflict period while leadership is determined), norming (further conflict
period where social rules are established), performing, (actually accomplishing the
work) and adjourning (formally breaking up the group). Caveats: teams may not
actually go through the steps sequentially, multiple steps may be taken at the same
time, and teams can regress in the earlier steps. But the model is a good overall
guide.
3. How can group cohesiveness be increased? Give specific recommendations.
Answer: Group cohesiveness can be increased by: (1) decreasing the size of the
group, (2) encouraging group members to agree with the group's goals, (3)
increasing the time members spend together, (4) increasing the status of the group
and the perceived difficulty of obtaining membership in that group, (5) stimulating
competition with other groups, (6) giving rewards to the group rather than to
individual members, and (7) physically isolating the group.
4. Describe the three sources of status.
Answer: (1) Power: the power of person wields over others. The more power that
an individual has, the higher his or her status. (2) Ability: a person's ability to
contribute to a group’s goals. People whose contributions are critical to the group
success also tend to have high status. (3) Characteristics: an individual's personal
traits. When a group positively values certain personal characteristics, people who
carry those traits receive high status.
5. Why does social loafing occur?
Answer: There are a number of possible causes of social loafing. Equity theory
would indicate that when an individual in the group believes that he or she is
working harder than the other group members, that individual will reduce effort to
match that of the group. Another explanation may be the dispersion of
responsibility: because the results of a group cannot be attributed to any single
individual, the relationship between an individual's input and the group's output is
clouded and difficult to measure.
6. List the strengths and weaknesses of group decision-making.
PPT 9.29
PPT 9.30

121
Answer: Strengths of group decision-making: (1) generates information and
knowledge that is more complete, (2) offers increased diversity of views, and (3)
increases the acceptance of the solution. Weaknesses of group decision-making: (1)
typically takes more time to reach a solution, (2) greater conformity pressures exist,
(3) discussion can be dominated by one or a few members, and (4) ambiguous
responsibility decreases accountability.
7. Compare and contrast brainstorming and NGT. Ensure you describe both
techniques fully in your answer.
Answer: Brainstorming. The technique designed to generate a list of creative
alternatives. A problem is presented and everyone provides oral input on the
solution simultaneously. No feedback or discussion is allowed until all of the inputs
have been recorded. This somewhat ineffective technique does not lead to a
solution, and may in fact lead to fewer creative alternatives than an individual could
come up with, due to production blocking (distractions to thought caused by the
technique itself).
Nominal Group Technique (NGT). This technique restricts discussion or
interpersonal communication during the decision-making process. This is why it is
referred to as a "nominal" (in name only) group technique. Group members are all
physically present, but operate independently. A problem is presented and the
following steps take place:
1) Each member independently writes down ideas on the problem without
discussing it in the group.
2) Sequentially, each member will present one idea to the group until all
ideas have been presented and recorded. No discussion is allowed until
all ideas have been recorded.
3) Group discusses ideas for clarity and evaluates them.
4) Each group member silently and independently rank orders the ideas.
5) The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final
decision.
The use of NGT does not restrict independent thinking; groups that use this
technique tend to outperform brainstorming groups.
Exercises
1. Self-analysis. Consider the last group that you were in that was required to make a
decision. What type of group was it? What types of decision-making techniques
were used? How is your input to the group affected by the type of group and
decision-making technique?
2. Web Crawling. Using your favorite search engine, locate a group decision-making
technique that was not mentioned in the textbook. Write a brief one-page synopsis
of the technique that would allow a manager to use it without having viewed the
website. Ensure you properly cite the source.
3. Teamwork. In this exercise instructor will break the class up into groups of various
sizes, some large (12+ members) and some small (4-7 members) and leaving three
individuals by themselves. The instructor will provide three datasheets on a
product (cars, laptop computers, MP3 players, or something similar). Using
whichever group decision-making techniques the group thinks is appropriate,
decide which of the three products is superior. Keep track of the time it takes to

122
make your decision. The three individuals will also make this decision, each on their
own, and keep track of the time it takes them.
As a class, compare the quality of the results and the time it took to achieve them,
based on group size and decision-making technique. What are your findings?
4. Analyzing Your Organization (Cumulative Project). Write a one-page paper that
outlines the use of groups and/or teams in your organization for decision-making.
What decision-making techniques are commonly used and how does the average
worker feel about the quality of these decisions?
Suggested Assignment
1. Group Membership Analysis. List out all of the groups that you belong to and
categorize each group based on the group subcategories given in the text. Count up
the number of groups you belong to in each subcategory and record that subtotal.
Sum up all of the subcategories and record your total group memberships. Share
your results in class and sum up the individual subtotal counts to get a class total. In
what subcategory was group membership most frequently identified and in which
was membership least frequently identified? What was the average number of
groups to which members of the class belonged?
2. Status Symbols. Examine an organization with which you are familiar and pay
particular attention to the use of status symbols by those in high status positions.
Make a list of the differences in symbols between those in high and low status
positions. Share your findings with the class, and as a class, discuss how being able
to identify these high status symbols can help you become more effective in the
organization.
3. Identifying Norms. As college students to have been exposed to a continuing series
of norms. From elementary school on, you have learned what is considered to be
proper behavior in the classroom. As a class (or in small groups), brainstorm and
identify these unwritten rules of classroom behavior. How many norms were there?
How many of these norms were you consciously aware of prior to listing them?

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

Church, whose own utterances we have quoted as sustaining what has
herein been said about their teachings.
That there may be no misunderstanding of our contention in this paper, we,
in conclusion, very frankly declare that not only is the "Address to the
World" misleading to the general public, but also that the teachings of the
Mormon Church in Gentile communities and through its missionaries are
deceptive; that the policy of the Mormon leaders is to keep the people in
entire subjection to the priesthood, and that so these leaders seek to control
political, commercial and educational conditions in Utah; that their moral
influence where such control is maintained is neither complimentary to or
commensurate with their power; that their influence is not only subversive
of civil authority, but also of reverence for God; that these leaders associate
Joseph Smith in dignity and honor with the most eminent of mortals, if not
indeed with Christ Himself; that they claim for Brigham Young and Joseph
Smith and other "living oracles" the same obedience that is claimed for the
very word of God; that whatever spirituality is found in the lives of
individual members of the Mormon Church exists in spite of the examples
and precepts of their leaders; that the difficulty in the enforcement of the
civil law, wherever it affects the practice of polygamous living, is well nigh
unsurmountable; that the practice of polygamous living was never held in
higher esteem by the governing body of the church than now; that until the
practices of the present leaders of the Mormon Church are radically
changed there can be no peace between them and pure Christianity; and that
until the doctrines of the church are radically modified it can never establish
a claim to be even a part of the church of Jesus Christ.

III.
ANSWER TO MINISTERIAL
ASSOCIATION'S REVIEW.
ELDER B.H. ROBERTS
FOREWORD.
The following Answer to the Ministerial Association's Review of the
Address of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World,
was delivered in a speech at two meetings of the Mutual Improvement
Association conference, Sunday afternoon and evening, June 9, 1907, in the
"Mormon Tabernacle," Salt Lake City, Utah, before an audience of between
four and five thousand people. The speaker expected to close his remarks
with the afternoon meeting, and therefore omitted certain matters that were
intended to be discussed at the time the subject to which they were related
was presented in the afternoon, but which, for lack of time, as he then
supposed, went over to the evening session. He was urged by those in
charge of the Conference to continue his remarks in the evening session,
which he did. In this printed copy of the speech, some of the remarks in the
evening are brought over into their proper place, and connected with the
subjects to which they most properly belong, and that were treated in the
afternoon. Also the speaker has added some items that were outlined in his
notes prepared for the occasion, but not used either in the afternoon or
evening. In order that such new matter might be designated it is placed in
brackets.
III.

Today, my brethren and sisters, we convert this pulpit into a forum, from
which we propose a defense both of our faith and the Church. Nor do we
violate any of the proprieties in this change, because when truth is to be
defended and injustice resented, then "all place a temple, and all seasons
summer."
The occasion to which we address ourselves this afternoon arises out of
these circumstances: At the late general conference of the Church, the First
Presidency issued to the world an address. Submitting it to the general
conference, it was approved and endorsed by the Saints assembled, so that
it became an address of the Church of Christ to the world. Of course, as we
might have anticipated, this address met with adverse criticism, and finally
there was formulated against it an alleged review by the Ministerial
Association of evangelical ministers in the state of Utah. Represented in
that association are the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, Baptist,
Lutheran, Christian (Campbellite) and regular Episcopal churches—so that
practically the whole of Protestant Christendom is represented by these
ministers who challenge the correctness and the candor of the address
issued by the Church to the world.
In our consideration of their review we will suppose the representatives of
these churches present, sitting right here [indicating a place close by the
stand] in a body. And I wish they were so present, because there is nothing
like talking it out face to face with these gentlemen; and I doubt not but
their presence in a body would be quite an inspiration to one in discussing
the document they have submitted to us. Having, then, before us the
circumstances out of which this occasion arises, let us proceed to our task.
The first charge or criticism of the address of the Church made by these
gentlemen is to the effect that the doctrines of the Church are not as fully
proclaimed elsewhere as in Utah; all through the review, in fact, runs the
innuendo that the Church deceitfully teaches one doctrine at home and
another abroad, and that the address obscures much that is necessary to an
intelligent judgment of "Mormonism." Hence these gentlemen propose to
help the world to a fuller presentation of "Mormon" doctrine and practice,
as set forth in their review of our address.

Right here, I wish to propose this question to these gentlemen: The
document they have issued quotes very copiously from our published
Church works. I want to ask them, on what books and utterances do they
rely for this larger, fuller proclamation of "Mormonism?" I find quoted the
Millennial Star, the Journal of Discourses, the Seer (by Orson Pratt), the
Improvement Era, the Manuals of the Young Men's Mutual Improvement
Associations, Orson Spencer's Letters, Epistles of the First Presidency of
the Church, Talmage's Articles of Faith, and last, and of course least, some
of my own works. Now where is the Millennial Star published? In
Liverpool, England. Where were the Journals of Discourses published? In
Liverpool, England. Where was the Seer published? In Washington, D.C.
Does it not occur to you, gentlemen, since these are the works on which you
chiefly rely for your larger view of "Mormon" doctrine, that we have
published them elsewhere quite as fully as we have in Utah. The
Improvement Era, of course, is published in Salt Lake City; but two
thousand copies of it are sent free to our missionaries abroad to use as tracts
and to scatter everywhere in the world. So with Orson Spencer's Letters: so
with all our publications quoted by you, except the Seer, of which more
presently. They are all sent broadcast, and our elders use them very freely,
and you will find them in the hands of our friends abroad, and from them
they learn the doctrines of "Mormonism." So that your practical charge that
we preach one set of doctrines and principles in Utah, and quite another in
the world, and that we are trying to play the double game of having one
doctrine for home consumption and another for proclamation abroad, is as
shallow as it is untrue.
One other thing. I find in this review ten lengthy quotations from the Seer
which was published by Orson Pratt, yet the Seer by formal action of the
First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and
Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long
article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the
signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work—
the Seer—together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate.
In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great
bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say:

"But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star,
of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 * * * * contain doctrine which we cannot
sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now
live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or
be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or parts of
works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and
destroyed."
And yet these gentlemen, our reviewers, who, of course, we must believe,
since they are ministers of the gospel, and hence they are ministers of the
truth and believe in fair dealing, make ten long quotations from a repudiated
work, and one quotation only from a work that is accepted as standard in
the Church, viz., the Doctrine and Covenants! For a long time the Church
has announced over and over again that her standard works in which the
word of God is to be found, and for which alone she stands, are the Bible,
the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price.
All else is commentary, and of a secondary character as to its authority,
containing much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of the
Church, and yet liable to have error in it for which the Church does not
stand.
"Well," says one, "do you propose to repudiate the works of men holding
your priesthood, and who are supposed to speak and act under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Do you not destroy the effectiveness of your
Church ministry when you take this attitude?" Not at all. We merely make
what is a proper distinction. It would be a glorious thing for a man to so live
that his life would touch the very life and Spirit of God, so that his spirit
would blend with God's Spirit, under which circumstances there would be
no error in his life or in his utterances at all. That is a splendid thing to
contemplate, but when you take into account human weaknesses,
imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is too much to hope for human
nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make
this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of
prejudice and pre-conceived notions, and the utterances of a man who, in
behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite authority, and holding
the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre-
conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of

God's Spirit that shall plead, "Father, thy will and thy word be made known
now to thy people through the channel thou hast appointed." There is a wide
difference between men coming with the word of God thus obtained, and
their ordinary speech every day and on all kinds of occasions.
In thus insisting that only the word of God, spoken by inspiration, shall live
and be binding upon the Church, we are but following the illustrious
example of the ancient Church of Christ. You do not have today all the
Christian documents of the first Christian centuries. These books that you
have bound up, and that you call the word of God, Holy Bible, were sifted
out by a consensus of opinion in the churches running through several
hundred years. They endured the test of time. But the great bulk of that
which was uttered and written, even by apostles and prominent servants of
God in the primitive Christian Church, the Church rejected, and out of the
mass of chaff preserved these Scriptures—the New Testament. The
Christian world up to this time is not quite decided as to all that should be
accepted and all that should be rejected. You Protestant gentlemen repudiate
several books called Apocrypha which the Catholic church accepts as of
equal authority with the rest of the books of the Old and New Testament.
And so I say in this procedure of ours, in refusing to accept only that which
time and the inspiration of God shall demonstrate to be absolutely true, we
are but following the example of the ancient Church of Christ.
We move forward now in our investigation of this charge of yours. You say
of us, that "Adding no spiritual truth to the aggregate of things already
revealed * * * contributing nothing to reverence for God or to justice and
mercy towards men, 'Mormonism' claims to be the only authorized church
of Christ on earth, and sets up a wholly unbiblical test of salvation."
Gentlemen, you may not believe, of course, the claims of the "Mormon"
Church, but you cannot in truth say that we apply an "unbiblical test of
salvation." I pray you think of it for a moment. What is the claim made for
Joseph Smith? That he was a prophet sent of God with a divine message,
with a dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, just for a moment,
just for the sake of the argument, suppose that claim to be true, is the test
we apply, at all, much less "wholly," unbiblical? May one reject God's
message and stand uncondemned before God? Assuredly not. What was the

example Jesus set? This: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned." He was but proclaiming the
message that God had given to him, and he laid down this principle as
connected with the authority and commission he had bestowed upon the
apostles when sending them into the world: "He that receiveth you
receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." What do
we do, when we proclaim the divine message with which the Prophet
Joseph Smith was commissioned to the world but just apply this same
principle? Nothing more than this, and of course we could do nothing less.
As I remarked a moment ago, you may refuse, as you do, to believe this
message and testimony, but you cannot say in truth that there is anything
unbiblical in the principles on which we proceed to make this declaration to
the world: and, by the way, don't you claim the same thing for your
message? If you don't, what does your message amount to? Are you not
ministers of Jesus Christ? Have you not come with the gospel of Jesus
Christ? Can men reject you and your doctrine and your message and still be
secure in the favor of God? Gentlemen, if you take that position, I brand
you as false teachers, untrue servants—not representatives of the Master.
You are weaker than water spilled upon the ground which one may not
gather again, if you come with a message one may reject with impunity.
You are talking an infinite deal of nonsense when you undertake criticism
of this kind.
Now we are told that because of the claims of "Mormonism" it provokes
searching investigation, for the reason that "it involves eternal reprobation
of those who finally reject it." Gentlemen, have you not juggled here a little
with words? And is it not just possible that a wrong impression may go out
from your view of our Address, rather than from the Address itself? Is there
such a thing in "Mormonism" as eternal reprobation as generally understood
in the theological terminology of the world? With the single exception of
those who come to know the truth and then so far sin against it that they
have no power of repentance nor desire for forgiveness—the sons of
perdition, which all our works teach will be comparatively few in number—
does not "Mormonism," aside from these few, hold out a hope of salvation
to all the children of men? But of this we shall have more to say presently;
but the above in passing. Again, this searching investigation is "provoked"
because the claim of the "Mormon" Church to being the only authorized

Church of Christ, "involves the validity of all the Church ordinances and of
all ministerial functions, including the right to solemnize marriages as
administered by the Christian Church from the second to the nineteenth
century." Here we are approaching solid ground of controversy.
"Mormonism" does deny that divine authority exists in the churches of the
world, the churches of men, miscalled Christian churches. We do not blanch
from the position. We proclaim it; although we do not wish to do so in any
offensive way, but we have to be witnesses for the truth. And God has
revealed that to be the truth. "Mormonism" is in the world because their was
a real necessity for its coming into the world. It did not come into existence
through theological disputations, because of differences of views about
baptism, or church government, or the nature of Deity, or any of these
things; but there had been, and mark it, gentlemen, a complete apostasy
from God's truth by the world. The Church of Christ as an organization, and
the gospel as a system of truth had been displaced by the institutions and
systems of men, consequently there was need of divine authority being
again conferred upon man and a new dispensation of the gospel of Christ
given to the world. It is our pride that "Mormonism" is this restored gospel
and Church of Christ.
I notice among this body of men I am addressing, the members of this
Ministerial association, the representative of the Episcopal church, a branch
of the great English church. He ought not to complain of this attitude of the
"Mormon" Church, for the reason that in one of the Homilies of his church;
in the Homily on the Perils of Idolatry, it is expressly stated that "Laity and
clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages and sects and degrees have been
drowned in abominable idolatry, most detested by God, and damnable to
man, for 800 years and more." (Perils of Idolatry, p. 3). Certainly
"Mormonism" does not proclaim the apostasy more harshly than that, nor
do we declare its universality more emphatically, but I presume we are
offensive to the representatives of this particular church, the Episcopal,
because we include him and his organization as among those who are in the
apostasy and who have not the gospel of Christ. Yet we are not harder on
him or his church than he is upon the Catholic and all the rest of the
Christian world previous to the establishment of the Church of England
under the patronage of King Henry VIII of England, of unsavory memory,
and we do have this advantage, viz.:

That if we proclaim a universal apostasy, we also proclaim the restoration
of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the renewal of divine authority, the
resumption of present-day and continuous revelation from God. So we are
in an infinitely better position, as to the reasonableness of our attitude, than
are those who proclaim this apostasy and yet are without a renewal of a
dispensation of the gospel to the world.
There is one thing particularly offensive, in this ministerial review, a
misrepresentation put in the most offensive form. Not only do the reviewers
set forth that we deny the existence of divine authority in their churches,
and the nonexistence of the church of Christ for centuries in the earth, but
they say that our attitude involves the validity of all ministerial functions,
including the right to solemnize marriages. They are not, I take it,
responsible for the headlines of their review as they appeared in the public
press, but in order to make the attitude of the "Mormon" Church as
offensive as it could be made, the headline said, "Gentile Marriage
Ordinances Illegal Before God." Now in justice to us I think this matter
should have been put fairly, and the exact status of the matter given. It
should have appeared that we regard marriage as a civil as well as a
religious contract, and our attitude with reference to divine things nowhere
involves us in a contradiction as to the validity of marriage as a civil
contract, nor as a relationship wholly sanctioned and approved by the divine
favor and blessing of God in this world. The extent to which we, in any
way, in thought or word, invalidate marriage ordinances is in saying that
marriage contracts formed in this world, either by civil authority or by the
authority of sectarian churches, do not extend the marriage covenant
beyond the period of this life. These gentlemen ought to have been a little
more careful, if not a little more honest in stating our position upon this
question. Allow me to do it for them.
Turning to the revelation on the subject of marriage, this is to be found:
"Verily I say unto you that the conditions of this law are these: All
covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances,
connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and
entered into, and sealed, by the holy spirit of promise of him who is
anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most

holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine
anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power * * *
are of no efficacy, virtue, or force, in and after the resurrection from
the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end, have an end
when men are dead."
Again,
"And every thing that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men,
by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever
they may be, that are not by me, or by my word, saith the Lord, shall
be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in
nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.
"For whatsoever things remain, are by me; and whatsoever things are
not by me, shall be shaken and destroyed. Therefore, if a man marry
him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me, nor by my word;
and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world, and she with
him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead,
and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by
any law when they are out of the world."
So far as any denial of the validity of marriages is concerned, it relates only
to denying their validity after the resurrection—not this side of it; and,
gentlemen, you ought not to complain of this, because you yourselves, in
performing the marriage ceremony, say, "I pronounce you man and wife
until death does you part." I think you ought not to take offense at what we
say on this subject—we say your marriage ceremonies are of no binding
effect in and after the resurrection, you make no pretensions of marrying for
eternity. The fact is, you scorn and ridicule it. Before leaving this group of
propositions with which I am dealing, I desire to say respecting this
question of universal apostasy from the Christian faith—we can sustain the
truth of that declaration from Scripture, from history, from the condition of
the religious world at the opening of the nineteenth century. We have no
anxiety about it, but we have not time on this occasion to enter into an
argument on the justification of our attitude.

But, gentlemen, Christian gentlemen, what in reality is the difference
between your attitude and ours in respect of the world at large, and the
existence of the gospel in the earth, and consequences growing out of those
respective attitudes? You proclaim, do you not, that there is no other name
given under heaven whereby men can be saved except the name of Jesus
Christ? You insist, do you not, that there must be acceptance of the gospel
of Jesus Christ, and do you not hold that those who do not accept this
gospel cannot receive the benefits of its salvation? Now then, after two
thousand years of proselyting in the world, under the most favorable
circumstances, what is the sum total of your achievements? Why, less than
one-third of the inhabitants of the earth are even nominally Christians! and
what is your attitude toward God's children whom you have not converted.
Why, that they are lost. That is the inevitable result of your attitude and
doctrine. Or else you must say that men can be saved without the gospel of
Christ. Now the difference between your position and ours is simply this:
The proposition that you present to the world at large, we present to you as
well as to the rest of mankind—and you don't like your own medicine—
with this exception, and it is a grand exception, one that goes far towards
establishing the divine origin of this great latter-day work; the exception is
this: that whereas, your attitude and principles condemn the great bulk of
the human family to everlasting perdition—and I am going to talk to you
about perdition in a little while, and point out what you mean by it—while
you consign to eternal perdition, I say, the great bulk of our Father's
children, we proclaim an "everlasting gospel," one that shall not only walk
beside men through this life but through all the ages that are to come. You
say in your review that we "contribute nothing to reverence for God, or to
justice or mercy toward men." Well, here is one little item that
"Mormonism" adds to the idea of justice and mercy, that is, we hold that in
any age, now or a thousand years hence, or five thousand or ten thousand
years hence, or ten million years hence—we hold that when an intelligence,
a man, shall learn that it profiteth nothing to violate the law of God, but that
it profiteth everything to yield obedience to that law, and repentance takes
hold of him, and he stretches out his hands toward God—through the gospel
of Jesus Christ, the hand of God will find the man's hand and bring him
unto salvation. That is the difference between us, and I leave you to judge
which smacks most of the inspiration and truth of heaven.

We take up now another group of propositions: It is complained by you,
gentlemen, that the "Mormon" Church denies that the Christian churches
have been representing Christ for 1,700 years, notwithstanding Christian
martyrdoms, organized charities, the reforms the churches have fostered,
the progress of mankind which Christians have chiefly promoted. I wish to
explain briefly the attitude of the Church, with reference to this interregnum
between the apostasy and the restoration of that gospel in the nineteenth
century, through our prophet.
Our position is this: While there was this universal apostasy, while the
Church of Christ as an organization was destroyed, and replaced by the
churches of men, yet just as when the sun goes down, there still remains
light in the sky—so, too, notwithstanding this apostasy from the Church,
there still were left fragments of truth among the children of men, and some
measure of truth thank God, through his mercy, has always remained with
man, not only with Christians but with all God's children. He has not left
himself in any of the ages of the world without his witnesses, and he has
sanctified all generations of men with some measure of the truth; therefore,
when we proclaim this apostasy from the Christian religion and the
destruction of the Church of Christ, it does not follow that we hold that all
truth, that all virtue, had departed from the world, or that God had
absolutely withdrawn from his creation. Not so. The light of truth burned in
the bosom of good men; but it does not follow that because these fragments
of truth remained there was necessarily the organized Church of Christ and
divine authority in the world. These fragments of the truth could remain in
the so-called Christian parts of the world, as we now know them to exist in
what is called the heathen world. Relative to the reforms you claim that
your churches have fostered and the progress of mankind which Christians
have chiefly promoted, you are aware, gentlemen, that there is a certain
class of thinkers among you—I mean in the Christian world, not among
"Mormons"—you are aware that there is a school of thinkers among men
who will tell you to your teeth, and they will come very nearly proving the
truth of it, that such progress in civilization, in science, in arts, as the world
has made in past ages, has not been made because of your churches, but in
spite of them. They hold that your organizations have been found quite as
often against the progress of truth as standing in support of it. Taking the
whole time range into account, from the close of the second to the opening

of the nineteenth century, it would puzzle you to meet their evidence and
argument.
It is claimed that the brevity of our Address not only leaves much to be
desired, but that it is "positively misleading."
First, our reviewers claim that the address is misleading on the subject of
revelation. Still these reviewers are able to quote from the Address as
follows: "The theology of our Church is the theology taught by Jesus Christ
and his apostles, the theology of Scripture and reason. It not only
acknowledges the sacredness of ancient Scripture, and the binding force of
divinely inspired acts and utterances in ages past; but also declares that God
now speaks to man in this final gospel dispensation." That seems quite
explicit to me. But, commenting upon the passage, the reviewers say:
"Under this declaration lies the claim of the 'Mormon' Church—
constantly insisted upon in its congregation here and in surrounding
regions—that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the
Pearl of Great Price, together with the living oracles—i.e., certain
members of the priesthood—are divinely inspired and are, therefore, of
equal authority with the Bible. This claim, a knowledge of which is so
necessary to even a tolerable understanding of their system of belief, is
not plainly and explicitly set forth in the declaration of doctrine
contained in the Address, but it has repeated and urgent emphasis in
their teachings in 'Mormon' communities."
Now, be honest, gentlemen, is it not repeated everywhere with just as much
emphasis as in "Mormon" communities in Utah? Isn't it a universal
proclamation that we make to the world? You know it is, and you prove that
it is from the very works you quote to establish the fact that we believe in
that doctrine, and which are of world-wide circulation. It was a vile effort at
misrepresentation on your part to make it appear otherwise. But on the
subject of revelation, let us go to the Address itself. What is said upon the
subject of revelation is found on pages three and four, and fourteen and
fifteen: "Our religion is founded on the revelations of God," * * * "It," [the
Church of Christ] "not only acknowledges the sacredness of ancient
Scripture, and the binding force of divinely-inspired acts and utterances in

ages past; but also declares that God now speaks to man in this final gospel
dispensation." At page 14 of the Address this is said:
"It is sometimes urged that the permanent realization of such a desire
[i.e., to live in peace with our fellow citizens] is impossible, since the
Latter-day Saints hold as a principle of their faith that God now reveals
himself to man, as in ancient times; that the priesthood of the Church
constitute a body of men who have each for himself, in the sphere in
which he moves, special right to such revelation; that the president of
the Church is recognized as the only person through whom divine
communication will come as law and doctrine to the religious body;
that such revelation may come at any time, upon any subject, spiritual
or temporal, as God wills; and finally that, in the mind of every faithful
Latter-day Saint, such revelation, in whatsoever it counsels, advises, or
commands, is paramount."
Now, gentlemen, will you tell me how we could be more frank or explicit
on the subject of revelation? And when you charge that in this document we
have not dealt candidly with the subject of revelation, why did you not
quote this passage I have just read, with the other passages that you have
quoted? Were you not trying to do a little misleading on your own account?
Did you deal quite fairly with the Address when you failed to quote this
very explicit passage just read?
Complaint is made about our belief in "Living Oracles" in the Church, i.e.,
certain members of the priesthood who are divinely inspired, and who may
interpret the revelations and the laws of the Church.
Well, gentlemen, why do you complain of that? Books do not make
churches. How came we by the ancient scriptures? The Old and the New
Testament, I mean. We are instructed in the Scriptures that no scripture is of
private interpretation, but that "holy men of God spake as they were moved
upon by the Holy Ghost," hence your Old Testament and your New
Testament. They came into existence exactly in the same way that our
scripture is coming into existence. The living oracles make scripture;
scriptures do not make living oracles. And that is what is the matter with
you, gentlemen; you have been relying upon books instead of relying upon
the fountain source of all wisdom, truth and knowledge, the inspiration and

revelation of God to the human soul. You are book-made teachers, rather
than God-made teachers. That is the difference between the living oracles in
the Church of Christ and those who speak as the Scribes and Pharisees were
wont to speak. The people in ancient times were able to discern the
difference; for they said of Jesus that he spoke as one having authority, and
not as the Scribes and the Pharisees. We are in harmony with the whole
course of God's dealings with his children in this matter of developing his
word in his Church. Yes, we have living oracles in the Church, thank God;
and when they speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost their utterances are
the very word of God; and when the teachings and discourses of the elders
of the Church shall have been sifted and tried in the fire of time, much that
they have said will prove to be scripture, and thus the Church of Christ of
this dispensation shall make scriptures, just as the Church of Christ of
former dispensations has done.
Now I read to you another passage from this review. Complaint is made
against our address upon the ground that it treats very briefly—all too
briefly, the doctrines of the Church. I do not know but what it is open to just
criticism on that ground; for our doctrines are but stated, as you may say, in
headlines. I presume the Presidency of the Church did not think the
occasion called for an elaborate exposition of the principles of our faith,
with chapter and verse given for warrant of the authority on which they
rested. But the Church had been under the fire of severe criticism for a
period of four years or more. Its doctrines had been assailed, the practices
of its people had been misrepresented, their character traduced, and their
"whole course of conduct reprobated and condemned." Taking these
circumstances under advisement, the Presidency of the Church thought, I
presume, the time propitious for an utterance which would in outline tell the
world what we believed, and correct the misunderstanding that obtained
respecting our past history and present position. The address was not
designed, as I understand it, to be a complete exposition of our faith, but a
declaration of our present attitude.
On the doctrine of the Godhead these Christian gentlemen, our reviewers,
think that the statement of the Address to the effect that we believe in the
Godhead, comprising the three individual personages—Father, Son and
Holy Ghost—is a declaration that will not perhaps suggest Tritheism or

materialism to Christians unfamiliar with "Mormon" "theological terms."
"But," they continue, "when the full doctrine of the Deity, as taught in
'Mormon' congregations, is known, it will at once be seen that no Christian
can accept it. In fact," they say, "the 'Mormon' Church teaches that God the
Father has a material body of flesh and bone; that Adam is the God of the
human race; that this Adam-God was physically begotten by another God;
that the Gods were once as we are now; that there is a great multiplicity of
Gods; that Jesus Christ was physically begotten by the heavenly Father of
Mary, his wife; that as we have a heavenly Father, so also we have a
heavenly mother; that Jesus himself was married, and was probably a
polygamist."
Let me say, in treating this group of statements, that these gentlemen
nowhere support these allegations by citations from our authoritative works
that the Church accepts as binding in doctrine; but they do quote the
commentaries of men, which often express only individual opinions. I
might dismiss this group of charges against the "Mormon" Church,
therefore, by this statement of the case: the Church is not bound to defend
any doctrine that is not explicitly found in the works of the Church setting
forth authoritatively her doctrines. But I do not propose to dismiss the
charges in any such fashion. I propose to grapple with them, and meet them,
I trust to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of these gentlemen.
First, as to God having a body of flesh and bone—being a material
personage. I want to find out what there is wrong, unscriptural,
unphilosophical or immoral about that doctrine. And for the purpose of this
discussion, I am going to put in contrast to our belief, that God is a spirit
inhabiting a body of flesh and bone—an exalted, a perfected man, if you
will—the statement of the belief of these reviewers as to the nature of God.
And, by the way, they are so nearly at one upon this doctrine, that the
Church of England's creed, the statement of the Episcopal church on the
doctrine, will be acceptable, I doubt not, to them all. On this subject these
gentlemen hold: "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without
body"—and that term "body," by the way, does not mean to deny that God
has a body in fashion like man's; but it means that he is not matter, not
material. Continuing then—"without body, parts or passions; of infinite
power, wisdom and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, both

visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of
one substance, power and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost."
Of Jesus the creed says:
"The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting
of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the
Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, of her
substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the
Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to
be divided, whereof is one Christ very God and very Man."
Again:
"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with
flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's
nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until he
return to judge all men at the last day."
Mark what is said here of Jesus. You say that "the Godhead and manhood"
in Jesus "were joined together in one person," that is, his spirit and his body
are united, never to be severed or disunited. Now I put to you this question:
Is the Lord Jesus Christ God? Yes, you must answer. Then is not God an
exalted man according to your creed? Listen—and this is your belief as
expressed in your creed—"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took
again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the
perfection of man's nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there
sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day."
According to this statement of the matter, Jesus has not been dissolved into
some spiritual, immaterial essence, and widely diffused throughout the
universe as some spiritual presence. No; he is a substantial, resurrected
personage, a united spirit and body; and "The Godhead, and Manhood" that
are united in the Christ—the humanity and the divinity—are "never to be
divided." He is recognized and worshiped by you, gentlemen, as "very God
and very man." This, of course, scarcely meets the description of the first
paragraph of the creed used here, where God is declared to be not matter,

that is "without body, parts or passions." But then that contradiction is your
affair, your trouble, not ours. It is enough that I call your attention to the
fact that the second part of your creed leads you closely to the "Mormon"
doctrine that God is an exalted, perfected man, since Jesus, according to
your creed, is God, and yet a resurrected man sitting in heaven until his
return to judge all men at the last day.
And now as to there being more Gods than one. We believe the Scripture
which says that Jesus was the brightness of God's glory, "and the express
image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). And as we know what kind of a person the
Christ is, who "possessed all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" and who,
when he declared that all power in heaven and in earth had been given unto
him, and he was in the act of sending his disciples into all the world to teach
and baptize in the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—was a
resurrected, immortal man, of spirit, flesh and bone. And since, I say, the
scripture teaches that the Son was the express image of the Father's person,
we conclude that the Father must be a personage of spirit, flesh and bone,
just as the Son, Jesus, is. Indeed your Athanasian creed says that "such as
the Father is, such is the Son;" and of course, it follows that, such as the
Son is, such is the Father; that is, the Father is a personage of spirit, flesh
and bone, united in one person, "very God and very man," just as Jesus is.
And there are two separate personages, each distinct from the other in
person, two individuals, but both of the same divine nature; and if two
separate personages, individuals, may participate in the one divine nature, it
logically follows that a larger number than two or three may participate in
that nature. And hence the Scriptures represent in many places the existence
of a plurality of divine personages, how many we do not know, and it does
not matter. But we hear of God saying, "Let us make man in our image; the
man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil;" "God standeth in the
congregation of the Mighty, he judgeth among the Gods. * * * I have said
Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the most High." The last a
passage of the Psalms, quoted and defended by the Savior as a justification
of his own claim to sonship with God. And now, if the great archangel,
Michael, or Adam, is among that number of exalted, divine souls, what
more fitting than that the father of the human race shall become the great,
presiding patriarch of our earth and its redeemed inhabitants; and the one

with whom our race would most immediately have to do? What sacrilege is
there in this thought? Is it not reasonable that it should be so?
Of your nonsense of one being three, and three being but one, we will say
nothing, except to remark that you must reform your arithmetic, if you
expect sensible people to pay attention to your doctrines.
One other item in which we offend these reverend gentlemen is that we
believe Jesus had a Father as well as a mother. Now, gentlemen, honestly, is
it any worse for him to have had a Father than it is for him to have had a
mother? You concede that he had a mother; that his body grew as yours did,
in the womb of his mother; that he came forth of the womb by birth pains;
that he suckled at the breast of woman; that through the months and years
of infant weakness he was watched and guided by the hand of a loving
mother. Tell me, is it true, that in your philosophy of things it is all right for
Jesus to have a mother, but a terrible sin and blasphemy to think of him as
having a father? Is not fatherhood as sacred and holy as motherhood?
Listen, people, there is something else. Having objected to our idea of Jesus
having a father, these peculiarly pious gentlemen turn now and object to our
faith because we believe that we have for our spirits a heavenly mother as
well as a heavenly father! They quote, in part, that splendid hymn of ours
on heavenly motherhood, the great throbbing hunger of woman's soul, and
which was given to this world through the inspired mind of Eliza R. Snow;
the hymn is known to us as "O My Father."
In the Scripture we read: "We have had fathers of the flesh, and we did give
them reverence, shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits
and live?" So that we know we have had a father to our spirits; but because
we hold that the spirits of men have also a mother in heaven, as well as a
father, behold these reviewers complain against us. Now, observe the
peculiar position of these critics: It is all right for Jesus to have a mother;
but it is all wrong for him to have a father. On the other hand, it is all right
for men's spirits to have a Father in heaven, but our reviewers object to our
doctrine of their also having a mother there. I sometimes wonder what in
the world is the matter with you, gentlemen. I am puzzled to classify your
views, or the kind of beings with which you people heaven. One of your
own number, however, has thrown some light upon that subject, and has so

classified you—saving me the trouble—as to enable us to understand to
some extent your peculiar views. I have a book here that I am going to use
in this controversy. It is a new one. I got it three days ago, and have read it
nearly through in order to be prepared for this occasion. It is the work of
Rev. R. J. Campbell, of City Temple, London, and it is a treatise on the New
Theology, just now much talked of in Europe. He describes ministers of the
gospel and gives them the classification referred to a moment since, and
which I think must needs be all right, since it comes from a minister. He
takes the average business man of England, naming him "John Smith," for
convenience, and he says this about John:
"John Smith, with whom we used to go to school, and who has since
developed into a stolid British man of business, with few ideas and a
tendency toward conservatism—John is a stalwart, honest,
commonplace kind of person, of whom brilliant things were never
prophesied and who has never been guilty of any. His wife and
children go to church on Sundays. John seldom goes himself, because
it bores him, but he likes to know that religion is being attended to, and
he does not want to hear that his clergyman is attempting any daring
flights. He has a good-natured contempt for clergymen in general,
because he feels somewhat that, like women, they have to be treated
with half-fictitious reverence, but that they do not count for much in
the ordinary affairs of life, they are a sort of a third sex."
Now, ladies, I ask you to remember, in passing, that I am reading the words
of somebody else; their are not my words. The phrase "half-fictitious
reverence" is not mine. I think we ought to have real reverence for women;
no fictitious reverence at all.
The ministers are here in this passage described as "a sort of third sex," and
I am inclined to think that is right; for when a man in one case objects to a
person having a father, and in another case considers it altogether unholy
for persons to have a mother, I do not know how else to classify him but as
"a sort of third sex"-kind of a man.
There seems to be objection in the review to the idea of the marriage
relation existing in heaven and subsisting between divine beings. Loud
complaint is made, if you hold that the intelligences of heaven obey the law

of marriage. Let me ask you, Christian gentlemen, Who instituted marriage?
You will answer, God. Is it holy or unholy? Did God institute an unholy
thing and command men to engage in it? You will have to say that marriage
is holy, since God instituted it. Very good. Then if it is holy, how do you
make it out that it will be unholy for divine personages to practice it? Is it
not just as good for divine personages as for you imperfect men? Can it be
that your ideas of the relationship of the sexes are so impure that you must
needs regard that association as so unholy as to be unworthy of divine
beings? Let me read to you what a great English author—Jeremy Taylor—
says on this subject of, marriage:
"Marriage is the mother of the world and preserves kingdoms, and fills
cities and churches, and heaven itself. Like the useful bee, it builds a
house and gathers sweetness from every flower, and labors and unites
into societies and republics, and sends out colonies, and feeds the
world with delicacies, and obeys and keeps order, and exercises many
virtues and promotes the interest of mankind, and is that state of good
to which God hath designed the present constitution of the world."
Now, you prate to us about our belief, or the belief of some of us at least,
that divine personages are in this holy relationship. But tell me what it is
that has been the great civilizing force of this and all other ages? What is it
that best tempers man, and fits him for the society of his fellows and for
holy communion with God? There is no force within the experience of man,
that is so beneficial or ennobling to him as the love and devotion of a pure,
good woman; and for woman there is nothing that is so sanctifying as the
love of an upright, honorable man, whose arm protects her and whose love
shields her from the evils of the world. These relations, blessed with the
pledges of their affection in off-spring, complete the circle of man's
happiness, and greatness, and exaltation of spirit in this world. It is the
civilizing force that stands pre-eminent above all others. And that which
sanctifies man here in this world may be trusted not to degrade him in the
eternities that are to come, but, on the contrary, will contribute to his
exaltation and his eternal glory. That is our faith, at least, and we would not
change it for all the sexless, hermaphrodite existences that your warped
minds paint in such glowing colors.

We offend again in our doctrine that men are of the same race with the
divine personages we call Gods. Great stress is laid upon the idea that we
believe that "as man is, God once was, and as God now is, man may
become." The world usually shouts "blasphemy" and "sacrilege" at one
when he talks of such a possibility. But the world moves, I am happy to say.
Just now, in England, especially, there is a thought-revolution under way.
Some have declared that in importance and extent it is as great as was the
revolution of the sixteenth century, led by Martin Luther. The present
recognized leader of this movement is the Rev. R. J. Campbell, of the City
Temple, London, whose book I referred to a moment ago. This "New
Theology," so-called, has the outspoken support of the Christian
Commonwealth, of London, a publication of wide influence. A "Society for
the Encouragement of Progressive Religious Thought" has been organized
to champion the ideas of the "New Theology." Mr. Campbell numbers
among his champions Dr. John Clifford, the leading figure in the English
Baptist church, also Dr. R. F. Horton, chairman of the London
Congregational Union. In America, his sympathizers and opponents seem to
be equally numerous. Mr. W. T. Stead, of the Review of Reviews, compares
the present theological ardor in London with that which marked Alexandria
in the days of Athanasius, "when fishmongers at their stalls discussed the
doctrine of the trinity." The strife of tongues has reached even to Germany,
where Prof. Harnack, the eminent theologian, interprets it as a proof that the
"formal theology of the creeds [your creeds, gentlemen,] is being gradually
displaced by the vital theology of experience."
I want to read to you some key-words of this new theology which is making
its way among all churches. It is' not an organized movement. No one
appears to know whence it springs. Indeed, it is spoken of as being one of
those pulsations of the "cosmic mind" which moves over the people at
intervals and proclaims some great truth. Now, you will be astonished at the
fundamental truth of this new movement, and the great number of people
who are accepting it as the "theology of experience." Its fundamental
principle is the recognition of the identity between human nature and the
divine nature.
In proof of it, I submit the following passages:

"Whence springs the deep-seated hostility of so man, of the
representatives of labor to the churches? It can only be from the fact
that organized religion has, in the immediate past, lost sight of its own
fundamental, the divineness of man." (Rev. R. J. Campbell, in Hibbert
Journal, April, 1907, p. 487.)
"When the man with a burdened conscience comes to us for relief, let
us tell him that we all bear the burden together, and that until he
becomes a Christ all the love in the universe will come to his help and
share his struggle. His burden is ours, the burden of the Christ
incarnate for the redemption of the world." (Ibid, p. 493.)
"The starting point in the New Theology is belief in the immanence of
God, and the essential oneness of God and man. * * * We believe man
to be a revelation of God, and the universe one means to the self-
manifestation of God. * * * * We believe that there is no real
distinction between humanity and the Deity.
"Our being is the same as God's, although our consciousness of it is
limited. * * * The new theology holds that human nature should be
interpreted in terms of its own highest nature, therefore it reverences
Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was divine, 'but so are we.' * * * Every man
is a potential Christ, or rather a manifestation of the eternal Christ. * *
* The new theology * * * is the gospel of the humanity of God and the
divinity of man." (Campbell, London Daily Mail, quoted in Current
Literature, April, 1907.)
"I shall continue to feel compelled to believe that the power which
produced Jesus must be at least equal to Jesus, so Jesus becomes my
gateway to the innermost of God. When I look at him I say to myself,
God is that, and if I can only get down to the truth about myself I shall
find that I am too. * * * In him (Jesus) the humanity was divinity and
divinity humanity. * * * But you make him only a man! No, reader, I
do not. I make him the only man, and there is a difference. We have
only seen perfect manhood once, and that was the manhood of Jesus.
The rest of us have got to get there. * * * We have to get rid of the
dualism which will insist on putting humanity and Deity into two
separate categories.

"Unitarians used to declare that Jesus was man, not God."
Trinitarianism maintained that he was God and man; the older
Christian thought as well as the youngest regards him as God in man—
God manifest in the flesh. But here emerges a great point of difference
between the new theology on the one hand and traditional orthodoxy
on the other. The latter would restrict the description 'God manifest in
the flesh' to Jesus alone; the new theology would extend it in a lesser
degree to all humanity, and would maintain that in the end it will be as
true of every individual soul as it ever was of Jesus. Indeed, it is this
belief that gives value and significance to the earthly mission of Jesus
—he came to show us what we potentially are." (The New Theology,
Campbell, pp. 82, 83.)
There is much more to the same effect, which I now pass.
I am now going to read to you from a higher authority than Mr. Campbell—
from a man of science, a man whose intellectual powers sway the religious
thought of many thousands in Great Britain, the thoughts of many more
people than Mr. Campbell sways. I refer to Sir Oliver Lodge, who says in
the Hibbert Journal, one of the foremost publications in the world on the
subject of theology and philosophy, with reference to the divinity of Jesus,
and the identity of the divine and human nature:
"The conception of the Godhead formed by some divine philosophers
and mystics has quite rightly been so immeasurably vast, though still
assuredly utterly inadequate and necessarily beneath reality, that the
notion of a God revealed in human form—born, suffering, tormented,
killed—has been utterly incredible. 'A crucified prophet, yes; but a
crucified God! I shudder at the blasphemy,' is a known quotation
which I cannot now verify; yet that apparent blasphemy is the soul of
Christianity. It calls upon us to recognize and worship a crucified, an
executed God. * * * The world is full of men. What the world wants is
a God. Behold the God! (referring of course, to Jesus,) 'The divinity of
Jesus' is the truth which now requires to be re-perceived, to be
illuminated afresh by new knowledge, to be cleansed and revivified by
the wholesome flood of skepticism which has poured over it; it can be
freed now from all trace of groveling superstition, and can be

recognized freely and enthusiastically; the divinity of Jesus, (Mark you
—'the divinity of Jesus') and of all other noble and saintly souls, in so
far as they too have been inflamed by a spark of Divinity—in so far as
they too can be recognized as manifestations of the Divine." (Hibbert
Journal for April, 1906, pp. 654-5.)
That is the doctrine, gentlemen, that is sweeping the earth, "the divinity of
Jesus," and the divinity of "all other noble and saintly souls"—the kinship
of men and God. That is "Mormonism," and it was proclaimed by the great
prophet of the nineteenth century, half a century before these modern minds
were awakened to its grandeur and to its uplifting power. I rejoice to see it
running in the earth to be glorified, for in it I recognize the very root
principle of all religion and out of it grow all the relations that link us with
all that is pure, uplifting and divine.
Now, do not misunderstand me. There is much nonsense in this "New
Theology;" but this root principle of it is true, and it is in accord with the
principles that Joseph Smith proclaimed years ago. The doctrine of the
immanence of God in the world, by which we mean the universe and the
divinity of man, instead of its having its origin some fifteen or twenty years
ago, and now finding expression in the beautiful diction of Mr. Campbell
and Sir Oliver Lodge and others, it was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith,
at least over seventy years ago. Concerning the immanence of God, he
taught the following in 1832: He first represents that the spirit of Christ is
"in all and through all things, the light of truth; which truth shineth." Then
he adds:
"This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the
sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also he is in the
moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it
was made. As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by
which they were made. And the earth also, and the power thereof, even
the earth upon which you stand. And the light which now shineth,
which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes,
which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; which
light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity
of space. The light which is in all things; which giveth life to all

things; which is the law by which all things are governed; even the
power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of
eternity, who is in the midst of all things."
The prophet further declared, in 1833, that "the elements are eternal, and
spirit and element inseparably connected receive a fullness of joy. The
elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even
temples."
Again, I say, there is much in the so-called "New Theology" which we
cannot accept, such as the denial of the atonement, its treatment of the
Scriptures and the like, but in so far as these fundamental principles of it are
concerned—the immanence of God in the world, and the identity of the race
of man and divine beings—there can be no question as to their accuracy.
And those Christian people who are not accepting these ideas are not
moving forward with the far-flung thought-line of God's revelations on
these matters.
We next come to the subject of priesthood. It is declared by the reviewers
that the teaching of the Church upon this important doctrine is not candidly
set forth in our Address. Then they give us a long line of quotations, most of
them from the Seer, upon the subject of priesthood; and insist that the
priesthood involves the possession and exercise of arbitrary power in all
things, in things both spiritual and temporal. I read to you a passage or two
from the Address on the subject of priesthood that you may see the injustice
of this charge:
"We affirm that to administer in the ordinances of the gospel, the
authority must be given of God; and that this authority is the power of
the holy priesthood.
"We affirm that through the ministration of immortal personages, the
holy priesthood has been conferred upon men in the present age, and
that under this divine authority the Church of Christ has been
organized."
The reviewers quote this far, and then stop to remark—but without
returning to quote again from the Address—"so it is declared; but the

teaching of the Church on this important doctrine is not herein candidly set
forth." Then why did not you reviewers go to another part of the document
where the matter is more explicitly set forth and quote that? Following the
fragment you do quote occurs this passage which declares the express
purposes for which the priesthood was given:
"We proclaim the objects of this organization to be, the preaching of
the gospel in all the world, the gathering of scattered Israel, and the
preparation of a people for the coming of the Lord."
But you reviewers say this "power extends not only to things spiritual, but
to secular matters as well." Within certain limitations, granted; and the
acknowledgment of the fact is found in the Address itself which you charge
with being uncandid. Here is the passage:
"That the Church claims the right to counsel and advise her members
in temporal as well as in spiritual affairs is admitted. Leading Church
officials, men of practical experience in pioneer life, have aided the
people in establishing settlements throughout the inter-mountain west,
and have given them, gratuitously, the benefit of their broader
knowledge of things, through counsel and direction, which the people
have followed to their advantage; and both the wisdom of the leaders
and the good sense of the people are vindicated in the results achieved.
All this has been done without the exercise of arbitrary power. It has
resulted from wise counsels, persuasively given and willingly
followed."
But you insist that there is "tyranny and arbitrary ruler-ship" over a
community which indorses the priesthood's high claims. I deny the
existence of such tyranny as a fact among the "Mormon" people who
indorse the priesthood's high claims; and I deny the existence of arbitrary
power as a doctrine of the Church, and so does the Address which you
pretend to review. Here is the passage:
"We deny the existence of arbitrary power in the Church" [why didn't
you gentlemen quote that]; "and this because its government is moral
government purely, and its forces are applied through kindness, reason,

and persuasion. Government by consent of the governed is the rule of
the Church."
Following is a summary of the word of the Lord, setting forth the principles
on which the Church government is to be administered:
"The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the
powers of heaven, and the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor
handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be
conferred upon men, it is true; but when they undertake to cover their
sins, or gratify their pride, their vain ambition, or exercise control, or
dominion, or compulsion, upon the souls of the children of men, in any
degree of unrighteousness, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when
it is withdrawn, amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the
priesthood, only by persuasion, by longsuffering, by gentleness, and
meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge,
which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without
guile."
Gentlemen, those are our principles. Why didn't you quote them fairly and
fully, instead of charging arbitrary power, when it is expressly denied by
what we regard as the very word of God? Honestly, now, did you deal fairly
with us when you came to this part of your review? But, you say, "given the
power of the 'Mormon' priesthood, that it should not be used is
incompatible with the known facts of human nature." Well, if it does
attempt arbitrary power, it will be in violation of our principles, and not in
harmony with them; and that fact furnishes a basis for the correction of any
abuses that may arise. And while it is true that here and there, throughout a
long experience, there may have been individual instances of the exercise of
arbitrary rule in the Church, yet speaking for the priesthood of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as a whole, I challenge you to duplicate
the same honorable conduct anywhere within the experience of men, where
those entrusted with power have so uniformly abstained from abusing it
while exercising the functions of government. The Latter-day Saints love
their leaders, living and dead, and not without cause, I assure you; for these
men have labored in season and out of season, persuading, counseling,

advising, and guarding the interests of their people with an unselfishness
that tells us something of the love of God, and that without effort at
personal aggrandizement or enrichment. The lives and labors of the
priesthood are a vindication of its divine origin and spirit.
The review further says that when once "the Church's claim for its
priesthood is allowed, the claim of jurisdiction in civil matters logically
follows." But, gentlemen, why did you not point out the fact, or at least
admit it in some form, that the address you were reviewing emphatically
excepted out of its jurisdiction the sphere of civil government? You could
have edified those whom you are so anxious to enlighten with such
passages as these:
"The laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the
Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth."
That is to say, no law or rule enacted, or revelation received by the Church,
has been promulgated for the state. Such laws and revelations as have been
given are solely for the government of the Church. On the subject of the
relations of the Church and the State the Address says:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine
of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of church
authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and
independence of the individual in the performance of his political
duties. If, at any time, there has been conduct at variance with this
doctrine, it has been in violation of the well-settled principles and
policy of the Church.
"We declare that from principle and policy, we favor:
"The absolute separation of church and state;
"No domination of the state by the Church;
"No church interference with the functions of the state;

"No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free
exercise of religion;
"The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of
ecclesiastical authority in political affairs;
"The equality of all churches before the law."
Again I read from the review, and this time I deal with a passage which the
reviewers themselves say "dwarfs everything mentioned in the Address."
We shall see what comes of it:
"Apparently the foundation of the 'Mormon' Church is in the Book of
Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the
testimony of the living oracles delivered from time to time. But
whoever digs down to the lowermost foundation will find that, at last,
everything rests upon the reported visions of Joseph Smith. When any
matter of vital importance is presented for the belief of mankind, if that
matter, either in its nature or the circumstances attending it, lies very
much outside the ordinary, a due regard for human intelligence
demands that, whatever testimony is produced in support of it shall be
buttressed by corroborative evidence. But here we have a system of
religion which claims sole authority as being alone divinely accredited.
It asks for the acceptance of mankind on the ground of being so
accredited. It anathematizes all who finally reject it. Yet this religion,
making such an astonishing claim, is founded upon the unsupported
assertion of a young person whose probity was never so well
established that his naked word would be taken concerning any matter
transcending ordinary observation and experience; and that assertion
touches supernatural appearances, and messages which, if true, are of
the most profound importance to mankind; and yet that assertion is
wholly without corroborative evidence."
Gentlemen—Christian gentlemen—you who are such sticklers for candor—
have you spoken truly here, and in a matter which you say dwarfs
everything else mentioned in the Address? What of the testimony of three
certain witnesses, who claim that they stood with Joseph Smith wrapt in
open vision, in the light of day; who give their most solemn asseveration

that a holy angel came into their presence on that occasion, laid before them
certain ancient documents, turned over the leaves, conversed with them, and
at the same time they heard the voice of God saying that the translation of
the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith was true, and commanded them to
bear witness of it to all the world—which they did, over their own
signatures, and that testimony is printed in every edition of the Book of
Mormon? What of the testimony of eight other witnesses, to whom Joseph
Smith handed the book of plates, and they handled and hefted them, and
passed them one to the other, and examined the engravings thereon; and
they gave their testimony to the world to this effect, which testimony has
been published with every edition of the Book of Mormon given to the
world. Did you overlook this corroborative testimony? Is it true that you
gave so slight attention to the subject you were reviewing that you could
make a misstatement of the kind just mentioned? Were you so unacquainted
with it? Must we think you so dull? If we acquit you of stupidity, what
then? Must we not think of you as uttering falsehood? What of the
testimony of Oliver Cowdery, who stood wrapt in vision in the Kirtland
temple with Joseph Smith? And of Sidney Rigdon, wrapt in vision with
Joseph Smith, from which resulted their conjoint testimony concerning that
grandest of revelations ever given to man on the doctrine of the future
degrees of glory in which men will live in the eternities? I do not desire to
use harsh language; I will not say that you wilfully, maliciously,
ponderously and atrociously lied; because while all that might be true, one
would be accused of harshness if he said it; but I will say that you have
economized the truth, and you may settle it with your own consciences.
Our subject increases in interest as you get into it, and perhaps it is well it is
so, else your interest might falter. We come now to a very interesting topic
—that of polygamy. This is the darling theme of the reviewers, and so we
will not slight it by saying nothing about it. I had best read what they say on
this point:
"We have no means of knowing to what extent the practice of plural
marriage has been discontinued in the 'Mormon' Church, since no
records of such marriages are kept by the Church that are accessible to
the public. That there have been instances of such marriages ever since
the agreement of the Church to discontinue them, we know; that they

cannot be celebrated without the sanction of the Church accredited
officials, is unquestioned; that, so far as the public knowledge goes, no
officials who may have celebrated such marriages have been
disciplined therefor is certain."
Throughout one cannot help believing that these gentlemen are not quite
candid with reference to this subject. I do not believe that in the State of
Utah there is any one, in the Church or out of it, who does not believe that
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stopped the practice of,
or sanctioning and performing plural marriages. I am of the opinion that
everybody is settled in his conviction in relation to that matter.
It requires time for the settlement of such questions as those involved in the
system of plural marriage, as once practiced in the Church. No
proclamation is at first understood. Differences of opinion and variety of
interpretation are bound to exist concerning matters of this description. And
when the announcement was made in President Woodruff's manifesto of the
discontinuance of plural marriage, and the advice was given that our people
should contract no marriages contrary to the law, the question arose in the
minds of some whether that prohibition was not limited to marriages within
the United States, and whether by refraining from contracting such
marriages within the United States would not fulfill the covenant and
agreement implied in the manifesto. The matter was discussed pro and con.
Ultimately, however, the conclusion was inevitable that the manifesto
forbade plural marriages in all the world; because the Church is not a local
Church: it is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the
United States alone; but it is a world-wide Church; and when its general
conference speaks, it speaks for the entire Church in all the world. Hence, I
say, the conclusion was inevitable that plural marriages were everywhere
forbidden; and when some men held tenaciously to the view that that was
not the case, but that the Church fulfilled her agreement to discontinue
plural marriage by abstaining from performing plural marriages within the
United States—when that view was persisted in, I say, there was but one
thing left, and that was to conclude that such persons were out of harmony
with the Church. Two of the twelve apostles held that view; they were
declared by their associates to be out of harmony with their brethren in
these matters, they tendered their resignations which were accepted; and

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
testbankdeal.com

Essentials of Organizational Behavior 12th Edition Robbins Solutions Manual

More Related Content

Similar to Essentials of Organizational Behavior 12th Edition Robbins Solutions Manual (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Essentials of Organizational Behavior 12th Edition Robbins Solutions Manual