Mormon Coffee

Our Blog Has Moved!

2007-06-08T00:04:00.000-05:00

Our blog has been redesigned and relocated. Please update your bookmarks and RSS feed readers. Our new address is blog.mrm.org.

Joseph Smith on Humility, Innocence and Truth

2007-06-06T13:00:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

One hundred and sixty-three years ago tomorrow (June 7, 1844) the one and only issue of The Nauvoo Expositor was published in Nauvoo, Illinois. The newspaper was intended to be the voice of the Reformed Mormon Church, a dissident religious group led by former counselor in the LDS First Presidency, William Law.

The members of the Reformed Mormon Church were deeply opposed to Joseph Smith's polygamy. The preamble of The Nauvoo Expositor explained,

Many of us have sought a reformation in the [Mormon] church, without a public exposition of the enormities of crimes practiced by its leaders, thinking that if they would harken to council, and show fruit meet for repentance, it would be as acceptable with God, as though they were exposed to public gaze... But our petitions were treated with contempt, and in many cases the petitioner spurned from their presence, and particularly by Joseph [Smith], who would state that if he had sinned, and was guilty of any charges we would charge him with, he would not make acknowledgment, but would rather be damned; for it would detract from his dignity, and would consequently prove the ruin and overthrow of the Church.

We would ask him on the other hand, if the overthrow of the Church was not inevitable, to which he often replied, that we would all go to Hell together, and convert it into a Heaven, by casting the Devil out; and says he, Hell is by no means the place this world of fools suppose it to be, but on the contrary it is quite an agreeable place, to which we would now reply he can enjoy it if he is determined not to desist from his evil ways, but as for us, we will serve the Lord our God! (as quoted in Hallwas and Launius, Cultures in Conflict, 143-144)

The sermon in which Joseph Smith spoke of converting Hell into a Heaven was given in July of 1843 and is recorded in History of the Church 5:517. The other concerns voiced in The Nauvoo Expositor preamble can be better understood in the context provided by a speech Joseph delivered to the Saints just two weeks before the newspaper was published. On May 26, 1844 the Prophet said,

The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted... If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last...

Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet... How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go...

A man has asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet [William Law] has charged me with adultery...

What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. (History of the Church 408-412)

At the time Joseph Smith gave this speech there were 34 women and girls in Nauvoo who were wives of the Prophet.

Joseph said proven facts would allow truth and innocence to prevail; yet the publishers of The Nauvoo Expositor are defamed to this day, while Joseph Smith is lauded in song: "Great is his glory...Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom, crowned in the midst of the prophets of old." (Praise to the Man, LDS Hymn 326)

The White Horse Prophecy Rides Again

2007-06-04T13:05:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

"Romney candidacy has resurrected last days prophecy of Mormon saving the Constitution," reads a headline today in The Salt Lake Tribune. The article, written by journalist Thomas Burr, discusses the so-called White Horse Prophecy which was purportedly received by Joseph Smith in 1843. The article states,

It's Mormon lore, a story passed along by some old-timers about the importance of their faith and their country.

In the latter days, the story goes, the U.S. Constitution will hang by a thread and a Mormon will ride in on a metaphorical white horse to save it. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it does not accept the legend -- commonly referred to as the "White Horse Prophecy" -- as doctrine. ...

The disputed prophecy was recorded in a diary entry of a Mormon who had heard the tale from two men who were with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Ill. when he supposedly declared the prophecy.

"You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed," the diary entry quotes Smith as saying. "It will hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber."

Not only will the Mormons save the Constitution, under the prediction, but the prophecy goes further, insinuating that Mormons will control the government.

"Power will be given to the White Horse to rebuke the nations afar off, and you obey it, for the laws go forth from Zion," the prophecy says.

In 1918 sixth LDS President Joseph F. Smith made certain Latter-day Saints understood the White Horse Prophecy was bogus. In that October's General Conference President Smith said the prophecy was "never spoken by the prophet" in the way people claim, and that, "It is simply false; that is all there is to it."

The White Horse Prophecy is generally ignored or forgotten, but it seems to come to the forefront when a Mormon becomes a candidate for the U.S. presidency. It came up in 1968 when George Romney was running for president, in 2000 when Orin Hatch was running for president, and now, while Mitt Romney is campaigning. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Mr. Romney does not believe in the White Horse Prophecy.

In the article, Journalist Thomas Burr quotes George Cobabe, a man who researched the White Horse Prophecy for the LDS apologetics group FAIR. Mr. Cobabe said,

"I don't think the White Horse Prophecy is fair to bring up at all. It's been rejected by every church leader that has talked about it. It has nothing to do with anything."

While I agree with Mr. Cobabe that the White Horse Prophecy is not germane to Mitt Romney's white house bid, I don't think it's accurate to say that the prophecy "has been rejected by every church leader that has talked about it." Brigham Young seemed to believe the prophecy was true. In 1855 he said,

"...and when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the 'Mormon' Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it." (Journal of Discourses 2:182; also Discourses of Brigham Young, 361)

Thirteen years later, in 1868, Brigham Young again spoke in support of the White Horse Prophecy:

"How long will it be before the words of the prophet Joseph will be fulfilled? He said if the Constitution of the United States were saved at all it must be done by this people. It will not be many years before these words come to pass." (Journal of Discourses 12:204; also Discourses of Brigham Young, 360)

Though the White Horse Prophecy has no place in modern-day Mormonism, there was a time when the prophet, seer and revelator of the LDS Church believed it -- and preached it.

Really -- What is Mormonism? Most Evangelicals Would Be Surprised.

2007-06-01T00:51:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

On May 31st Christianity Today online posted an article which addresses the issue of Mitt Romney and Mormonism, asking, "Can conservative Protestants vote for a member of what they consider a cult?" The article is co-written by Mormon professor Robert Millet and Christian author Gerald McDermott.

Of particular interest in this article is where it addresses the concerns evangelicals have regarding Mormonism's non-Christian doctrines. The authors write,

But evangelicals are reluctant to vote for a Mormon. Historically, evangelicals and Mormons have demonized each other. Evangelicals consider the Church of Latter-day Saints to be a cult and typically think Mormons are not real Christians.

Evangelicals accuse Mormons of adding new revelation (the Book of Mormon) to the Bible. They think Mormons teach that humans are saved by good works rather than by Jesus Christ, and that humans are of the same species as Jesus and can someday attain his status. In addition, evangelicals say, Mormons reject key Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and creatio ex nihilo (God creating the world out of nothing)…

Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For Latter-Day Saints, Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists agreed that Jesus was "without sin," Mormons were among the "most likely" to say that Jesus was sinless.

Most evangelicals would also be surprised to learn that the Book of Mormon contains passages that teach salvation by the merits and grace of Christ ( "There is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah" 2 Nephi 2:8) and others that require personal trust in Christ for salvation, such as 1 Nephi 10:4-6: "All mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer."

Note the way the authors have presented the concerns of Christians: evangelicals demonize Mormons; evangelicals accuse Mormons; evangelicals think Mormons teach non-Christian doctrines about salvation and Christ; evangelicals say Mormons reject the Trinity, etc.; but evangelicals are wrong: "Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think."

Take a look at just one doctrinal issue raised by the authors: salvation. Speaking of evangelicals collectively, the authors write, "They think Mormons teach that humans are saved by good works rather than by Jesus Christ." The authors dance around this significant doctrinal concern. They set it up in terms which give the impression that evangelicals deeply misunderstand LDS soteriology and state that Mormon beliefs are not really so different after all. Millet and McDermott quote LDS scriptures which talk about Christ, mercy and grace, and apparently hope that will be enough to convince the uninformed reader that the Mormon view of salvation is compatible with evangelical (biblical) teaching. But of course it's not.

Mormonism rejects the idea that human beings are saved by good works without the aid of Christ; Millet and McDermott are correct to suggest that those who think otherwise misunderstand Mormon doctrine. But this is not to say that Mormonism embraces the biblical teaching of salvation by grace through faith alone based on the merits and atonement of Christ. The Book of Mormon says,

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25:23)

This is not salvation by faith alone, but salvation by grace coupled with works (please see Paul's letter to the Galatians for an understanding of what the Bible says about this idea). The Mormon teaching on salvation is incompatible with the evangelical understanding of this doctrine -- the doctrine which is at the very heart of the Gospel and is treasured deeply in the heart of every evangelical Christian.

Millet and McDermott don't mention this disparity in their article. Furthermore, they don't tell Christianity Today readers what twelfth LDS President Spencer W. Kimball said about the Christian doctrine of salvation:

One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. (The Miracle of Forgiveness, 206)

I wonder; is this is what Millet and McDermott are referring to when they say Mormons have historically demonized evangelicals?

At any rate, Millet and McDermott have misled their readers about the compatibility of Mormonism and evangelical Christianity. They have obscured significant doctrinal differences with verbal slight-of-hand. But at the same time it seems they have taken care to keep from going too far. They write,

Of course there is still doctrinal distance between Mormons and evangelicals.

Yes, really an unbridgeable chasm. But Millet and McDermott make no effort to inform their readers of any specifics. If you're interested, some of the doctrines responsible for the vast spiritual distance between Mormons and evangelicals are documented here.

Latter-day Saints Don't Care for Sugar-coated Mormon History

2007-05-29T11:15:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

Sunday's Deseret News (27 May) published the results of an email survey conducted by the LDS Department of Family and Church History. "LDS in survey call for unvarnished history" reports that active Latter-day Saints

want their church to provide a "frank and honest" presentation of church history, unvarnished by attempts to sugar-coat the past in order to make it more palatable…

Church history representative Rebecca Olpin told participants at the annual Mormon History Association meetings on Saturday that Latter-day Saints surveyed "want to be leveled with" when the church presents information about its past…

When questioned about what officials with the church's correlation department -- which edits all church materials -- think about those findings, Olpin said the request for honesty "is part of what members are asking for. We have a responsibility to share that in a way that correlation will agree with, so we understand that we have limits.

While I think this is a hopeful development within the LDS Church, it's interesting that Latter-day Saints need to request an honest portrayal of history from their church. Also interesting is the admission that some compromise will be required to keep both the members who are calling for honesty, and the Church editors, happy.

This Deseret News article reminded me of a conversation I had with some senior LDS missionaries who were serving in Nauvoo, Illinois. I asked, given the heavy emphasis the Nauvoo historic site missionary guides place on the sacrifices of early Church members, why was there no mention of the extreme sacrifices made by the women who were required to live The Principle (polygamy)? The missionary couple were very candid with me and spent the following hour confessing that "Salt Lake" wouldn't allow them to talk about the polygamy that was practiced in Nauvoo; that part of Mormon history was absent from every mandatory script supplied to missionary guides. This LDS couple expressed frustration over inaccuracies and mistakes in the history that was presented to visitors at the Mormon sites, but had found no relief by making requests of those in authority to make corrections. In the end, they told me "Salt Lake" was taking direction from God, and the missionary guides in Nauvoo were taking direction from "Salt Lake," so presenting inaccurate history to visitors must be the right thing to do -- though they could not understand it.

Time will tell how "Salt Lake" responds to the LDS member requests for unvarnished Church history. Honesty doesn't really seem like too much to ask.

Preach the Gospel? Don't Bother.

2007-05-25T14:00:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

The March 17th issue of Church News included an article about the LDS Church in Yonkers, New York. The article highlighted the work of a senior missionary couple that sparked "needed growth" of the Church in that area.

According to the article, Yonkers, the fourth largest city in New York, is "just a few miles north of Manhattan" and home to 200,000 people. Even so, the Church struggles there to have enough active members to keep an English-speaking branch going.

Five years ago, the small Yonkers branch was merged into the Westchester 1st Ward "due to insufficient priesthood leadership." The article explains what happened next:

Since then, some faithful members in Yonkers simply could not attend Sunday meetings at the Scarsdale meetinghouse...due to transportation issues.

"The number of cars among the members is limited. Public transportation is inefficient; with no direct routes, it could take members several hours to reach the meeting house on a Sunday morning," said President Taylor.

Missionaries stopped actively proselytizing in Yonkers because most investigators simply had no way to get to Church meetings.

I'm puzzled by this. Mormon magazines are always filled with stories of Latter-day Saints who must walk for miles to get to Church every Sunday, or members who travel for hours each way. LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley has stated that the reason the Church is so successful in membership growth is because it is demanding and "expects great things" from its members. But because there is no convenient way for the people in Yonkers to get to an LDS meetinghouse a few miles away the missionaries stop preaching the gospel to them?

To me, this speaks volumes. The LDS missionary's primary message is not "come unto Christ," but rather "come unto the LDS Church." The idea that there is no use teaching people about Jesus and His substitutionary atonement unless they can easily get to a meetinghouse is entirely foreign to Christian missions and the Great Commission Jesus gave to His people. "Go into all the world," He said, "and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). Later, the Apostle Paul said, "I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ,...preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season...do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry" (2 Timothy 4:1-2, 5).

This illustrates the difference between the LDS missionary system (proselytizing) and the biblical missionary system (evangelizing). One is focused on church growth; the other is focused on sharing the Good News of the Gospel -- that Jesus died to set sinners free.

So is Frank Pignanelli admitting Mormons are bigots?

2007-05-23T10:06:00.000-05:00

by Bill

I apologize. I really was hoping to move on from this soapbox, but I could not pass up commenting on a recent article that appeared in the Deseret News titled "Romney campaign has LDS in spotlight." Here, Frank Pignanelli starts off the piece by saying:

Pignanelli; "A person extremely intolerant of creeds, beliefs, etc., other than his/her own." Such is the standard dictionary definition of a bigot. Unfortunately, this describes too many Americans, because of their personal view toward Mormons.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. According to Mr. Pignanelli's dictionary we now have proof that every Mormon who believes in Joseph Smith's First Vision account (at least the one that the Mormon Church considers to be "official") can now be classified as a bigot. According to Joseph Smith, when he asked God which of all the churches were true, he was allegedly told:

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof'" (Joseph Smith--History 1:19).

Gee, doesn't this sound rather "bigoted" towards the creeds and beliefs that I and millions of other Christians hold? Doesn't this tend to belittle the doctrinal beliefs of millions of Bible-believing Christians? Now a Mormon may argue, "Wait a minute, this is God talking!" Such a rebuttal becomes irrelevant in that I have yet to meet a Mormon who does not share this view; so if we are to use Pignanelli's standard, all Mormons are bigots.

Now do I personally believe this? Absolutely not! But I hope in repeating this argument I once again demonstrate why it is dangerous to use extreme language to describe what is nothing more than an ideological disagreement. I disagree with what Smith said he heard and saw, but I "tolerate" a Mormon's right to believe it and say it.

Pignanelli must really be blind to his own hypocrisy when he concludes by writing:

Both Mormons and non-Mormons, in a very public manner, must paint this intolerance for what it is: bigotry. This is not the time for passive-aggressive behavior. Indeed, these narrow-minded fools will learn that there are serious ramifications for their stupidity, if we aggressively counter religious discrimination. We may not be able to convince the bigots overnight, but we can at least shame them out of releasing their poisonous thoughts.

Shaming the narrow-minded fools for their stupidity? Frank, you sound a bit intolerant. Don't release those "poisonous thoughts"! Instead, deal with the real issues. People like you and Hugh Hewitt, and the many others out there who overuse the word "bigot" are not helping further meaningful discussion with this manipulative name-calling.

IOUs of Mormon History

2007-05-21T13:52:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

On May 10th at Promontory Summit near Brigham City, Utah, visitors celebrated the 138th anniversary of the driving of the Golden Spike which completed the transcontinental railroad in 1869. The day before the commemoration Lee Benson of Deseret Morning News wrote an article he titled "138 years makes a big difference." Commenting on the fact that Utah's governor would be attending the festivities at one of two Utah celebrations this year, Mr. Benson wrote,

What a difference 138 years makes.

I bring this up because on May 10, 1869, the last place you would have found the leader of Utah's people, Brigham Young -- he wasn't officially governor but as president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints he might as well have been -- was at the ceremony of the golden spike.

The Mormon leader purposely stayed away from Promontory Summit that day. He left instead for southern Utah, removing himself as far as possible from the historic event.

He had 1.2 million reasons.

That is how much money he claimed the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads owed Mormon workers who helped build the railroad.

As Mr. Benson tells the story, he explains that the railroads ran into money problems and stopped paying the Mormon workers. But the railroad executives reassured Brigham Young:

"You will be paid, be patient," Durant and Stanford told Young, who turned around and told his Mormon laborers the same thing.

But they never were...

Attempts by Young to recover anything -- even at pennies on the dollar -- were rebuffed.

One small concession by the railroads was that any Mormon who had worked on the railroad could ride free to California.

Other than that, nothing.

According to the Utah Historical Society, Mr. Benson has got it wrong. A lesson plan (pdf file) for students and teachers provided by the organization says this:

After the rails were joined, the Union Pacific's financial problems continued to grow. Aside from resources Durant had siphoned off, contractors had stolen much material that the UP had paid for, or at least signed for. Among the many creditors was Brigham Young, who bombarded the company headquarters in Boston with demands for payment in full. The UP had no money, but it did have equipment left over. Young was desperate to have a branch line, to be owned and controlled by the Mormons, running from Ogden to Salt Lake City. Finally, in September 1869 a deal was made. The UP gave the Mormons 4,000 tons of iron rail ($480,000), 144 tons of spikes ($20,000), 32 tons of bolts ($5,600), 4 first-class passenger cars ($5,000 each), second-class cars, mail cars, flatcars and boxcars. The total value that Young signed for was $599,460. The Mormons got started on their railroad immediately and had it in service in a few months.

Six hundred thousand dollars is nowhere near $1.2 million, but it's certainly a far cry from "nothing." Why is it that Mormon-told Mormon history is always exaggerating the "victimhood" of Mormons?

When I first read Mr. Benson's article in Deseret News I had no notion that the report might not be accurate. I only researched the story a bit because it had reminded me of another event from Mormon history, this one coming in the aftermath of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Most people who know about the Mormon massacre of 120 emigrants passing through Utah in 1857 are horrified by the murders and the treachery of those who did the killing. But many do not know much about what happened afterward. Seventeen young children had been left alive, orphaned after the brutal deaths of their parents. The day after the massacre Latter-day Saint John D. Lee disbursed the homeless children among Mormon households in southern Utah for care and feeding. The children remained in these Utah homes for two years.

In 1859, after much trial and effort, U.S. Indian Superintendent Jacob Forney recovered the orphaned children. The Mormons claimed the children had initially been taken captive by Native Americans, who required the Mormons to purchase the children if they wanted them. This was untrue; the children had never been outside the care of the Mormons. Nevertheless, according to Massacres of the Mountains,

...as if desirous of adding a little more to the awful infamy of this affair, all the Mormons who had custody of these children put in claims for the purchase-money expended in buying them from the Indians, as well as for their maintenance, the total claimed amounting to over $7000. Of this amount Forney paid $2961.77 for what he considered proper charges, and reported as to the rest that he "cannot condescend to become the medium of even transmitting such claims to the department." (J.P. Dunn, 307)

Whoa. I think I'll just stop here and leave it to you to sort out the implications.

Revealing Mormonism's history because Truth matters (John 14:6).

Joseph Smith for President

2007-05-18T14:04:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

There's another movie about Mormonism in the works. A French magazine reports,

A Mormon President, the first documentary film to explore the Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith's campaign for the US Presidency and its implications for the candidacy of another Mormon, Mitt Romney, has begun production and is slated for a fall 2007 release.

Filmmaker Adam Christing grew up in the Community of Christ Church (formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), studied theology at Biola University, and is currently a member of the Mormon History Association. Mr. Christing spoke about A Mormon President:

This film may be upsetting to "anti-Mormons" because it shows what a generous man and visionary leader Joseph Smith was. It may shock some Mormons because it documents the untold story of Smith's secret marriages to more than 30 women and his campaign for President which led directly to his murder in 1844...

This is a serious piece, but it will be very engaging. I've been fascinated by Joseph Smith's story ever since I was a kid. Here's a man who started a religion, built a city bigger than Chicago in its day, became a Master Mason, and ran for President. He packed more adventure into 3 years than most people experience in a lifetime.

This sounds like it will be an interesting film, as the history of Joseph Smith's politics is very intriguing. For instance, many people don't know that Smith was secretly crowned king on April 11, 1844. His campaign for president of the United States was much more complicated than most would imagine.

About Smith's ordination as king, former LDS historian D. Michael Quinn wrote:

William Marks...stated that the [LDS] Council of Fifty performed an ordinance "in which Joseph suffered himself to be ordained a king, to reign over the house of Israel forever."

Some have been uncomfortable with the assertion that Smith became a king. They have claimed that Marks and other critics either confused or misrepresented Smith's reception of the strictly religious ceremony of the second anointing as "king and priest."...

In fact a later revelation to the Council of Fifty affirmed that God called Smith "to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator to my Church and Kingdom; and to be a King and Ruler over Israel." (The Mormon Hierarchy, Origins of Power, 124)

Joseph Smith told the press that he wanted to create a "Theo-democracy." Quinn wrote,

The phrase was catchy, but what precisely did he mean by "Theo-democracy"? In the spring of 1844 Smith gave the public only an indistinct foreshadowing of the new world order he was formulating in his secret meetings with the Council of Fifty. (125)

I'm not sure how a monarchy fits with a theocracy, a theo-democracy, or a republic. But the subject of the film A Mormon President holds the promise of being fascinating indeed.

Anti-LDS Bias

2007-05-16T11:18:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

On Saturday, 17 May, LDS Church-owned Deseret News ran a story titled, "Anti-LDS bias running high" in which was reported the findings of a two-year study done by the San Francisco think tank Institute for Jewish and Community Research.

The survey, The Religious Identity and Behavior of College Faculty (pdf file of the complete report available here), was conducted online, gathering results from 1,269 faculty members from over 700 four-year colleges and universities. It was the second in a three-part series on the political and religious views of American faculty.

Deseret News reported:

Results of a two-year study released this week show one-third of university faculty nationwide have an unfavorable impression of Latter-day Saints, while an equal proportion of the general population holds a favorable view... among social sciences and humanities faculty, the "unfavorable" rating for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was at 38 percent.

The article made passing mention of the fact that the survey showed Evangelical Christians "were also viewed unfavorably," then went on to discuss the possible reasons that Mormons fared so poorly.

It seems reasonable that Deseret News, enjoying a large LDS readership, would highlight the study's results in relation to Mormonism. Yet it seems to me that the story's focus and emphasis on "anti-LDS bias" only fueled the general idea of continuing persecution many Mormons perceive as a major factor in their religious identity.

The result of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research study is really remarkable for what it reveals about faculty attitudes toward Evangelical Christians. The Institute's May 7th press release stated in part,

According to a two-year study released today by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research (IJCR), 53% of non-Evangelical university faculty say they hold cool or unfavorable views of Evangelical Christians -- the only major religious denomination to be viewed negatively by a majority of faculty. Only 30% of faculty hold positive views of Evangelicals, 56% of faculty in social sciences and humanities departments hold unfavorable views....

"This survey shows a disturbing level of prejudice or intolerance among U.S. faculty towards tens of millions of Evangelical Christians," said Gary Tobin, president of IJCR. "What's odd is that while a good number of faculty believe in a close, personal relationship with God and believe religion is essential to a child's upbringing, many of those same people feel deeply unfavorable toward of [sic] Evangelicals."...

A significant majority -- 71% of all faculty -- agreed with the statement: "This country would be better off if Christian fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics." By comparison, only 38% of faculty disagreed that the country would be better off if Muslims became more politically organized.

The report itself made the following point regarding attitudes toward Evangelicals compared with attitudes toward Mormons:

Faculty Hold the Most Unfavorable Feelings toward Evangelicals

Just one group elicited high negative feelings among faculty: Only 30% ranked their feelings toward Evangelical Christians as warm/favorable, with only 11% feeling very warm/favorable, the lowest ranking among every other religious group, and 53% said that they have cool/unfavorable feelings toward Evangelical Christians. Faculty feelings about Evangelicals are significantly cooler than any other religious group, leading Mormons as the least liked religious group by 20%. These negative feelings are noted across academic disciplines and demographic factors. (12)

The report is both fascinating and somewhat frightening. It's definitely disappointing to Evangelical Christians, though I'm sure these statistics come as no surprise to those who daily experience intolerance toward the Christian worldview. If you get a chance, read the conclusion of The Religious Identity and Behavior of College Faculty report (pages 85-88). These are interesting times in which we live.

The Awful Works of Abraham

2007-05-14T15:11:00.000-05:00

by Bill

A decade after plural marriage was announced publicly in a special session of conference, Brigham Young declared,

“Why do we believe in and practise polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’ It is the only popular religion there, for this is the religion of Abraham, and, unless we do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise” (July 6, 1862, Journal of Discourses 9:322).

Brigham Young, God’s alleged modern mouthpiece, makes it ultimately clear that God is at the center of the polygamy issue and that this God revealed the practice to Joseph Smith. However, in a recent interview with Mike Wallace, Mormon candidate Mitt Romney stated, “I can’t imagine anything more awful than polygamy.” Romney could have been using hyperbole, but without knowing for sure, I have to assume that to Mitt Romney polygamy is more awful that hearing your home has burned to the ground, or more awful than hearing a doctor tell you that you or a loved one has cancer, or more awful than hearing that all your children have been killed in a car accident.

This is not the first time Romney has spoken disparagingly about plural marriage, yet I am not aware of any journalist who has asked what I think should be an obvious follow-up question, “If the practice of polygamy is truly awful, doesn’t that make the Mormon God culpable?”

A Mormon fundamentalist who believes in living “the principle,” would immediately say no. Those who firmly believe in plural marriage insist that the idea of assigning blame comes only from those who have denied the faith of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor. Still, I’m curious as to how Romney would answer this question. Did God make a mistake when he revealed this practice to Joseph Smith? Did God require something "awful" as a condition of salvation? If that is so, what does this say about Romney’s God? Or, better yet, what does Romney's display of distain say about Romney?

Shame on Sharpton, Shame on Romney

2007-05-11T10:11:00.000-05:00

by Bill

There are times when listening to people in the public arena that I feel like I'm back on the playground at Bostonia elementary school in the 1960s.

Case in point: the "Reverend" Al Sharpton decides to take a swipe at Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney by saying,

"as for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that, that's a temporary situation."

A dumb comment? Absolutely. But what does Romney do? Well, he retorts by saying Sharpton is "extraordinarily bigoted." Good grief. What's next, grown men shouting back and forth, "I know you are, but what am I"?

Is there no longer any respect for the English language in our society? Please tell me there are others out there that are also getting tired (and perhaps bored) with the overuse of the words hate and bigot? All this excessive use does is cheapen words that at one time not so long ago, had real meaning. Now they have become mere synonyms for disagreement by people too lazy to respond with sound reasoning.

Sharpton's comment leans more towards being extraordinarily ignorant rather than bigoted. Romney should have been the better man and soundly rebutted Sharpton's statement by simply explaining that Mormons definitely do believe in God. (For heaven's sake, Mormons believe in the potential existence of millions of Gods!). But, rather than do so, Romney responded with a flame word. Sharpton has since apologized.

As disappointing as the Sharpton/Romney exchange was, I guess it shows they are good pupils of 21st century American culture. Accuse someone of hatred or bigotry and there is no need for an intellectual response. Intimidation by ad hominem, after all, seems to work much better than a sound rebuttal. Call someone a name and you can return to your corner with arms raised like Muhammad Ali after throwing a left hook. The difference is Ali's punches had real meaning if you were on the receiving end.

For example, just yesterday I was reading some responses to an article in a Michigan paper that was critical of Mormonism. One upset Latter-day Saints responded by saying in part:

Many people like you, that rage against the Mormon Church, are scared weasels puking anti mormon crap that you picked up at some anti mormon convention or from one of your "let's hate the Mormons", prayer meetings. You are the KKK of our time, veiled in the anonymous cloke of the internet. You are afraid of truth, to seek it and to understand it. You are blinded by your fear and hate.

Does this sound like a convincing argument to you? What can any of us possibly learn from a rant like that?

I fear that if this pattern of name calling keeps up, intellectual discussion in our great nation will be a thing of the past. I'm already convinced that people who must resort to such tactics tend to prove they have no viable answers (the person I quoted above certainly didn't). If they did, ad hominem wouldn't be necessary. If you can attack the issues, you have no need to attack the man.

Regarding Holland’s remark about hate-filled DVDs

2007-05-09T10:52:00.000-05:00

by Bill

On the BYU NewsNet blog it stated that Mormon Apostle Jeffrey Holland was the keynote speaker at "The Utah Valley celebration of the National Day of Prayer." The article reported:

The keynote speaker of the evening, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, encouraged prayer as the means for peace and unity in our society.

"Today our nation doesn't fight a civil war, with brother fighting against brother," he said. "But we are plagued with brother fighting brother with handguns in university classrooms, drunk drivers in vehicles on the streets and highways, and hate-filled talk on the radio or in DVDs."

What do you think Holland is talking about when he speaks of hate-filled DVDs? He isn't clear. Was he referring to the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith DVD that was distributed in Utah and other major cities throughout the US last March? If so, isn't it reasonable to ask Holland and the LDS First Presidency to explain what the DVD said that could be considered hate speech? If he was not referring to the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith DVD, then shouldn't the LDS Church retract its slanderous charge of hatred sitting prominently on its official web site?

Mountain Meadows and the Honorable Thing

2007-05-04T11:57:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

On May 1st, two Associated Press articles related to the Mountain Meadows Massacre showed up in my inbox. Journalist Jennifer Dobner wrote both articles, each discussing different aspects of the 1857 Mormon execution of pioneer emigrants in southern Utah.

One AP article ("Controversial Lee statue may finally have a home") relates the mini-saga of trying to find an appropriate resting place for a bronze statue of John D. Lee, the only man ever convicted (and later executed) for the slaughter of the members of the Fancher wagon train at Mountain Meadows.

In 2004 artist Jerry Anderson was commissioned to cast the John D. Lee statue which was planned to be installed outside the government offices in Washington City, Utah. Before the installation could take place, enough people complained about the inappropriateness of paying tribute to "a killer" that city officials changed their minds. Since then the statue has either been in storage at the artist's gallery or standing outside a souvenir shop. Soon, however, it may be moved to a permanent place at Fort Harmony, a fort that Lee helped build in 1854.

The AP article says of the Lee statue,

"He's just standing there with a book in one hand. He's holding his vest on the left side," said Anderson, 72. "I wanted to capture his face first of all and show the man, not really defiant, but standing up for what he believes in and the church he loved."

Karen Platt, a co-founder of the New Harmony Historical Society, which is involved in the Fort Harmony restoration, said,

"There may be a problem, but we just want to talk about the history of the valley, and we don't want to bring (the massacre) in. It's not [John D. Lee's] total story and a lot of his work gets ignored because of Mountain Meadows. He did a lot of good. He was a good family man."

Furthermore, according to The Associated Press,

[Artist Jerry] Anderson hopes the placement of the statue will comfort Lee descendants, many of whom have come to his gallery for a glimpse and a photograph of their ancestor.

"They've lived in degradation so long, maybe this will help them out," Anderson said. "I think Mormons overall really didn't like what John D. Lee did."

The other AP article ("Movie revives debate about massacre") focuses on the Christopher Cain motion picture, September Dawn, due to hit theatres on June 22nd.

"The reason I made the movie about this specific incident was not to blame anybody," Cain told The Associated Press. "At the core of the whole thing is religious fanaticism. I thought by making this movie we could take a look at how that evolved and how that can happen."

Some people who previewed the movie and were interviewed for the article supported the film's portrayal. Tom Kimball, a spokesman for the Mormon History Association, said,

"The new part that this film brings out is that the Fanchers were probably pretty decent people just trying to get to California. That's the first time that's ever been presented to me as a Latter-day Saint."

Past portrayals of the massacre suggested the Fancher party "brought it on themselves," Kimball said.

"Here's a story that has not been accurately portrayed and has been sequestered by my people, and it's very important that this story is finally told," he said.

Yet one man seemed to disagree. He said,

"I think [the movie] went a little too far in making the Mormons bad, bad, bad and the emigrants good, good, good," said Leroy Lee, a Mormon and the great-great-grandson of John D. Lee.

A businessman offered this opinion:

With its "R" rating, many Mormons may not even see the film, bookseller Curt Bench said. Those who do may walk out, irritated by what Bench and others said was a stereotypical, one-dimensional portrait of blindly obedient church members that bordered on cartoonish at times.

A non-Mormon in Salt Lake City commented,

"It's a story I've lived with my entire life, being a so-called gentile in Salt Lake City," bookseller Ken Sanders said. "It's my belief personally that any faithful, believing Mormon will never accept that Brigham Young had anything to do with the Mountain Meadows massacre. I simultaneously feel that there's no non-Mormon or gentile that will ever believe otherwise."

This is an interesting observation. I see in these AP articles that sometimes people hold unsupportable positions while choosing to remain closed to facts that challenge those positions. Or at least they justify and minimize the issues.

In southern Utah we have people who want to honor John D. Lee -- in spite of his participation in the unconscionable murders of 120 men, women and children -- because apart from leading the execution, "he was a good family man." It's okay to honor him -- the Historical Society just won't talk about the massacre. It's good to honor him, because it will help Lee's descendents rise above the stigma associated with their ancestor's crimes.

Then, in September Dawn, we have the story of Mountain Meadows, 150 years later, being told accurately for the first time. Finally the emigrants are being portrayed as "pretty decent people" who actually didn't "bring it on themselves."

But at least one Lee descendent doesn't like that. He thinks the movie makes the emigrants look too good, and the Mormon murderers look too bad. He wants to cling to that unsupportable position, the fabricated cover-up that has been repeated for so long among Latter-day Saints. This attitude makes me think twice about Curt Bench's criticism of September Dawn's "stereotypical, one dimensional portrait of blindly obedient church members." Is there still a hint of "religious fanaticism" alive and well in the matter of Mountain Meadows?

I really appreciate the contrasting attitude of the Mormon History Association's Tom Kimball as expressed in the AP article:

After 150 years, it would be nice to lay the issue to rest, Kimball added.

"Not in the sense that we're trying to hide it," he said. "But to finally tell the truth about our role in this horrible thing, so that we can tell our children we [have now done] the honorable thing."

The Mormons: People Are Talking

2007-05-02T13:22:00.000-05:00

The PBS documentary "The Mormons" has now come and gone. Reactions to the four-hour show are, as would be expected, fairly mixed. Here's a sampling of what people are saying.

"There was too much of those who did not present what Mormonism is really all about, particularly by those who had left the faith and therefore presented a tainted view." (Fred Woods, a religion professor at Brigham Young University, Deseret News)

"Did anyone read who the interview's were? To say that the show used mostly exmormons is not correct. For instance, Daniel Peterson, the man who described Joseph using a peep stone in his hat, is one of the most respected LDS scholars in the religion. He's a professor of Islamic Studies at BYU. From the list, I see only one exmormon, Michael Quinn. The VAST majority of interviews weren't with exmormons, but either current Mormons or non Mormon historians. I'm almost sad at the reaction of current Mormons. As a member, I'm shocked at how little people know about the early history of the faith. The accounts in the documentary are well documented by several LDS sources. I'm surprised how little current members of the LDS faith have read about the early founding of our church." (Steve J, PBS Discussion Board)

"On Facebook.com there's a discussion going on in the Mormon group. All these young kids are up in arms that the Church was portrayed in a bad light. They're complaining that they didn't interview enough members. I told them that most of the interviewees were members of the Church. So, they called into question those members' faithfulness to the Church. I've got a lively debate going with a guy on Joseph Smith's treasure hunting. According to him, Joseph never used a peep stone to hunt for treasure because Joseph never mentioned it in his journal. I sent him some links about Joseph's 1826 trial. Of course he'll say it's anti material even though it's from FAIR. He's also pretty adamant that Joseph didn't practice polygamy secretly behind Emma's back. I'm looking forward to testimony meeting this Sunday. People are going to be railing against the show." (Brett McKay, By Common Consent blog)

"I did not recognize a lot of what I saw in the documentary as my church. I think there may be a bit of a division line in the responses of LDS viewers: Those who are basically happy with the Church found the film disappointing, generally; those who are less happy with the Church think it was generally wonderful." (Ronan, Times & Seasons blog)

"I think the people who did not like it maybe do not know our history? I thought it was great, particularly the first half--I was thrilled with the results. However one of my sisters said it was lies and that her husband was so disgusted he turned it off. It turns out, she didn't know JS had wives who also had other husbands. I explained it was true, and she was confused. My mother was confused as to how she didn't know this..." (mmiles, By Common Consent blog)

"I loved part 2, but overall, at the end of the program, I think someone not of our faith could have watched it and concluded that we don't place very much emphasis on Jesus Christ. That was disappointing to me, because they passed over what I believe to be our central message and concern." (Dan Ellsworth, MormonMentality.org)

"I thought they spent quite a bit of time emphasizing our emphasis on Jesus Christ and our acceptance as christians to some but not others." (KyleM, By Common Consent blog)

"Like many other LDS members, I looked forward to viewing the documentary on mormanism by PBS. I heard that it would be well-balanced and represent both believers and non-believers. I was absolutly shocked at the underlying theme presented in the production. I felt that while chapters such as "Exodus" did well to show the contraversies that faced early saints, most of the film depicted Latter-Day Saints in a negative light. I felt that the film depicted a number of esteemed non-mormons again and again, and failed to continually represent those who belive in, and support this church. It was an absolutly biased film which not only failed to present correct information in many aspects and chapters, but it also took great care to orchestrate a constant attack against our beliefs. I could not bear to watch the second half." (Bakersfield, PBS Discussion Board)

"But addressing these and other topics in a forthright way seems to have allowed viewers less familiar with the Church to see a new and broader dimension of the Church, shorn, perhaps, of one-sided stereotypes and caricatures. At a time when significant media and public attention is being turned to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and when news media is so often accused of superficiality in its coverage of religion, this serious treatment of a serious subject is a welcome change." (LDS Church, Commentary, lds.org)

"You had two hours and you did not get it right. I hope your next two hours repairs some of the damage. I did not expect a pro-mormon propaganda piece but giving 70% or more to pure anti-mormon topics is not balance. On the other hand I should be surprised you didn't just turn it over to the 'former mormon scholars'. (or did you?) The anti-mormons are dancing with joy tonight. You might notice the anti-mormons are the only happy ones on your blog. Persecution continues..." (Chad Fugate, PBS Discussion Board)

"As a former member of the LDS faith, I found the program to be a fluff piece on the LDS church. It barely addressed the lies and hypocrisy of Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders. this could have been written by anybody in the PR department of the LDS church. Given that PBS has to present what they see as an even-sided view of the Mormon church, I suspect that they feel they achieved this. I felt that it presented the church is a very positive light. I do not believe it was well-balanced at all. But the truth is out there for people to read. So if anybody is interested, they will learn the real truth about Mormonism." (Angie Glover, PBS Discussion Board)

Amazing Grace

2007-04-30T12:43:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

Last Saturday's Salt Lake Tribune (27 April) contained "A call to grace" written by Tribune journalist Peggy Fletcher Stack. It's the story of Jonathan Hays, a newly ordained Christian minister serving in New Song Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Salt Lake City.

Rev. Hays is unique in that he's the first pastor in Utah's PCA Church that is from Utah. According to the Tribune article, the Senior Pastor at New Song said,

"All the other pastors have moved from other places," [Rev. Samuel] Wheatley says. "We need insiders [like Hays] who automatically understand the challenges of Protestant ministry in a predominantly Mormon culture. They know the true points of difference and true points of similarity between the two and what needs to be articulated much more clearly."

Rev. Hays fits the bill. Growing up very active in the LDS Church, part of a multi-generational Mormon family, Jonathan Hays began looking into the history of Mormonism while he was at college. He

...was troubled by some of what he read, particularly the practice of polygamy, which the LDS Church abandoned in 1890. He could no longer reconcile what he read with what he heard from contemporary Mormon leaders.

"I left the LDS Church, not to become something else, but because I didn't think I could be LDS anymore," he says. "I kinda had a phase of rebellion. I was upset that God would let me be part of something that wasn't true."

Coming into contact with Christians who had "a real relationship with Jesus," Jonathan began to long for spiritual life. He decided to go to church one Sunday morning, but not knowing where to go, he chose the church closest to his home.

"What I experienced there was amazing," he says. "I heard grace and I saw grace and it blew me away because I had never seen or heard it before. I knew going in there that I wasn't good enough. I had seen it throughout my life as I tried to be a good Mormon; I knew I couldn't do it."

That night he prayed his own version of the "sinner's prayer" -- that his life was "screwed up" and he needed help.

"I didn't know the right way to pray, but I saw Jesus and so I leapt for him," he says.

Well, Jesus, ever faithful, caught Jonathan Hays. I'm willing to bet Rev. Hays now sings Psalm 40, verses in which all the redeemed in Christ rejoice:

I waited patiently for the Lord;
He inclined to me and heard my cry.
He drew me up from the pit of destruction,
out of the miry bog,
and set my feet upon a rock,
making my steps secure.
He put a new song in my mouth,
a song of praise to our God.
Many will see and fear,
and put their trust in the Lord.

This is God's amazing grace.

Misunderstanding Mormonism

2007-04-27T11:26:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

The bishop of the Howell [Michigan] ward of the LDS Church, Mark Briscoe, recently told a journalist that it's painful to him when others think Mormonism isn't a Christian religion. He identifies this notion as the "greatest misconception about the [Mormon] church." On April 26th LivingstonDaily.com reported:

"Sometimes people would say that we're not Christians," [Mr. Briscoe] said. "We definitely are. We believe in Jesus Christ."

An Idaho native, Briscoe has been a Mormon his whole life, and said it is painful to have others think that his church is somehow outside the boundaries of Christianity. He said he was a high school student when he first heard the accusation.

"It was a little bit unsettling," he said. "From my earliest memories, we talked about Jesus Christ."

This is nothing new, of course, and if you've been reading Mormon Coffee for awhile you will have read my thoughts on this topic before. I keep bringing it up because I'm ever hopeful that Latter-day Saints might "get it" if they are encouraged periodically to think the issue through.

Setting aside the specific definition of "Christianity," which Evangelicals and Mormons may disagree on until the cows come home, just think about the implications in the next part of the article:

In fact, members of the church believe that Jesus' teachings were changed and weakened soon after the apostles died, and that this "apostasy," or falling away from the truth, led to the withdrawal of the true church from the earth.

Mormons believe that was reversed when Joseph Smith, regarded as a prophet, was visited by God and Jesus in a vision in 1820. That's when Smith was chosen to restore the true church to the world, according to LDS doctrine. Smith translated the Book of Mormon, the sacred text of the Latter Day Saints[sic], which is based on the Bible.

The Mormons' refer to this process as the "restoration."

This is the LDS message. The true teachings of Jesus were changed. His followers abandoned the true faith. The true church that Jesus instituted was withdrawn from the earth, leaving behind nothing but a counterfeit. This false church -- false Christianity -- reigned unchallenged for nearly two thousand years until Joseph Smith restored the true church -- the LDS Church -- to the earth once again.

Now, what does that mean in regards to all those who call themselves "Christians" who do not presently accept Joseph Smith's restored church? We may talk about Jesus Christ, but according to Mormonism, our faith is false. It's based on the corrupted teachings of Jesus which finds expression in millions of apostate churches all over the world.

Mr. Briscoe is hurt if people say Mormonism isn't Christian, yet he has no qualms in saying that historic Christianity has become an entirely perverted religion.

Though there might be disagreement over what constitutes true Christianity (Mormonism, orthodox Christianity, or something else altogether), the point I think too many people miss is that Mormonism and historic Christianity are different religions. If Mormonism is true, then historic Christianity is false, and vise-versa; one or the other is "outside the boundaries of [true] Christianity."

In my opinion, the greatest misconception about the Mormon Church is that people think it's just another Christian denomination. The doctrines of Mormonism do not allow for that option. I'd like everyone to know.

The Miracle of Satanic Suckerpunches?

2007-04-25T12:31:00.000-05:00

by Aaron

It's been said that one man's trash is another man's treasure. In this case, one man's miracle is another man's "satanic sukerpunch." Both men are LDS Apostles, designated as prophets, seers and revelators in the Mormon Church. Here's what they said:

Spencer W. Kimball:

"Your Heavenly Father has promised forgiveness upon total repentance and meeting all the requirements, but that forgiveness is not granted merely for the asking. There must be works--many works--and an all-out, total surrender, with a great humility and 'a broken heart and a contrite spirit.'

"It depends upon you whether or not you are forgiven, and when. It could be weeks, it could be years, it could be centuries before that happy day when you have the positive assurance that the Lord has forgiven you. That depends on your humility your sincerity, your works, your attitudes." (The Miracle of Forgiveness, 324-325)

Jeffrey R. Holland:

"You can change anything you want to change, and you can do it very fast. Another satanic suckerpunch is that it takes years and years and eons of eternity to repent. That's just not true. It takes exactly as long to repent as it takes to say, 'I'll change'--and mean it. Of course there will be problems to work out and restitutions to make. You may well spend--indeed, you had better spend--the rest of your life proving your repentance by its permanence. But change, growth, renewal, and repentance can come for you as instantaneously as they did for Alma and the sons of Mosiah." (However Long and Hard the Road, 6. Quoted by C. Robert Line, "The Interplay between Forgiveness and Lost Opportunities," BYU)

Saints George

2007-04-23T15:02:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

Today is a national holiday in England -- St. George's Day. St. George was a soldier of noble birth who served in the Roman army in the early 4th century. When the Roman Emperor Diocletian began his horrific persecutions against the Christians, George responded by giving his worldly goods to the poor and publicly confessing his Christian faith. He protested against Diocletian's persecution of Christians and boldly disobeyed orders by refusing to sacrifice to other gods. George was beheaded by Emperor Diocletian on 23 April 303 AD. George's example of bravery in defense of his Christian brethren and faith has encouraged individuals and nations for centuries. Today St. George is honored as the patron saint of at least nine different countries.

In case you're wondering, St. George, Utah is not named for St. George the Christian martyr, but for early LDS Apostle George A. Smith. Brigham Young named the principle settlement of southern Utah's 1861 Dixie Mission "St. George" in Mr. Smith's honor.

George A. Smith was a self-taught lawyer who, like St. George, defended his brethren. A description of Mr. Smith's "most notorious case" is recorded in A Book of Mormons:

Howard Egan, a Mormon school teacher, had joined the California gold rush in 1849. While he was away, James Monroe seduced one of [Egan's] wives, who gave birth to an illegitimate child. Egan returned to Utah and killed Monroe "in the name of the Lord" because his "peace on earth" had been destroyed.

[George A.] Smith argued that "in this territory it is a principle of mountain common law, that no man can seduce the wife of another without endangering his own life....The man who seduces his neighbor's wife must die, and her nearest relative must kill him!" The jury declared Egan not guilty.

Both of these honored men are called saints. George A. Smith gained his "saint" status by virtue of his church affiliation, while George the Christian martyr was a "saint" first by virtue of his faith in Christ; later, by the forfeiture of his life in defense of -- and on account of -- his faith in Christ.

I once spoke with an LDS missionary who emotionally (and very mistakenly) proclaimed that the only people who had ever died for their faith were Mormons. In honor of St. George's Day I leave you with an excerpt from the writings of early Christian historian Eusebius:

The outrageous agonies endured by the martyrs in the Theban area, however, defeat all description. Their whole bodies were torn to shreds with clawlike potsherds until they expired. Women were tied by one foot and swung high in the air, head downward, by machines, their bodies totally naked without a stitch of clothing -- the most shameful, cruel, and inhumane of all spectacles for onlookers. Others died fastened to trees: they bent down their strongest branches by machines, fastened one of the martyr's legs to each, and then let the branches fly back to their natural position, instantly tearing apart the limbs of their victims. This went on not for a few days but for some whole years. Sometimes ten or more, at times more than twenty were put to death,...at other times a hundred men, women, and little children were condemned to a variety of punishments and killed in a single day.

I myself saw some of these mass executions by decapitation or fire, a slaughter that dulled the murderous axe until it wore out and broke in pieces, while the executioners grew so tired they had to work in shifts...

Need I cite the names or numbers of the rest or the varieties of their martyrdoms? Sometimes they were killed with an axe, as was the case in Arabia, or had their legs broken, as those in Cappadocia. At other times they were hung upside down over a slow fire, so that smoke rising from the burning wood suffocated them, as in Mesopotamia. Sometimes noses, ears, and hands were mutilated and the other parts of the body butchered, as was the case in Alexandria...

In all these trials the magnificent martyrs of Christ were so distinguished throughout the world that eyewitnesses of their courage were astounded. They provided in themselves clear proof that the power of our Savior is divine and ineffable indeed. To mention each by name would be a long if not impossible task.

I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been...

I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast...drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. (Revelation 6:9-11; 17:6)

Tell It Like It Is

2007-04-19T12:13:00.000-05:00

The student-run daily newspaper for Ohio University, The Post, recently ran an article titled, "Being Mormon in College". In addition to interviewing a Mormon student for the article, journalist Amanda Wilcosky also spoke to the LDS missionaries on campus:

The missionaries said the founder of the religion and prophet Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in 1833 called the Word of Wisdom. In this vision, God warned Smith about certain substances that were deemed to be unhealthful. At the time, little evidence existed to support his claim, but [LDS missionaries] Wat and Patterson said that current knowledge about the dangerous effects of these substances helps to justify Smith's revelation.

Although a law in the Book of Mormon advises that followers do not consume or use certain items, the church does not utilize threats or guilt to ensure obedience, the missionaries said.

"The church does not take away one's agency to choose," Patterson stressed. "They are all just recommendations that can bring more happiness in our lives."

First of all, the Word of Wisdom came from Joseph Smith's lips at a time when the temperance movement was sweeping across America.

As early as 1784 Dr. Benjamin Rush argued that excessive use of alcohol was bad for people, both physically and psychologically. This resulted in 200 farmers forming a temperance association a few years later in Connecticut. Another temperance association was formed in Virginia in 1800, and another in New York in 1809. By 1834 there were 5,000 temperance societies in the United States.

Tobacco was believed to be a "nerve-prostrating, soul paralyzing drug, a fleshly, ungodly lust." Coffee and tea were considered "as bad as toddy-guzzling" and the Journal of Health (published between 1829 and 1835) recommended a vegetarian diet or a sparing use of meat for good health (see Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 166).

I'm sure the LDS missionaries are unaware of these historical facts; nevertheless, it's a deplorable thing to tell people that the then unknown, but currently understood, dangerous effects of these substances is evidence in support of the idea that Joseph Smith was a true prophet -- when it isn't.

Furthermore, LDS missionary Elder Patterson said that the Word of Wisdom is nothing more than a "recommendation" which, if followed, will bring happiness to peoples' lives. When was this commandment downgraded to a mere suggestion? True, the revelation was not originally understood to be a commandment, but according to LDS President Ezra Taft Benson:

In 1851, President Brigham Young proposed to the general conference of the Church that all Saints formally covenant to keep the Word of Wisdom. This proposal was unanimously upheld by the membership of the Church. Since that day, the revelation has been a binding commandment on all Church members. ("A Principle with a Promise", Ensign, May 1983, 53)

And what about the missionaries' reported statement that the Church doesn't utilize threats or guilt to elicit obedience to the Word of Wisdom? LDS Apostle Boyd Packer said:

The Word of Wisdom put restrictions on members of the Church. To this day those regulations apply to every member and to everyone who seeks to join the Church. They are so compelling that no one is to be baptized into the Church without first agreeing to live by them. No one will be called to teach or to lead unless they accept them. When you want to go to the temple, you will be asked if you keep the Word of Wisdom. If you do not, you cannot go to the house of the Lord until you are fully worthy. ("The Word of Wisdom: The Principle and the Promises," Ensign, May 1996, 17)

Just a friendly suggestion. No threats or guilt.

Obey the Word of Wisdom or you will not be allowed to join the Church.
Obey the Word of Wisdom or you will not be allowed to lead in the Church.
Obey the Word of Wisdom or you will not be allowed to go to the temple.
Obey the Word of Wisdom or you are not "fully worthy."
Obey the Word of Wisdom or else.

Don't get me wrong. The LDS Church certainly has the right -- and the responsibility -- to require certain things from its members. What bothers me is the way the missionaries -- official representatives of the LDS Church -- didn't own up to the Church's true teachings and requirements on this. If they weren't prepared to tell the truth about it, why say anything at all?

Maybe I'm making too much of this. Perhaps the 9th commandment has also been downgraded to a suggestion.

Motive in the Murder of Parley P. Pratt

2007-04-17T11:13:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Mormon Coffee discussed a report that appeared in Deseret News on April 14th which inaccurately portrayed the death of LDS Apostle Parley P. Pratt. Today (April 17) the newspaper printed a correction:

Correction: Parley P. Pratt

Early LDS Church apostle Parley P. Pratt was killed in May 1857 in Arkansas by a man from San Francisco who blamed Pratt for the man's estrangement from his wife, whom Pratt married. A story in Saturday's Deseret Morning News incorrectly identified the killer and his motive.

Thank you, Deseret News.

The Murder of Parley P. Pratt

2007-04-16T00:36:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

Over the weekend (April 14) Deseret Morning News reported that a group of interested people will be gathering in Arkansas on April 21st for a conference looking at the life and ministry of LDS Apostle Parley Pratt. I don't know what the conference will be like, but if the report in Deseret News is any indication, it may be a frustrating event for those who prefer accurate history above revisionist history.

Deseret News explained,

An early apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Pratt was killed near Van Buren, Ark., in May 1857, by a small Arkansas band antagonistic toward his teachings.

In truth, Parley Pratt was murdered by an outraged husband and father by the name of Hector McLean, with the misguided support of McLean's friends. Pratt was not killed so much because these men were "antagonistic" toward his teachings, but because Pratt was living those teachings with McLean's legal wife.

McLean's wife, Eleanor, had abandoned her family to become Pratt's 12th plural wife. Soon thereafter, in 1857, McLean learned that Eleanor and Pratt were intending to abduct the McLean children and spirit them away to Utah. After finding no help in this situation from the legal system, McLean and his friends took matters into their own hands -- tracking, attacking, and brutally killing Parley Pratt, the Mormon Apostle.

Many Mormons consider Parley Pratt a martyr for his faith. Was he really killed because a few men in Arkansas opposed Mormon teachings?

Pratt was murdered not only because he practiced polygamy according to the teachings of the LDS religion, but because he engaged in "spiritual wifery" with another man's wife, and sought to steal McLean's children as well.

Was Pratt's murder wrong? Of course; no doubt about it. But where is the virtue in reporting, as LDS Church-owned Deseret News has done, that Pratt was killed by some men who just didn't like Mormonism? There is none.

On 17 April 2007 Deseret News published a correction regarding their erroneous reporting on the motive for the murder of Parley P. Pratt. You can read the correction here or here.

With Love and Charity to All

2007-04-13T11:54:00.000-05:00

With Love and Charity to All

by Sharon

Following the distribution of the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith DVD last month, there have been many conversations and opinions published online regarding the Christian outreach effort. One exchange took place on the Salt Lake Tribune's public forum.

A Catholic woman, who believes in "love and charity to all" wrote to express her dismay over the DVD distribution, ending her letter with a kind hope that Latter-day Saints had been able to enjoy their Church's General Conference despite the "sport" engaged in by "anti-Mormons." Perhaps this was not the most charitable and loving letter "to all" in consideration of the nature of her concerns.

At any rate, this letter brought a thankful response from a Latter-day Saint who wrote:

As an active Latter-day Saint and a returned missionary, I have gotten in more than my share of arguments with the so-called "Christians" who feel a compulsion to build their own insecure beliefs (and yes, often they were insecure) by tearing others' beliefs down. So when I read S.J. Moormeister's kind comments ("Anti-LDS DVDs," Forum, April 3) I was reminded why I always liked Catholics so much during my mission.

Two years and I never once had a Catholic tell me I was going to hell for my beliefs; rather, they were always kind and generous to us. Ms. Moormeister does a service to herself and to the parish that she attends. Thank you so much for not participating in the bigotry that is so common these days. I did enjoy conference very much. Thank you again.

Matthew Call
Ephraim

Mr. Call's experience with Catholic folk was perhaps more magnanimous than he realizes, given the historic position towards Catholicism expressed by LDS leaders through the years. Consider these public declarations offered without apology (then or now):

LDS Apostle Orson Pratt:

Q. Is the Roman Catholic Church the Church of Christ?
A. No: for she has no inspired priesthood or officers...

Q. How long since the Roman Catholic Church lost the authority and ceased to be the Church of Christ?
A. She never had authority and never was the Church of Christ...

Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?
A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates... (The Seer, 1854, 205)

LDS Apostle Daniel H. Wells:

I would rather preach the Gospel to a people who have not got any religion than I would to a people who have got a great deal of religion. You take the Catholic world. What impression can the truths of the Gospel make upon them as a people? Scarcely any impression at all. Why? Because they are satisfied with what they have got, which we know is an error, and which is not calculated to stem the tide of wickedness and corruption which floods the world. It never will convert the world to God or His Kingdom, or convey a knowledge of God unto the children of men, and it is life eternal to know Him, the living and true God. (Journal of Discourses 24:320, 1883)

LDS Apostle Hyrum M. Smith:

Christianity, as it is known in the world today, has fallen far short of the accomplishment of what might have been expected of it. It has failed in establishing those principles which Christ taught among the children of men. The great Catholic division of the Christian world, the Catholic church, is a national liability to any country. It wields a great power over the minds and the hearts of the children of men, but it is a power for evil rather than for good. It brings countless thousands regularly to confession; it rarely brings a single man to repentance and the abandonment of his sins. (Conference Report, October 1916, 42)

LDS President David O. McKay:

At one time it grieved me to know that this Church was not numbered among Protestant churches. But now I realize that the Church of Christ is more than a protest against the errors and evils of Catholicism." (Conference Report, April 1927, 105)

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this "church which is most abominable above all other churches" in vision. He "saw the devil that he was the foundation of it" and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (Mormon Doctrine, 1958 edition, 130)

Apparently, sometime around 1960 LDS leadership decided they ought not to say these sorts of things in public if they want to make friends in the world. If Orson Pratt and David O. McKay, et. al., publicly expressed their religious convictions today, would we find the Anti-Defamation League releasing a statement condemning their remarks as "nothing more than [Catholic]-bashing... hate directed at all of us"? And would Mr. Call agree with that? I wonder if he would rebuke his Church leaders for "build[ing] their own insecure beliefs" by "tearing others' beliefs down."

Validating Post-Mormons

2007-04-11T12:38:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

The LDS Church has had a rough month. It started with the March 25th outreach effort of Christians across the nation distributing thousands of DVDs on doorsteps which compared Mormonism with the Bible. Soon after that, the Church released a statement of their concern over the content of an upcoming PBS series titled "The Mormons" due to air on April 30th and May 1st. Now, in Logan, Utah, a new billboard has gone up which advertises a web site in support of disaffected Mormons.

The Associated Press reports:

A billboard aimed at uniting former Mormons has gone up on Main Street in a city that once had the image of a local temple on its public seal...

"It's a milestone for the group. ...We're helping people validate their choice to leave. We're not trying to drag people out of the church," [Former Mormon Jeff] Ricks said...

Ricks, who left the church in 1993, said Post-Mormon Community serves as a social network. The goal is to erase the stigma that sometimes comes with leaving the faith.

According to the PostMormon.org web site, there are 13 Post-Mormon chapters around the world,

...members of a rapidly growing community of families and individuals who have voluntarily left Mormonism. We choose to no longer base our lives, and the lives of our children, on so-called truths dictated by others. We believe that truth is freely available to any honest, diligent seeker regardless of creed, age, race or sexual orientation.

We have felt the butterfly's metamorphosis. Forces that well up from within have compelled us to grow beyond the limits of Mormonism. And so we have become a loosely knit community of friends and support groups, and endeavor to help those like us who also feel the need to explore meaning, purpose and life beyond Mormonism...What we once perceived as the "strait and narrow way" has broadened to include all ways that promote individual and collective well-being.

We are not anti-Mormon; it is not our intent to belittle others. In fact, we want to keep all the good that came into our lives through Mormonism, but we will be open about its misrepresentations and the way in which its dogmatism and authoritarianism have proven detrimental to many individuals, families and communities.

From a Christian perspective, there's a definite down side to PostMormon.org. The group does not endorse any religion or belief system, though members are welcome to "continue their spiritual journey through more traditional means." The web site states,

We do not advocate another form of Mormonism or any other religion and believe that loving one's neighbor begins with giving up the claim to have special access to truth. We feel that arrogance attends the illusion of "knowing the truth" and that such arrogance leads to a narrow-minded tribalism that impedes personal growth and fosters a divided community.

It's unfortunate that PostMormon.org, dedicated to helping people find joy in life after leaving a religion whose "dogmatism" was "detrimental," would embrace such an idea. If a member of the Post-Mormon Community continues his spiritual journey and eventually comes to believe he knows the truth, will he be labeled "arrogant" and be thought to be on the road to "narrow-minded tribalism that impedes personal growth"? How is this an improvement over Mormon "authoritarianism"?

I love the idea of available support for people struggling with the problems they encounter in questioning or leaving Mormonism, but PostMormon.org seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Truth is freely available to all; yet the ability to know the truth is not an illusion. By embracing this ideology PostMormon.org is merely replacing one deception with another.

Jesus, who claimed to know the truth, said, "the truth will set you free." I believe Him. The only hope for Mormons, Post-Mormons and non-Mormons is the Truth: Jesus, the way, the truth, and the life.

Mormon Behavior, Mormon Speak

2007-04-09T11:19:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

Today's (9 April) New York Times carries an op-ed piece by Kenneth Woodward about Mitt Romney and Mormonism. A large portion of the article is dedicated to understanding why Americans are uncomfortable with Mr. Romney's religion. Mr. Woodward writes:

Among the reasons Americans distrust the Mormon church is Mormon clannishness. Because every worthy Mormon male is expected to be a lay priest in voluntary service to the church, the demands on his time often leave little opportunity to cultivate close friendships with non-Mormon neighbors. A good Mormon is a busy Mormon...

To many Americans, Mormonism is a church with the soul of a corporation. Successful Mormon males can expect to be called, at some time in their lives, to assume full-time duties in the church's missions, in its vast administrative offices in Salt Lake City or in one of many church-owned businesses...

Moreover, Mormons are perceived to be unusually secretive. Temple ceremonies -- even weddings -- are closed to non-Mormons, and church members are told not to disclose what goes on inside them.

I think Mr. Woodward has been quite perceptive in his identification of some specific Mormon behaviors that may concern non-Mormon Americans.

Furthermore, Mr. Woodward suggests that Mr. Romney use his many public-appearance opportunities afforded him as a presidential candidate to explain Mormonism to the American public. Mr. Woodward writes:

But Mr. Romney must be sure to express himself in a way that will be properly understood. Any journalist who has covered the church knows that Mormons speak one way among themselves, another among outsiders. This is not duplicity but a consequence of the very different meanings Mormon doctrine attaches to words it shares with historic Christianity.

For example, Mormons speak of God, but they refer to a being who was once a man of "flesh and bone," like us. They speak of salvation, but to them that means admittance to a "celestial kingdom" where a worthy couple can eventually become "gods" themselves. The Heavenly Father of whom they speak is married to a Heavenly Mother. And when they emphasize the importance of the family, they may be referring to their belief that marriage in a Mormon temple binds families together for all eternity.

Thus, when Mr. Romney told South Carolina Republicans a few months ago that Jesus was his "personal savior," he used Southern Baptist language to affirm a relationship to Christ that is quite different in Mormon belief. (For Southern Baptists, "personal savior" implies a specific born-again experience that is not required or expected of Mormons.) This is not a winning strategy for Mr. Romney...[he] should avoid using language that blurs fundamental differences among religious traditions.

I'll hop on this bandwagon; it's good advice. I'd like to see Mitt Romney heed it, but I'd also like to see every Mormon who speaks publicly about the teachings of their Church express themselves "in a way that will be properly understood" by non-Mormons, avoiding the use of "language that blurs fundamental differences among religious traditions."

Wouldn't that be great?