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?

O Sacred Head, Now Wounded

2007-04-06T10:45:00.000-05:00

based on a Medieval Latin poem ascribed to Bernard of Clairvaux

O sacred Head, now wounded,
      with grief and shame
      weighed down,
Now scornfully surrounded,
      with thorns Thine only crown;
How pale Thou art with anguish,
      with sore abuse and scorn,
How does that visage languish,
      which once was bright as morn!

What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered, was all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior; 'Tis I deserve Thy place;
Look on me with Thy favor, assist me with Thy grace.

My burden in Thy Passion, Lord, Thou hast borne for me,
For it was my transgression which brought this woe on Thee.
I cast me down before Thee, wrath were my rightful lot;
Have mercy, I implore Thee; Redeemer, spurn me not!

What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
For this, Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever, and should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never outlive my love to Thee.

Amen.

Will PBS also be labeled "hateful"?

2007-04-04T11:15:00.000-05:00

by Bill

Television producer Helen Whitney has been working on a documentary covering Mormonism for several years, and on April 30 & May 1, "The Mormons" will finally air on PBS stations throughout the country. The official web site of the LDS Church has already concluded that it is likely to cause debate.

Whitney says "The Mormons" is a "complex film, a respectful film, but not an uncritical film." If that last part is true, I think Ms. Whitney is going to learn a big lesson. When it comes to the Mormon Church, respectful and critical are not normally two words they recognize in the same sentence. You either praise them or you risk being accused of ignorance and/or bigotry.

I wonder if the LDS Church will send the Anti-Defamation League hounds after Whitney if they find the content to be unappreciated. Will the ADL denounce PBS as a hate group like they did thousands of Christians who delivered the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith DVD? It remains to be seen whether or not Helen Whitney really did her homework.

The Mormon double standard when it comes to evangelism

2007-03-30T10:47:00.000-05:00

by Bill

Let's cut to the chase. Evangelical Christianity and the Mormon Church are both very much interested in winning others to their way of thinking. On this there is no argument. The Mormon Church sends out tens of thousands of full-time missionaries to try and convince potential converts that Christianity experienced a "Great Apostasy" and that this was remedied by what they call the "restored gospel" given through their prophet Joseph Smith. Of course, the only way you can experience this "restored gospel" is through the LDS Church.

Clearly the goal of the Mormon missionary is to baptize the potential convert into the LDS Church, which necessitates them abandoning their current church and much of what they currently believe theologically. I actually appreciated Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks' candidness when he said,

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many beliefs in common with other Christian churches. But we have differences, and those differences explain why we send missionaries to other Christians..." ("Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1995, p.84).

Fair enough. But here's the rub, Mr. Oaks. When Christians respond in kind they are automatically labeled "anti-Mormons" and demonized. It is assumed that they are motivated only by bigotry. Oh my.

Recently several Christian ministries and churches joined together to distribute hundreds of thousands of DVDs that clearly and lovingly explained the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. The DVD carefully explained what LDS leaders have taught in order to give the viewer a more informed opportunity to properly evaluate LDS truth claims. In fact, much of the DVD contained statements taken directly from LDS sources. Under normal conditions I would think this is how the Mormon doctrine of "free agency" should be practiced, but that is not at all the case.

While Article 11 in the LDS "Articles of Faith" states that Mormons believe that all men should be allowed to worship how, where, or what they may, this is not how things are in reality. Proclaiming the gospel and offering people clarity is a part of Christian worship. Our devotion to God includes proclaiming His message of forgiveness and to expound on what is true as opposed to what is error. However, when we do this, the Mormons react like we just set their foot on fire. I guess the right to proclaim what you believe to be true (which automatically assumes something must be false) is reserved only for those who are members of the LDS Church. It sure seems that way.

The Mormon Church put out an official statement which said in part,

"When Latter-day Saint missionaries visit homes or engage others in conversation, they studiously avoid criticism of other faiths."

If that is true then the missionaries are not doing their job. Page seven of Preach My Gospel (the new missionary manual, 2004) states that missionaries are to "help investigators see the patterns of apostasy and restoration" and "help people recognize that the Church is not just another religion." Helping a person conclude that his church is apostate is not a criticism?

Missionaries aside, what about all those kind comments from LDS leaders over the years?

News pieces in Salt Lake City decried the efforts of these horrible "anti-Mormons." One news cast accused some Christian participants in Arizona of being part of a "hate group"! How dare these "mean-spirited" Christians even hint that Mormons should leave their church! My friend, greater hypocrisy cannot be found in all of Zion, for what Mormon missionary does not want to lead a person out of their present church and into the Mormon Church? If they deny it, they are lying, pure and simple.

Over the years I have had several Mormon missionaries come to my home and I have always treated them with respect and dignity. I have also had pieces of paper taped to my door announcing upcoming functions at the local ward building. I've even had a couple of 12-year-old Mormon deacons come up to me asking for my "fast offering." At two different movie theaters I've been approached by Mormon missionaries and never once have I fired off an angry email to a mission president or stake president demanding that they "leave me alone!" because "I already have my religion!" I fully recognize that they have their right in this wonderful country to believe whatever they want, even though that belief pegs me as a part of an apostate Christendom that adheres to abominable creeds and abases itself before the "mythical throne of a mythical Christ" (as one late Mormon apostle said).

Pardon me, I forgot that Mormons don't criticize other faiths.

If Mormons can't seem to understand that all of us have a worldview that we'd like others to share, and that this passion for truth causes us to tell others, then I have to really wonder what motivates Mormon missionaries. Perhaps I've been wrong to assume that they are motivated by love and concern. Maybe they are just "doing their time" to please their parents or church. If Mormons can't even consider that our motivation is based in love for them as people, then why do they feel we are obligated to assume the same for them?

Nah, to hear the many complaints from Mormons over this DVD, I guess my role as a Christian is to just silently sit back and let only the Mormons do the talking because in their mind it is "unchristlike" to do anything else.

Funny, I don't recall Jesus doing that.

Should Christians stay in manipulative interfaith relationships?

2007-03-28T09:42:00.000-05:00

by Aaron

Suppose you are in a dialog with someone over the most important things in all of reality--eternal life and the heart and holiness and the heinousness of sin and the glory of God and the nature of deity and the worship of the Creator and the promise of everlasting joy for believers and the future of eternal, conscious torment for idolaters. Whew. Important stuff, isn't it? What would you do if this friend told you that if you ever asked penetrating questions or seriously challenged his beliefs or made an embarrassing moral accusation against him that he would cut off ties from you?

To be frank, I would not actively seek to continue interfaith dialog with such a person, nor do I think anyone else should either. This kind of relationship is manipulative, and it fosters a fear-driven, tip-toeing, truth-minimizing interaction that hardly is constructive or edifying. It usually ends up in the dead-end alley of worldly, teacup dialog, the kind that obscures boundaries, suppresses any overflow of a passion for the glory of God, and conceals moral outrage against what is objectionable before our holy God. If Mormons and Christians want genuine dialog (and I know many of us do), then we should be prepared for the real thing. Otherwise, it's just a silly game.

Listening and understanding is very important, but as redeemed sinners we are also called to speak the truth in love. This is a far higher calling than casually sharing each other's perspectives for mutually increased personal understanding. We are called to speak the truth as truth, not as a mere human viewpoint. We are called to do this lovingly and courageously--with brokenhearted boldness, not with cocky impudence or superficial affability.

We are ambassadors with an urgent message. We are emissaries with the very word of God in our hands and at the tip of our tongue. Our King's message is not a suggestion. It is a call to repentance. It comes simultaneously as a plea from the heart of the caretaker of the planet and as an authoritative command from the sovereign of the universe. Humanity stands at the edge of the precipice. Either ever-increasing heavenly joy in the community of the saints or eternal punishment in the lake of fire await us.

As subordinates to the Great Commission we are called to give law to the proud and the gospel of grace to the humble. It is not an option to let our neighbor's conscience sleep. If he cannot see his own sin, we are to expose the deeds of darkness (cf. Ephesians 5:11) and shine the light of the law using the word of God. There are only two kinds of responses to this: repulsion or humility. Humility opens the door for a key opportunity to share the gospel. Repulsion means you'll probably have to move on.

As royal priests we are all called to what might spoken of as "supremacy evangelism": we are to proclaim the excellencies of the resurrected and exalted Christ--the one who is King, Creator, Judge, Savior, and God (cf. 1 Peter 2:9). This involves heralding the uniqueness of the divine majesty over and against the prevailing idolatry of our day. If someone essentially tells you that their idols are too sacred for open comparison with the great God of the Bible, do not believe them. No idol is sacred to our God, certainly not too sacred as to be torn down with his truth. People are precious in the sight of our God, but their idols are an abomination. Never forget this.

This of course can be done in a way that is flavored with recognizable humility and patience and love and genuine concern. In fact, it shouldn't be done in any other way (cf. 2 Timothy 2:24-25). But this doesn't mean cowering to the demands of those who want immunity from correction. No matter how affable a person is, demanding exemption from the scrutinizing and exposing light of truth is egotistical and arrogant. Instead of casting your pearls before such people, move on to seek out the people whom God has prepared to be humble recipients of the kingdom of God.

Oh Lord, please bless your people with fruitful, evangelistic dialog, both with the best of long-term friends and with strangers with whom we have no future certain contact. Help us to speak the truth to their conscience, and help us overcome the fear of rejection. Help us to do this in love, having prepared ourselves in prayer and having immersed ourselves in your word and having felt compassion on the lost. Help us not to be enslaved or restricted by the fear of losing the praise of man. But Lord, help us to be winsome and strategic so that we may maximize and elongate our opportunities to share the truth in love to those whose hearts are receptive.

Never Having to Say You're Sorry

2007-03-26T13:58:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

The LDS Church has found itself in the middle of a custody battle.

Mike Gulbraa served his LDS mission in Japan. Later, while attending BYU, Mike met and married a Japanese woman, Etsuko Tanizaki. They had two sons, Chris and Michael, before their marriage fell apart and the couple divorced. Etsuko remarried soon after. When Etsuko's second husband came under investigation for abusing his own child, Mike Gulbraa obtained a temporary restraining order which required that his sons remain in Utah. Nevertheless, in November of 2001 Etsuko and her husband took the boys to live in Japan. Both adults were charged in Utah with custodial interference. A complaint was filed in U.S. District Court accusing them of international parental kidnapping, resulting in the issuance of international arrest warrants. But, according to the Salt Lake Tribune:

Japan has not signed the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which would allow Japanese citizens to be charged with violating U.S. custody rulings. So, no arrests were made and the Gulbraa boys remained overseas.

Mike Gulbraa was awarded sole custody of his children in April 2002 and has been trying to get them back ever since.

So where does the LDS Church come into this? Mike Gulbraa, as custodial parent, wanted the LDS Church to get his consent before performing any ecclesiastical ordinances on his boys. He contacted Church officials in Asia and alerted them of the situation. Mike says he had a "written and implied" contract with the Church agreeing that his wishes in this matter would be respected. But the boys' mother and step-father wanted Chris and Michael to be ordained to the LDS priesthood, so the Church complied.

Deseret Morning News reports:

An attorney for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said the church was forced to make a choice between the wishes of two feuding parents, one in the United States and one in Japan, regarding the ordination of their two sons into the LDS priesthood...

"The church respects the right of family and rule of parents in making these kind of decisions," said LDS attorney Matthew Richards. "There was no middle ground, and the church had to decide whether to allow the ordinances or not to. And it's really not a surprise that with these Japanese clergy, with respect to a Japanese woman, allowed her request to allow these ordinances to proceed."

After asking for an official, written apology from the LDS Church and being denied, Mike Gulbraa has taken the issue to court, seeking an injunction against the Church which will prevent it from similar actions in the future.

As if ordaining Chris and Mike against their father's wishes was not troubling enough, Mike Gulbraa says LDS Church officials also instructed other Latter-day Saints to withhold information from Mike regarding his children.

LDS Church attorney Matthew Richards told the appellate court that Mike's legal claim of emotional distress should be dismissed because no evidence has shown that the Church has engaged in any "outrageous behavior." One judge responded:

"You don't think concealing the well-being of children who are allegedly kidnapped doesn't rise to the level of outrageous?"

Mr. Richards argued that it was not the Church that kidnapped the children; the Church, he implied, is an innocent third party. When the judges reminded Mr. Richards that the Church instructed members to conceal information about the children from their father, according to Deseret Morning News,

Richards said the church has a right to minister to its members the way it sees fit -- including how it shares information about its members.

I'm sure there's more to the story than has been reported, but it's pretty hard to understand the LDS Church's utter lack of compassion for the dad in these circumstances. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Mike Gulbraa is an inactive member; maybe that fact has contributed to the Church's "outrageous behavior" choices. I don't know, but as a parent I can understand Mike's response much more than the position the LDS Church has taken. Mike said,

"Stick another dagger in me. You go to an organization that is family based, thinking they're going to help you and they do something completely opposite. It was really hard to understand. It was painful."

And all he asked for was an apology.

-----

Other sources used for this article:
Daily Herald, Associated Press
KUTV
KSL

The LDS Church is Not Amused

2007-03-23T15:18:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

In today's Deseret News there's a story about a clash between the LDS Church and a coffee shop located in Taylorsville, Utah. The shop, Just Add Coffee, garnered the attention of the LDS Church when it began using a modified image of the angel Moroni in its advertising.

The LDS Church's intellectual property office sent a letter to the owners of Just Add Coffee last week, informing them that the image of the angel Moroni is a registered trademark belonging to the Church.

T-shirts being sold at the coffee shop feature an image of the angel Moroni, the golden statue of a male figure in a robe blowing a trumpet that sits atop many LDS temples. In the Just Add Coffee version, Moroni's trumpet is angled upward as coffee from a pot is poured into it.

"It was a spoof," [the shop's co-owner] Beazer said. "It was meant to be fun."

It apparently didn't amuse the LDS Church, whose members are discouraged from drinking coffee.

The same image of Moroni has also been used by the coffee shop on greeting cards and, most recently, in a newspaper ad. The LDS Church has requested that the shop discontinue use of its trademarked image of Moroni.

Just Add Coffee has pulled the newspaper ad, but is continuing -- for the time being -- to sell the shirts. Shop owners have requested that the Church provide proof of its trademark claim before the shop decides to stop selling "the best-selling T-shirts" they've ever done.

I tried searching for the Moroni registered trademark on the United States Trademark and Patent Office Trademark Electronic Search System; I couldn't find it. But the LDS Church holds a few dozen registered trademarks -- I must have just missed it.

I did find, though, that on September 5th, 2002 the LDS Church filed for a trademark on the word "Mormon." Initially denied, over the ensuing years the objections of the trademark office have been rectified. Last month the application was "published for opposition." This appears to be the final step before the trademark is registered.

The LDS Church has been unhappy with polygamy-practicing fundamentalists referring to themselves as Mormons. What will happen once the word "Mormon" becomes a registered trademark of the LDS Church? Will the fundamentalist groups all receive letters from the Church's intellectual property office requiring them to stop referring to themselves as Mormons? I wonder...

Worthy Historical Wonders

2007-03-21T13:02:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

The Illinois Bureau of Tourism is trying to determine the Seven Wonders of Illinois. The state has been divided into seven areas with distinct attractions listed for each area. Visitors to the web site are invited to vote for their favorites once a day from March 5th through March 31st. Each week the field of attractions will be reduced by one in each area until only one remains; the remaining attractions will become the official Seven Wonders of Illinois.

I'm a Midwestern girl and have visited Illinois many times. It's a great state with lots to offer. I've always enjoyed my time there, even the time I was caught in a storm that felled trees in front of and behind my car, stranding me on the road for several hours while crews worked to reopen the byway.

Many people know Illinois as The Land of Lincoln or the home of the metropolis called Chicago. It is also a place with a fair amount of Mormon history. On one trip I made to Illinois, to take my mother to see Lincoln's Tomb, we first toured the city of Galena and learned that the post office was partially constructed of stones from the first Mormon temple (destroyed in the 1840s) 100 miles downriver at Nauvoo, Illinois. When we reached Springfield, visiting the law office of Abraham Lincoln and attached courtroom, we learned that Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, had appeared in that very courtroom to face charges in the attempted murder of former Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs. Mr. Lincoln did not defend Joseph Smith; Mr. Lincoln had nothing to do with the event in question. It was just a bit of trivia offered by the museum's docent. My mother, rather advanced in years and perhaps grown a bit testy, turned to me in frustration and asked, "Why are they talking about Mormons everywhere we go?"

I suppose the answer is that Mormons made a significant impact on the state in their short time there. The excellent book Cultures in Conflict: A Documentary History of the Mormon War in Illinois offers this concise explanation (from the book's jacket):

Cultures in Conflict chronicles the rise of a theocratic [Mormon] kingdom at Nauvoo, the increasingly strident response of non-Mormons, the repression of dissident Mormons at Nauvoo, the famous double murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage [Illinois], the subsequent civil war in Hancock County, and the forced exodus of the Mormons from Illinois. Especially important is the historical information on the often overlooked two-year period between the Smith murders and the departure for the West of the majority of Mormons. For a tense seven years, Mormon Church members contended with their neighbors over a variety of political, economic, religious, and social issues. Between 1839 and 1846 the Mormons created a powerful and largely autonomous theocratic state at Nauvoo that clashed with the republican values of frontier non-Mormons. Mormons came to see themselves as persecuted innocents acting righteously in accordance with God's will, but non-Mormons saw them instead as threats to democratic institutions and the rule of the law.

Nauvoo is one of the attractions in the running for the Seven Wonders of Illinois. I'd be tempted to vote for it if I thought its background would be fully and accurately related to visitors. There's much to be learned from the slice of American history that transpired there.

However, Nauvoo is currently nothing but a faith-promoting tool for the LDS Church. The "history" presented is carefully constructed, stripped of all content and context that would provide a true understanding of what really happened there in the nineteenth century. Amidst family-friendly activities and demonstrations of pioneer life, the LDS missionaries staffing each of almost 50 sites in Nauvoo make certain visitors understand the most important thing: that the Mormon pioneers were totally innocent victims of bigoted persecution.

Nothing happens in a vacuum; accurate, inclusive history reveals a very different story of Mormon Nauvoo than the LDS Church likes to tell. Personally, I love history and believe the triumphs and mistakes of those who have gone before us share equal importance. Adlai Stevenson said, "We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we know the path which has led us to the present." Propagandized Mormon history is neither helpful nor deserving of Illinois' promotion.

As it is, Old Main at Knox College, "the only building remaining from the landmark Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debates...on the grounds where Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln debated the issue of slavery" is the site in western Illinois that will get my vote as one of the state's worthy Seven Wonders.

Comfortable Vilification of Rebels

2007-03-19T15:29:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

An interesting, ongoing discussion is currently underway at the Feminist Mormon Housewives blog site. Begun by blogger fMhLisa exploring rebellion as a virtue (e.g., civil disobedience toward racial discrimination), the ensuing comment discussion has evolved into a consideration of modern revelation and rebellion in the LDS Church, including the treatment of rebels within Mormon culture. Responding to a previous comment, fMhLisa wrote:

...really more to the point I was trying to make is just the general distrust and comfortable vilification of rebels that is practiced in Mormon culture. (comment #15)

This led to a comment by Quimby:

...I am hopeful...that this is one of my ward's many strange quirks, and it is not representative of the church as a whole; but in my ward, if you happen to disagree with any one of about four High Priests - even if you have scriptures and prophetic teaching to back you up - you are bullied either into submission or into tears. Blind obedience to these four men and their backwards ideas is enforced by the vocal majority, and of course they justify it by saying they know God's will better than you do, so if you disagree with them, you're rebelling against God. (#17)

A follow-up comment expressed a wish to be able to take concerns in the LDS Church to the writer's "hierarchal leader," but wisdom would dictate otherwise. Bored in Vernal wrote:

Quimby's ward is not so different from the ones I have attended. And I find it very sad to say that even in the cases when I have felt a spiritual prompting to push the envelope, I have not rebelled, because I value my Church membership and I am scared. (#33)

Other Latter-day Saints on the blog express their hopes that they, as individuals, would have the courage to stick with any convictions they might develop via personal revelation or conscience, though these principles may be contrary to pronouncements from Church leadership. Tom wrote, "...let the consequence follow, whether it be shunning or church discipline or whatever" (#28).

First quoting another comment (#21), Steve M. contributed this thoughtful observation:

You can call it "the party line" or "the official position of Church leadership" or "God's word" or whatever, but to embrace and celebrate individuals' claims to revelation that are incompatible with and contrary to official Church doctrine and policy would be to undermine the very foundation of the Church: revelation from Christ to prophets and apostles. There are churches that embrace each person's individualized truth. The Church of Jesus Christ isn't, and never has been, one of them.

But since that revelation is coming through humans, it is necessarily imperfect. This is evidenced by the fact that in the Church's short history, numerous apostles and prophets have contradicted one another.

To illustrate: It's now standard practice to teach that Adam and Heavenly Father are separate beings, but there was a time when that assertion contradicted what the President of the Church was teaching. Brigham Young taught that acceptance or rejection of the Adam-God doctrine "will either seal the damnation or salvation of [men]" (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, April 9, 1852). Men like Orson Pratt were vocal in their opposition to the doctrine, and Brigham Young responded that it would "destroy him if he does not repent & turn from his evil ways" (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, March 11, 1856). Yet, in a matter of decades, the Church had abandoned the doctrine that Orson Hyde was rebelling against.

So how do we view Orson Hyde? As a near-apostate? I mean, he directly contradicted the President of the Church, who was claiming revelation from God, right? But his view of Adam and God was more in line with what the modern Church teaches than Brigham's view. In the context of modern Mormonism, he would be considered more correct than President Young. While he was considered a rebel at the time, it seems that history has vindicated him.

So what are we to do if we find our conscience in opposition to what the present authorities are teaching about some issue? Force ourselves to accept something with which we disagree? I don't think that's the way to go. I mean, can we safely assume that, in another 25, 50, or 100 years, General Authorities will still be teaching the same thing? If Church history is any indication, then the answer is no. Today's heresies might be tomorrow's doctrines.

As for myself, I'll stick with my own intuition, spiritual experiences, and conscience. (#24)

This is the same thinking that has led to so many schisms in the LDS Church. Though Mormons are often quick to say that Mormonism has done away with spiritual confusion, this is not the case. In its relatively short history, the Restoration has produced hundreds of churches and groups based on "intuition, spiritual experiences, and conscience." Many are holding on to yesterday's doctrines, which today, according to the LDS Church, must be rejected as heresies.

It seems that Mormons are between a rock and a hard place. If a Mormon receives personal revelation (for which faithful Mormons have earned the right), if that revelation is contrary to "official" teaching, what is he to do? If he chooses his personal revelation ("intuition, spiritual experiences, and conscience"), he puts himself in a state of rebellion against God's chosen representatives. If he chooses the official teaching, he puts himself in a state of rebellion against what he understands to be God Himself. It's a tough call.

Late LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wasn't at all helpful in clarifying the proper course of action when he counseled,

We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on basic and fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls.

...those at the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works. If they err, then be silent on the point and leave the event in the hands of the Lord. Some day all of us will stand before the judgment bar and be accountable for our teachings. And where there have been disagreements the Lord will judge between us. (Letter from Bruce McConkie to Eugene England, February 19, 1981, 7-9)

No wonder Bored in Vernal is scared.

Disruption by Revelation

2007-03-15T11:14:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

John Singer was a Mormon with seven children. He and his wife, Vickie, lived west of Salt Lake City on their 2.5 acre farm in Marion, Utah. Dissatisfied with the public school system in the 1970s, Mr. Singer confronted school officials after seeing a picture in one of his children's textbooks. It was a photo depicting blacks and whites together and, in Mr. Singer's opinion, this was proof that his children were being subjected to "immoral secular influences." (At this point in history the LDS Church held to a doctrine that claimed blacks were cursed by God.) Mr. Singer pulled his children out of school, breaking a state law. This began a chain of events that eventually led to his death.

Due to his defiance of the law, the LDS Church excommunicated Mr. Singer. Not long after, in 1978, Mr. Singer received a revelation directing him to enter into plural marriage with Shirley Black. Shirley was already legally married and had four children. Nevertheless, she left her legal husband, Dean, and moved with their children onto the Singer farm. Mr. Black went to court. He was awarded a divorce from Shirley and temporary custody of their children; Mr. Singer, however, refused to surrender them. Three months later, in January 1979, Mr. Singer was confronted by Utah law enforcement officers outside his home. Mr. Singer threatened the officers with a gun and was subsequently shot and killed.

A young man in central Utah paid close attention as this story unfolded. Described as an "excommunicated Mormon" and a "budding Fundamentalist," nineteen-year-old Addam Swapp had held John Singer in awe; he believed Mr. Singer and his family had been unjustly treated. Mr. Swapp visited the Singer home in early 1980. Within a few years he had married two of the Singer daughters. Addam Swapp and his wives took up residence at the farm in Marion, Mr. Swapp assuming John Singer's vacated role of family patriarch.

The anger and sense of injustice over John Singer's death continued to grow and fester. Addam Swapp, along with the rest of the Singer/Swapp family, harbored deep-seated hatred which grew to encompass not only the government of Utah, but also the LDS Church.

On January 16, 1988, based on a revelation Addam Swapp believed he had received from God, Mr. Swapp planted a bomb comprised of eighty-seven sticks of dynamite in a nearby LDS Stake Center. As intended, the bomb exploded at 3:00 a.m., harming no one but causing $1.5 million worth of damage to the building. The message was sent and received: a required atonement for John Singer's death was in motion.

Soon there were 100 law enforcement officers--local and federal--surrounding the Singer/Swapp compound. Addam Swapp refused to communicate with the law, but did tell his cousin about the revelation which was now guiding his behavior. Addam Swapp believed he had been told by God to seek an armed confrontation with the lawmen because, at the moment the police would attack, John Singer would be resurrected to come to the aid of his family:

"John Singer’s resurrection would trigger the downfall of corrupt government and religious institutions and clear the way for the second coming of Jesus Christ."

About ten days into the siege Addam Swapp wrote a letter to Utah's governor. It said, in part,

"I stand on the truth and declare my independence from this government and society...We are independent and separate from your wicked society... Take a warning -- any man of yours which attempts to cross the boundaries of this place, without our permission, will be treated as an aggressive act on your part against us and we will defend ourselves in any manner we see fit... I now must warn you and anyone else involved... leave this valley immediately... Those who would come against this my people, will I verily cause to be destroyed."

The standoff continued for another three days, ending on January 28 in a shoot-out that left one officer dead. The Singer/Swapp family finally surrendered, Addam Swapp explaining to authorities that since blood had been shed, John Singer's death had been atoned.

Addam Swapp was convicted of several crimes and has been serving out his prison sentence these past two decades. Last week he had his first parole hearing. Asserting that he was sorry for what happened in 1988 and that something like that would never happen again, Mr. Swapp claimed to be a changed person. He said he has asked for God's forgiveness and now wants to follow the example of Jesus Christ in pursuing peace. He still subscribes to fundamentalist views, but, he said, he is first and foremost a Christian. He also explained that the whole 1988 altercation between himself and the police could have been avoided if the person who killed John Singer would have apologized for it.

"If they would have just said they were sorry, it would have been like throwing cold water on a fire," he said.

Is Mr. Swapp denying he ever received the revelation from God that he believed, at the time, justified his violent actions? He doesn't say, but this must be the case. Else why would he have sought forgiveness from God and now choose to follow the example of Jesus Christ? At the time of the crimes Mr. Swapp believed blood needed to be shed to atone for John Singer's death, but now says all would have been well if someone had just said, "I'm sorry." At the time Mr. Swapp believed God told him the confrontation with law officials would spark John Singer's resurrection and usher in the second coming of Christ which, of course, didn't happen. What does Mr. Swapp think about this? Does he recognize himself to be a false prophet?

Some years ago journalist Christopher Smart wrote for the Salt Lake Tribune,

Utah has its special brand of religious fanaticism that has cropped up again and again. Often it is associated with polygamy, which the LDS Church disavowed in 1890 and for which members are excommunicated...

The belief that anyone can receive revelation is a thread that runs through many of Utah's most bizarre crimes, said historian D. Michael Quinn. "It will probably always be a problem, I would say, in Mormon culture because Mormon culture maintains this faith that God continues to speak both to individuals as well as to the church as a whole."...

"The Mormon community is alive with one essential position of faith, that God continues to reveal new things, new doctrines, new words," said Quinn. "That leads to the possibility of disruption."

John Singer and Addam Swapp are sad examples of the LDS belief in continuing revelation run amok. They are not the first; this sort of thing has plagued the entire history of the Mormon Church.

Interesting to me is that many elements in the lives of these two men have approved parallels in LDS history.

For example, John Singer's plural marriage to an already married woman by reason of revelation echoes the actions of several early LDS leaders, including the Prophet Joseph Smith. Mr. Singer's appropriation of another man's children and unwillingness to give them up recalls similar events that led to LDS Apostle Parley Pratt's death in 1857.

Addam Swapp's plural marriage to a set of sisters also followed the example of Joseph Smith, who married at least three sets of sisters between July 1842 and May 1843. Mr. Swapp's declaration of independence from the government and warning to any who would set foot on the Singer/Swapp property brings to mind the tirades of Brigham Young as the U.S. army marched toward Utah to put down the "Mormon Rebellion" in 1857.

In the LDS Church and Mormon culture these actions by early LDS leaders are considered honorable and righteous, while similar actions by Mr. Singer and Mr. Swapp are condemned.

Ann House, the widow of the officer killed in the Singer/Swapp shoot-out, reflected on Addam Swapp's incurred debt:

As for Swapp's promise to pay restitution to the Houses, Ann said the best thing he can do is to make sure whatever ideas caused his actions should never be passed to his children or grandchildren.

"Certainly he can never go back and undue [sic] all the harm that will last for generations [in our family]," she said. "The best he can do is let his old beliefs go and become a productive member of society."

The bedrock ideas that caused Mr. Swapp's actions are firmly rooted in the history and doctrines of Mormonism. They are passed on from generation to generation, a proud legacy within the LDS Church.

Mr. Swapp initially chose to follow the examples of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, a tragic choice with an infinitely high price tag. If only he had chosen, from the beginning, to follow Jesus Christ.

There is a way that seems right to a man,
but its end is the way of death.
-Proverbs 14:12-

Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world.
Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness,
but will have the light of life."
-John 8:12-

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

Information for this article came from the following sources:

Utah History Encyclopedia

Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy -- A History, 212-214

Christopher Smart, "Religious Zeal a Common Theme in Broken Minds"

Utah Highway Patrol

Jason Bergreen, "Church bomber apologizes for actions"

Ben Winslow, Swapp is sorry for crimes

Different Worlds

2007-03-12T13:26:00.000-05:00

by Sharon

On the newly revamped LDS web site there is a section titled Core Beliefs: Why and How Are Mormons Different? I really appreciate the effort of the LDS Church to acknowledge its doctrinal differences with historic Christianity, though I believe much of the information provided is severely lacking in clarity. I think this is due to an effort on the Church's part to acknowledge but minimize the significance of these differences.

At any rate, the web site says,

Representatives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are often asked whether the Church is becoming more “mainstream” over time.

If the term “mainstream” means that Latter-day Saints are increasingly viewed as a contributing, relevant and significant part of society -- particularly in the United States, where there are now some six million members -- then, of course, the answer is "yes."

...If being described as "mainstream" means the Church loses the very distinctiveness of the beliefs that are at the heart of its message, the answer is different. While respecting the divergent views of other people of faith, Church leaders want to be clear about the beliefs that help define Latter-day Saints.

The following are some of the more important differences in belief and practice between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Christian churches.

One of the eight topics listed is this:

Plan of salvation

Latter-day Saint theology embraces what Mormons refer to as the "plan of salvation." The topic covers the pre-mortal state of all mankind, the reasons why God created the world, the nature and purpose of our life here and what future awaits us in the next life.

Another way to state what the LDS Plan of Salvation encompasses might be this: "Where did I come from, why am I here, and where am I going?"

These are some pretty significant doctrinal issues.

The nature of man
God's purpose in creation
God's requirements for reconciliation with Him
The nature of eternal life

Mormonism's disparity from "other Christian churches" on just this short list of core beliefs, not even taking into account the other seven listed topics, must be distressing to those who say members of the LDS Church believe the same things "other Christians" believe. The lion's share of the Christian worldview is represented within this short list. Even if we could find other areas of doctrinal agreement, Mormonism and Christianity are literally worlds apart.

Avoiding Pitfalls

2007-03-09T15:30:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
-Romans 16:17-18-

Some years ago a non-denominational church invited a popular "Christian" group of musicians to make a guest appearance and lead worship. But there was a problem. Unbeknownst to the church leadership, this particular group of musicians held to a faith that did not affirm the essential Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Rather than being "Christian," they fell into the category of "heretic"; therefore, according to the church's codified principles, these musicians could not occupy the pulpit or platform of the church.

The musicians, when questioned about their beliefs, dealt deceitfully with the church's leadership. They deftly sidestepped direct questions and answered others with carefully crafted sentences that employed liberal use of double entendre.

The church investigated the charges of heresy brought against the musicians over a period of several weeks, examining strong, documented evidence that clearly supported the allegations. Eventually, church leadership reached the conclusion that the charges were false. Ignoring the documented evidence they had seen, they reasoned thus: The musicians were nice folks, they sang of Christ, and they insisted they'd been falsely (and maliciously) accused; nice people who sing of Christ don't lie. Therefore, since these nice musicians were telling the truth -- that they were orthodox in their beliefs -- they were welcomed to lead worship at the church.

I was reminded of this experience today as I viewed a five-minute portion of a sermon by John Piper. Preaching on the Bible passage above, Dr. Piper explained that people who depart from true doctrine do not appear to us as monsters, mean and brash and pushy. Rather, the words Paul used in his description indicates false teachers win followers by appearing to bring a blessing. Their speech is pleasant, plausible and kind -- totally winsome. They are nice, gentlemanly, fair-minded and humble.

In the scenario I wrote about above, it was these sorts of attributes that won the day for the non-Trinitarian musicians. Unwelcome evidence was set aside in favor of enjoyable fellowship. One church leader explained, "I don't think they deny the Trinity. I've had dinner with them, and they are really nice people."

Sometimes what we want to believe has such a strong hold on us that we turn a blind eye to what is truly evident. Someone is nice, so we trust him. Someone is a pleasure to listen to, so we automatically accept what he says. Someone is fun to be with, so along we go; wherever he goes, we follow.

"Watch out for them," writes Paul. "Avoid them." Because they don't serve the Lord Christ; instead, they deceive the hearts of the naive (i.e., those who are undiscerning; those who ignore the evidence). It's a warning to be heeded for, as Jesus taught, "if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit" (Matthew 15:14).

I appeal to you, friends: Watch out.

LDS Church Reports Growth

2007-03-07T14:17:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

The National Council of Churches Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 2007 edition has just been released, reporting new church membership numbers and growth trends on 224 "national church bodies." An online press release provides a taste of the information contained in the 439-page Yearbook, including membership and growth statistics for 25 of the largest denominations or communions in the United States.

Of these 25 church bodies, only 6 reported growth in membership since the 2006 Yearbook reports; 8 reported losses, and 11 reported no change at all.

The 6 American church bodies that reported an increase in membership are listed here in order of reported growth percentage:

1. The Churches of Christ reported a whopping 9.30% increase in membership, reflecting 139,500 additional members. However, their previous reported figures were in 1999, so this number reflects growth since that time. Unfortunately, this statistic doesn't allow an accurate comparison with the other churches on the list, whose reported increases reflect changes over a one year period.

2. The Catholic Church, the largest church in America, reported an increase of 1.94% -- adding 1,315,699 members.

3. The Assemblies of God reported an increase of 1.86%, growing by 51,692 members.

4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reported an increase of 1.63%, reflecting an addition of 91,270 members.

5. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church reported .53% growth -- 7, 594 additional members.

6. The Southern Baptist Convention reported the smallest increase: .02% or 3, 253 additional members.

I remember not long ago the LDS Church claimed to be the fastest-growing church in America. More recently this claim has been tempered a bit and is now more often stated in terms of the LDS Church being one of the fastest growing churches in America.

Last month journalist Richard Ostling noted:

It's often said that Mormonism is the fastest-growing major religious denomination. There are nearly 12.6 million members worldwide, of whom about 5.7 million are in the United States. However, a 2005 series by The Salt Lake Tribune indicated that many members on the church's rolls are inactive.

I'm not sure how all of the statistics on active vs. inactive membership settles out in regards to actual LDS Church growth, but at least in this recent NCC report it's evident that the LDS Church is neither the fastest- nor slowest-growing church body in America. It doesn't hold a remarkable place in the field of growing churches; it turns out that LDS Church growth is...well, it's average.

-----

The Fastest Growing Church in the World? by Bill McKeever:

"Does accelerated growth of a group somehow validate that what the group teaches is true? To many Latter-day Saints, the growth (or perceived growth) of their church is evidence that the restored gospel of Mormonism must be true." Read more...

Negative Views of Mormonism

2007-03-05T13:00:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

Last Friday the results of a Gallup Poll about Mormonism was released to the public. The survey included the opinions of 1,018 adults solicited nationwide at the end of February via telephone.

The results of the poll show that 46% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the LDS religion while 42% hold a favorable opinion of that faith.

The results of the poll are precise and pretty interesting, providing a detailed look at how different cross-sections of our society view Mormonism. The two "key findings" the Gallup News Service put at the top of the list are these:

Americans who are more religious (as measured by frequency of church attendance) and those who are Protestant have highly negative views of the Mormon religion. The differences in views of Mormons among groups defined by their church attendance are significant. There is a net negative view of -21 points among Americans who attend church weekly, contrasted with a net positive view of +10 among those who seldom or never attend church.

Protestants are significantly more negative in their views than Catholics, who are the most positive group by religion.

Furthermore,

The two most frequently occurring categories of impressions of Mormons among those who have unfavorable opinions would appear to be the long-time association of the religion with polygamy (mentioned by 20% of those with unfavorable opinions) and top-of-mind impressions based on the Mormon religion's beliefs and doctrines. These responses suggest that the negative impression held by many may be a fairly straightforward result of disagreements on doctrine.

Please note that all the Gallup Poll questions asked about the Mormon religion, not about the members of that religion. Keep that in mind when reading the above synopses; the impressions noted by the Gallup News Service were not actually "impressions [or views] of Mormons," but impressions of the religion. The unfavorable opinions were centered in doctrinal issues.

Mormon Church-owned Deseret News reported,

LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter issued a brief statement Friday afternoon in response to the poll.

"Many religions in the world are not well understood, and we believe that the survey reflects the fact that many people know little or nothing about the doctrine, teachings and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," he said.

I disagree with Mr. Trotter. I think the survey reflects that those who place a high value on spiritual truth claims (doctrine and teachings) -- those who, by virtue of consistent and committed church attendance, are at least somewhat aware of the doctrinal differences between Protestant Christianity and Mormonism -- are the very people who hold unfavorable opinions of the Mormon religion.

Of those polled who expressed an unfavorable opinion of Mormonism, 40% had top-of-mind impressions that fall into the "Beliefs and Doctrine" category, while only 25% of the "favorable" group mentioned doctrine. I don't think a better understanding of the theological beliefs promoted by the LDS Church would improve the Church's public image -- certainly not among Christians, anyway. And this is as it should be.

God calls His church to be a discerning people. When it comes to belief systems, we are to test the prophets (Matthew 7:15-20), try the spirits (1 John 4:1), and discern what is the good and perfect will of God (Romans 12:2).

I'm all for the idea of providing people a better understanding of the doctrines and teachings that comprise Mormonism; not in order to elicit unfavorable opinions of the LDS Church, but rather to help people discern the differences between Mormonism and biblical Christianity. And this so they might live in obedience to the Word of God, that they might choose to "walk in the light, as He is in the light" (1 John 1:7).

Only in California

2007-03-02T10:21:00.000-06:00

by Eric

A Mormon high school freshman who was being peppered with put-down questions about her faith before she told them, "That's so gay," was officially warned by her school's principal for using "hate speech." According to an Associated Press report, the student, Rebekah Rice, used a common teen comeback (which generally means "that's so stupid") when she was being teased with insulting questions, including, "Do you have 10 moms?"

The question is, what punishment will the teasing teens receive for their initiating comments? After all, if we're going to consider Rebekah's comment to be hate speech, why shouldn't they also be reprimanded for making fun of a person's religion?

Some of my LDS friends might be surprised at my support for the LDS teen, but it's no secret that people of religious faith--whether Mormon, Christian, even Muslim--are oftentimes harassed in public settings just for their religious preference and nothing more. I remember going through a California state college being mocked by both faculty and classmates for taking a stand in a class, such as insisting there was a God or that morals were absolute (God forbid!).

I'm not sure why the homosexual lobby gets special preference here. First of all, the article does not indicate if the people at whom Rebekah aimed her comment were homosexual. And if they were, where's the "hate"? And just where will we stop with this idea of "hate speech"? Should we haul in a third grader who calls another kid a "moron"? Do we police everything anyone says? Is there not a First Amendment?

I'm not suggesting that there isn't inappropriate speech, because there certainly is. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre (or the like) should not be tolerated. But c'mon, a defensive retort (and a common one, at that) to insulting questions should not be something in which a principal or attorneys need to become involved. As one attorney said, "Reasonable people should say, 'Let's put a stop to this kind of search-and-destroy mission by school officials for everything that is politically incorrect.'" Well said. Free Rebekah!

To Be Thought Acceptable

2007-02-28T13:02:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

The Daily Toreador out of Lubbock, Texas today posted an article intriguingly titled "A lesson on LSD." The author immediately comes clean:

Oops, sorry for that misprint in the headline. Actually, I'm not sorry. I did it on purpose to get your attention. So now that I have it, what I really wanted to give you was a lesson on LDS, or Latter-day Saints.

What follows is the oft-heard charge that non-Mormons don't know what Mormonism is, so the journalist, Taryn Chesshire, decided to provide a short lesson. Several points are discussed, but the one that seems to me to be the most germane is the "misconception" that "Mormons aren't Christian."

If any of you hold the same misconception, I'd like to ask you the same thing I asked that co-worker: "What is a Christian?"

I was under the impression a Christian was someone who believed Jesus was the son of God, he died for men's salvation and was resurrected three days after his crucifixion to join his father in heaven. Do I have that about right?...

If you're a Christian, Mormons believe everything you do.

Since it's impossible to know what everyone labeled "Mormon" and everyone labeled "Christian" believes, I think there's more benefit in discussing the religions instead of the individuals. But for the sake of this discussion, let's assume the "Christian" embraces historic, orthodox Christian theology, and the "Mormon" embraces the authoritative teachings of his prophets and apostles. Using this scenario, I take vigorous exception to the statement, "If you're a Christian, Mormons believe everything you do."

On the face of it, the Mormon and the Christian will both affirm Taryn Chesshire's statement that Jesus is the Son of God who died for men's salvation, etc. But anyone who understands the meanings of the words contained in that statement knows Christian/Mormon agreement goes no deeper than the syntax.

On March 12th a new Christian book will hit the bookstore shelves: By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification. Gary L. W. Johnson, adjunct professor at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, has contributed a chapter entitled, "The Reformation, Today's Evangelicals, and Mormons: What Next?" In this chapter Dr. Johnson discusses LDS Professor Robert Millet's book, A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints.

One of several doctrines Dr. Johnson addresses is the Christ of Mormonism. He writes,

Millet is unapologetic in his defense of Mormon theology. To begin, he explicitly rejects the cardinal doctrine of the Trinity, candidly admitting that Mormonism believes in "Three distinct Gods" (70) who are "three distinct personages, three Beings, three separate Gods" (141). In layman's language this is polytheism, pure and simple...

Despite Millet's insistence that his Jesus is the same one that we met in the pages of the New Testament, it is the other Scriptures of Mormonism that define him. This Jesus was born "as we all were, the spirit children of the Father" (20). This Jesus is a spirit brother of Lucifer (21). This Jesus is the Christ of Joseph Smith and is considered absolutely foundational to Mormonism (39). It is conceded that the Christ of "traditional" Christianity and the Christ of Mormonism are very different, and in substantial ways. Why? Because the Christ of orthodox Christianity is rooted in theological creeds, while the Christ of Mormonism "comes from the witness of a prophet -- Joseph Smith" (174). Contrary to Millet's claim that Christ is the central figure in the doctrine and practice of Mormonism (80), Joseph Smith, by his later admission, holds that place of honor (158). In fact, without Joseph Smith, there is no Mormonism (151). The Jesus of Mormonism is distinctively the Christ of Joseph Smith. The two cannot be separated. (By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, 196-198)

This brief look at Mormon Christology clearly exposes the fallacies in "A lesson on LSD." Our hypothetical Mormon does not believe everything the Christian believes; the two belief systems are really not compatible at all.

While I don't agree with the theology or conclusions of another LDS author, Joseph Fielding McConkie, I do appreciate his honesty in drawing distinctions between Mormonism and historic Christianity. He calls for public disclosure of the deep doctrinal differences between the two religions. Dr. McConkie writes,

This [First] vision stands as a refutation of the fundamental doctrines of a corrupt Christianity. It destroys the very premises upon which all the creeds of Christendom rest...

As Latter-day Saints we must know clearly where we stand. If our message is simply a reworking of key Bible texts for which we have gained some insights that others overlooked, then why not abandon the offensive notion that there was a universal apostasy, or that there is but one true church, and get on with the matter of mending fences with historical Christianity? If, on the other hand, we are serious in testifying that there was indeed an apostasy, that it was universal, that it included the loss of the priesthood and the saving truths of salvation and the knowledge of the very nature of God himself, then we must be prepared to stand alone. ...it is not common ground that we seek. We seek sacred ground, and upon that ground we must stand. (Here We Stand, 202-203)

This makes a lot of sense to me. So why is it we find that the vast majority of public comments from Mormons sound like the one in "A lesson on LSD": "If you're a Christian, Mormons believe everything you do"?

On page 6 of Dr. McConkie's book he asks a really good question of his fellow Latter-day Saints: "Should we trade our birthright to be thought acceptable by a corrupted form of Christianity?"

I wish the answer would be heard around the world.

Mormon Polygamy: Comedy or Tragedy?

2007-02-26T13:26:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

All over the news this weekend, all across the globe, was an Associated Press article about the polygamy of Mitt Romney's ancestors. Journalists Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson have written an article that not only details the multiple marriages of Mr. Romney's great- and great-great grandparents, but also takes a look at the history of polygamy in the LDS Church. The article begins:

While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Both Mr. Romney and his wife, Ann, have made light of Mormonism's polygamy. As noted by the AP,

Romney has joked about polygamy, saying in various settings that to him, "marriage is between a man and a woman ... and a woman and a woman."...

This month, Ann Romney tried a different tack, taking a lighthearted jab at her husband's main Republican competitors, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, as she introduced Romney at a Missouri GOP dinner.

The biggest difference between her husband and the other candidates, Ann Romney said, is that "he's had only one wife."

McCain has been married twice; Giuliani three times.

But the AP article makes it clear that Mormon polygamy has never been a laughing matter.

Mr. Romney's great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, the first of Mr. Romney's great-grandfather's five wives, wrote an autobiography that "offers an eyewitness account of the Romney family's polygamous past."

Hood Hill wrote of Miles Park Romney: "I felt that was more than I could endure, to have him divide his time and affections from me. I used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow. If anything will make a woman's heart ache, it is for her husband to take another wife. ...But I put my trust in my heavenly father, and prayed and pleaded with him to give me strength to bear this great trial."

The AP article also reports:

Romney's great-great grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the [LDS] church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt's brother and fellow apostle, Orson Pratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God.

Not noted in the article but pertinent to this discussion, Parley Pratt was murdered in 1857 by the legal husband of Parley's 12th wife.

The other Pratt brother, Orson, almost lost his life due to polygamy as well. Returning from serving as a missionary in Great Britain, Orson learned that while he had been away, Joseph Smith had attempted to wed Orson's wife, Sarah, in plural marriage. Distraught, Orson disappeared. Later found alive by a search party, the Prophet claimed Orson had tried to commit suicide (see Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, A Book of Mormons, 211ff).

No, polygamy is not a laughing matter. Mr. Romney does seem to recognize that at times. The AP article observed:

But in serious moments [Mitt Romney] has called the practice [of polygamy] "bizarre" and noted his church excommunicates those who engage in it...

This raises a question for me. According to the AP article,

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Miles Park Romney had moved to Mexico in 1884 to escape the US laws prohibiting polygamy, and died there in 1904. His 1897 plural marriage to Emily Eyring Smith likely occurred in Mexico; therefore, US federal law would not have applied. However, Mexico had enacted its own laws against polygamy in 1884, 13 years before Miles Park and Emily were married (Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 132 fn#1).

Be that as it may, this 1897 plural marriage was definitely against the stated law of the Church. As Mitt Romney noted, the LDS Church excommunicates those who disobey the Manifesto and engage in polygamy against Church policy. So I wonder -- were Mr. Romney's great-grandfather and his post-Manifesto wife ever excommunicated from the LDS Church?

Sticks and Stones

2007-02-23T13:36:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

In light of the heat Janet Langhart Cohen is taking for the comment she made on Tuesday's Today Show regarding Mormonism's racist past, I thought it might be good to review the definitions of a few labels currently being applied to Mrs. Cohen by many of those offended by her remarks. From the American Heritage Dictionary (online at Dictionary.com):

Ignorant:
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Intolerant:
Not tolerant, especially: unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

Prejudice:
1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
1b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

Maybe someone can help me out here. Mrs. Cohen said,

"But you mention Mormon. Um, I hate to talk about anybody's faith, but if you understand the Mormon faith, up until 1978, an interracial marriage the Mormons would have considered a sin; they would have considered me, as an African American, cursed; that God didn't hear my prayers; that I was inferior..."

How does Mrs. Cohen's statement exhibit ignorance, bigotry, intolerance or prejudice? As mentioned on Mormon Coffee on Wednesday, everything except the idea that God didn't hear the prayers of African Americans has been taught by LDS prophets and apostles in the past. So Mrs. Cohen was not ignorant about the issue.

Neither was Mrs. Cohen speaking as a bigot, for she was merely providing historical information.

Neither was she exhibiting intolerance for Mormonism, though she could be charged with being intolerant of Mormonism's pre-1978 policies regarding race.

Neither was she prejudice in that her statement was not unreasonable or irrational, but was made with consideration for and knowledge of the facts.

What really troubles me about this is that Mrs. Cohen, a member of a race that was spiritually repressed and racially disparaged by leaders of the LDS Church (as well as LDS members) is now being slandered--because she had the nerve to talk about Mormonism's racist past. Mrs. Cohen, the offended, is now being painted as the offender.

A student at the University of Utah wrote today,

It's ironic how an educated woman can talk for four minutes about how she's spent her life fighting stereotypes and ignorance only to have that come out of her mouth. Not only are her statements ignorant, they're downright untrue. Never has official Mormon doctrine taught that interracial marriage is sinful, nor has it taken the position that blacks are inferior or that God doesn't listen to the prayers of black people. Janet Cohen, in her staggering ignorance and hypocrisy, might as well have said, "I hate to talk about anyone's sexuality, but if you understand homosexuals, you know that they spread a lot of AIDS back in the 1980s."

Here's the thing. Mormonism has many skeletons in its closet; its racist past is one of them. The LDS Church has whitewashed its pre-1978 doctrines* while believing nobody will be the wiser. LDS members, being true to their Church and wanting to defend it against accusations of what they clearly recognize as un-Christ-like behavior, not knowing any better, weep and lament the "lies" told about the LDS Church. In the process, they become guilty of the very things of which they accuse others.

It seems irresponsible to me for the LDS Church to put its members in this position. In trying to protect and remake its image, it allows members of the Church to falsely accuse and unrighteously judge those who speak an unwelcome truth. A passage from scripture comes to mind, the words of Jesus:

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. (Matthew 23:13-15)

This sort of thing makes it hard to see validity in the LDS Church's claim of being God's kingdom on earth.

* LDS.org used to have an article posted discussing the "Myth-conception" that the LDS Church is racist with respect to Blacks. The LDS site has recently been redone and the "Myth-conceptions" section is no longer available. My search of the current LDS site didn't turn up any information dealing with the Church's pre-1978 position on Blacks. For background and informational purposes, here is the text from the former LDS.org "Myth-conceptions" article:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is racist with respect to blacks.

Until 1978, black male members of the Church were not ordained to the lay priesthood. That position was changed by revelation on 8 June 1978, when Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th president of the Church, announced that the "long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" (Official Declaration 2).

The Church views all humankind as children of the same Heavenly Father, literally brothers and sisters. As stated by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1987: "We repudiate efforts to deny to any person his or her inalienable dignity and rights on the abhorrent and tragic theory of the superiority of one race or color over another."

Cursed, But Not Ignorant

2007-02-21T14:17:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

Yesterday, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, along with his wife Janet Langhart Cohen, appeared on the Today Show to talk about their new book, "Love in Black and White." Being a mixed race couple, the Cohen's book discusses their racial, religious and political differences. The Cohen's appearance on the Today Show was to promote their book and talk about the history and progress of racial issues in America.

During the short interview, in the context of how African Americans have been and are now accepted in this country, Matt Lauer asked if the couple thought America was ready for a woman president or a Black president. Secretary Cohen chimed in, "Or, a Mormon." Mrs. Cohen responded that she's a "two-fer," being both Black and a woman; but she intends to vote her interests, not her race or gender. She continued,

"But you mention Mormon. Um, I hate to talk about anybody's faith, but if you understand the Mormon faith, up until 1978, an interracial marriage the Mormons would have considered a sin; they would have considered me, as an African American, cursed; that God didn't hear my prayers; that I was inferior..."

At that point in the interview Secretary Cohen reiterated that the LDS position on Blacks changed in 1978 and the Today Show conversation moved on to other things. But for Mormonism the damage had been done.

Tuesday afternoon the story appeared on the LDS Church-owned KSL web site: "Romney's Faith an Issue on the National Scene."

As KSL erroneously reported it,

Mrs. Cohen was giving her impression of Mitt Romney.

Every time Mitt Romney's name surfaces on television, radio, the Internet or in newspapers, so does his faith. The experts say it's because the majority of Americans don't know what Latter-day Saints believe.

The latest statements about Mitt Romney's faith came from Janet Langhart Cohen, former television personality and wife of former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen. When asked about presidential candidates, she volunteered her opinion about Romney's religion.

Actually, Mitt Romney's name had not been mentioned up to this point in the interview. To me, it looked like Mrs. Cohen brought up Mormonism's racial past because of the direction the interview had previously taken -- that of changes in America's attitude toward race.

KSL's story includes some information about 1978 race laws in Utah, stating that interracial marriage was not a sin, rather it was illegal. KSL interviewed "former journalist and long-time Latter-day Saint Darius Gray" for the story. Remarking on the idea that Mormonism taught God did not hear the prayers of African Americans, he said,

"That offends me greatly. God has always listened to everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity or gender, and it troubles me that Mrs. Cohen would have that attitude."

Misinformation about the faith, he says, is surfacing regularly in stories about Mitt Romney's candidacy. What bothers him most?

"The unfairness of it, and it's based on ignorance. People don't know the facts and they are making assumptions. If you're going to make a statement on national television, get your facts straight."

What's so interesting about this is: 1) The Today Show interview was not about Mitt Romney's candidacy; and 2) Mrs. Cohen pretty much got it right.

I don't know where the idea about God not hearing African American prayers came from, but the rest of it -- that interracial marriage had been considered a sin in Mormonism and Blacks were once believed to be cursed and inferior -- has a solid historical foundation in the authoritative teachings of LDS prophets and apostles (for LDS quotes on this topic click here).

I suggest everybody, including Latter-day Saints, follow the advice of Darius Gray when making public statements about Mormonism. On the KSL comment board discussing this story, somebody brought up a passage from the Book of Mormon that, until 1981, said,

...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people. (2 Nephi 30:6. In 1981 the word "white" in this passage was changed to "pure.")

Another commenter took issue with the use of "white and delightsome" in this context and wrote,

You shouldn't be allowed to comment.
"White and delightsome" had to do with sin not skin...
You're as ignorant as Janet Langhart Cohen who put her foot in her mouth big time.

I would guess that the unfairness of this criticism is based on ignorance. The commenter probably didn't know the facts and was making assumptions. In order to get the facts straight, Latter-day Saints should know what Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, later the twelfth prophet and president of the LDS Church, said in General Conference in 1960:

"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah* are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

"At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was a doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness." (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 34 [Infobases Collectors Library '97])

*The LDS Indian Student Placement program began in 1947. Administrated by the LDS Church, LDS Native American children were placed in the homes of Caucasian LDS families in order to afford them a better opportunity to succeed than they would have on the reservation.

The "Anti-Mormon" Tactic

2007-02-19T14:37:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

Over the weekend the Salt Lake Tribune posted an opinion piece titled "Romney candidacy will stir up anti-Mormon feeling". The author, Tom Williams, begins,

Am I the only practicing Mormon who's not excited about Mitt Romney's run for president? It's not like his first order of business will be a $10,000 tax credit for all Latter-Day [sic] Saints. (But imagine what that would do for the missionary effort.) In my mind there's very little to be gained from Romney's candidacy, and a great deal to be lost.

Mr. Williams thinks the "Christian/evangelical bloc of the Republican Party" will make sure Mitt Romney does not gain the Republican nomination. How will they accomplish this? Mr. Williams writes,

I'll tell you what they'll do. There will be discussions of LDS temple ceremonies, temple garments, polygamy, priesthood restrictions on blacks, blood atonement, Adam-God theory, etc., etc. They'll bring up every anti-Mormon bullet point you've ever seen, and probably a few you haven't. There will be quotes taken out of context, distortions of doctrine and kernels of truth buried in landfills of inaccuracy.

This will put leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in an absolute no-win situation: If they try to respond to the doctrinal distortions aimed at Romney they will be perceived as defending him and thus supporting his candidacy; if they do nothing, the anti-Mormon assertions will be seen as true. Your 19-year-old missionary serving in Mississippi will spend the rest of his mission trying to explain the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Adam-God theory, things he probably knows nothing about.

I find it interesting that Mr. Williams seems to think any discussion of Mormon doctrine, practice, and history in the public arena would be "anti-Mormon." Like it or not, "LDS temple ceremonies, temple garments, polygamy, priesthood restrictions on blacks, blood atonement, Adam-God," etc. are not merely "anti-Mormon bullet points"; they are actual elements of Mormonism. Why should discussion of these issues be immediately dismissed as "anti-Mormon"?

Of course, many of these doctrines have a potential to be misunderstood by non-Mormons due to the reticence on the part of the Church to fully explain what it considers sacred. Even worse, many of these issues are not very flattering to the LDS Church and could take some of the shine off the Church's image. Mr. Williams has done some pre-emptive damage control by asserting that quotes will be taken out of context and doctrines will be distorted. This is the sort of thing authors Richard and Joan Ostling observed in their 1999 book Mormon America:

All too often [Latter-day] Saints use the label "anti-Mormon" as a tactic to forestall serious discussion. (376)

Mr. Williams believes the public discussion of Mormonism will put the LDS Church in an "absolute no-win situation." It won't be able to respond to doctrinal distortions without putting its tax-exempt status in jeopardy, but a non-response will be seen as an admission that the "distortions" are true. I don't think there's any merit to this claim.

Few of the issues that could come up if and when Mormonism finds itself in the spotlight will be new. Mr. Williams' list of possible topics of concern have already been discussed publicly for decades. It's just that relatively few people have encountered the discussions in the past; and the LDS Church has been fairly successful at marginalizing critical material.

But with Mr. Romney running for President there will be many more people interested and curious about Mormonism than ever before (or at least since Donny Osmond captured the heart of every 14-year-old girl in America). Influential people may begin asking questions -- people who expect full-disclosure answers, who won't settle for less; people whose opinions have the power to impact others -- and I think this is why Mr. Williams is concerned. He writes,

The church will spend thousands of dollars and several years refuting the doctrinal distortions that will be used to undermine Romney's candidacy.

Is this what we really want?

It seems to me this quandary could have been avoided if the LDS Church would have dealt with the doctrinal concerns evangelicals have continued to bring to the table lo these many years. But it has not. It has instead responded with denials and mischaracterizations of its critics, choosing to turn a blind eye to honest questions and concerns rather than deal with them forthrightly.

I think Mr. Williams' rhetorical question -- "Is this what we really want?" -- is right on the money. Candid public discussion of the doctrines and history of Mormonism is not what the LDS Church wants, as has been demonstrated over 177 years of the Church's history.

Jesus taught,

"Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops" (Luke 12: 2-3).

Perhaps the Romney campaign is God's way of fulfilling this in regards to the LDS Church.

Equally Unworthy

2007-02-16T09:20:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

While we're on the subject of Mormon temples (see Mormon Coffee's last article), the February issue of Ensign magazine includes an article about the symbolism found in Mormon temples. Quoting LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe, the article states:

"In the temples all are dressed alike in white. White is the symbol of purity. No unclean person has the right to enter God's house. Besides, the uniform dress symbolizes that before God our Father in heaven, all men are equal. The beggar and the banker, the learned and the unlearned, the prince and the pauper sit side by side in the temple and are of equal importance if they live righteously before the Lord God." ("Looking Toward the Temple"; the Ensign cites Improvement Era, October 1962, 710, but the same article can be found online in the Gospel Library section of the LDS web site under Ensign, January 1972, 56)

The idea that all men (and women) are equal before God is biblical. Paul states as much in Galatians (3:28) and Colossians (3:11) where he says those who are sons (and daughters) of God through faith "are all one in Christ Jesus." But this isn't the equality symbolized by the white clothing in LDS temples; for, regarding LDS temples, there is a significant distinction between classes.

I'm not saying there's a distinction within the temple, but there's a definite distinction which precedes temple attendance; and Mr. Widtsoe includes it in his statement. Again, he said:

"The beggar and the banker, the learned and the unlearned, the prince and the pauper sit side by side in the temple and are of equal importance if they live righteously before the Lord God, the Father of their spirits. It is spiritual fitness and understanding that one receives in the temple. All such have an equal place before the Lord." (I have here completed the paragraph as it appeared in Mr. Widtsoe's original statement from the 1972 Ensign article)

The implication is that those who do not live righteously before God, those who do not qualify to enter Mormon temples (which includes a good percentage of Mormons), are not of "equal importance" and do not have an "equal place before the Lord."

As I see it, in Mormonism there may not be a distinction between the wealthy and the poor, the educated and uneducated, or the professionals and the non-professionals; instead, there is a distinction between the tithe-payers and the non-tithe-payers, the tea-abstainers and the tea-drinkers, the meeting-goers and the meeting-skippers.

This brings to mind Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14).

Temple-worthy Mormons clothe themselves in white in LDS temples to symbolize their purity -- their worthiness -- to be in the house of God. The fact that they have been approved to enter the temple means that they are not like other people. They have passed their temple recommend interviews which indicates that they are full tithe payers. They attend their Church meetings. They sustain and follow all their Church leaders. They obey the Word of Wisdom. They live chaste lives that are in complete harmony with the teachings of their Church. They keep their temple covenants. They wear their garments day and night. They are honest in all things. They affirm and believe that they are worthy (see Temple Recommend Questions).

In telling the parable, Jesus didn't have any praise for the one who was worthy, for the one who kept the law. Jesus said it was the sinful tax collector, not the law-abiding Pharisee, who went home justified. Jesus didn't seem to care one whit that the Pharisee paid his tithe while the tax collector (as was typical in his profession) engaged in frequent dishonesty.

This is what Jesus cared about: The tax collector, recognizing his sinfulness, cried out for mercy -- and he was granted mercy. The Pharisee, who set himself apart as one who was pure and worthy, who relied on his own impressive merits to please a perfectly Holy God; though righteous by the world's standards, he did not please God and went home still guilty in his sins.

The Bible tells us that "none is righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). "If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us" (1 John 1:10).

I'm not suggesting that Mormons think they're sinless. I don't think there are many people who do -- we know ourselves too well for that. But our human tendency is to minimize and/or justify our sin. We grade the level of "righteousness" we've achieved on a curve. "I'm not perfect, but I'm a lot better than that guy," we say.

And the Mormon temple, I think, plays right into that way of thinking: "I'm not perfect, but at least I'm temple worthy." Mormons go to the temple and put on white clothes head to toe that symbolizes their purity. They would never say it -- and I'm sure most would never think it -- but this is what it really symbolizes: "God, thank you that I'm not like other men. I'm more righteous than those folks outside. I'm more important to You than they are. I'm worthy."

The Pharisee boasted in his righteousness and was left spiritually bankrupt. His boasting -- his self-promotion of his "worthiness" -- was itself a display of his sin. Note that the Pharisee in this parable was not bragging to others. He was standing by himself, giving thanks to God.

But the tax collector did not even consider himself worthy enough to lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed. He beat his breast while pleading, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" He needed a Savior, and he knew it. He admitted it. He begged for it. And he got it. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).

In the parable both the Pharisee and the tax collector were equally unworthy, but only one recognized his need for mercy.

Mormonism claims the purpose of LDS temples is to provide everything necessary for the exaltation of those deemed worthy enough to enter; the temple is for Mormons who affirm and believe in the value of their own righteousness.

Antithetically Jesus promises, "everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

Jesus or the temple. The choice is yours.

People Can Learn About the LDS Endowment Ceremony

2007-02-14T12:37:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

On Tuesday USA Todayposted an article by journalist Jill Lawrence: "Will Mormon faith hurt bid for White House?" There are some unexpected revelations in the article related to the doctrines and history of the LDS Church. They are grouped under the headings of "Theology," "Polygamy," "Racial History," "Secrecy," "Discipline," and "Proselytizing." This makes the USA Today article unique in that Ms. Lawrence discusses some of the real concerns Christians have with Mormonism rather than dismissing all critics as "bigots," "ignorant," or "misinformed."

Another section of the USA Today article I like is this:

The ex-governor [Mormon Mitt Romney] says questions about his faith are fair to ask. Some queries he answers directly. "I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke, I don't drink coffee or tea. I also do a tithe," he says, meaning he donates 10% of his income to the church. All are church requirements.

Romney responds more generally when asked if he has participated in an endowment ceremony, in which men and women take vows of secrecy about temple rites and of obedience to the Lord, and begin the daily practice of wearing a sacred "temple garment" resembling abbreviated long underwear.

"I do attend the temple of my church...and people can learn about that by contacting the church," he says, adding: "I'm sure on the Internet you can find every single aspect of what's entailed."

An inquirer will not learn much about the LDS endowment ceremony from the Mormon Church. In the sections about temples on two official LDS web sites (lds.org newsroom, the "official resource for news media, opinion leaders, and the public" and mormon.org, an informational site for non-members) the endowment ceremony is not even mentioned.

But Mr. Romney is correct that those who really want to know "can find every single aspect of what's entailed" on the internet. All one need do is Google "LDS Endowment Ceremony." There are almost 66,000 results from which to choose.

To make it a bit easier for those of you who want to learn about the endowment ceremony performed in LDS temples, here are some links to sites I believe are trustworthy.

For overviews and commentary:

The LDS Temple Ceremony by Bill McKeever
Temple Ritual Changed...Again by Sandra Tanner
Mormon Temples: "The Gates of Heaven" by Sharon Lindbloom

For transcripts of the entire endowment ceremony (including past and current versions):

The Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony, Revised in 1990 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at the Mormons In Transition web site
The Endowment Ceremony at the Concerned Christians web site

For related topics:

Masonic Influence in the Endowment Ceremony by Bill McKeever
LDS Endowment and Masonic Initiation by James David
The LDS Temple Ceremony - Sacred or Secret? by Bill McKeever
The Garments of the Holy Priesthood by Bill McKeever
Temple "Worthiness" and the Bible by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

For everything you always wanted to know about LDS temples but were afraid to ask:

Temple Ceremony online article index at the Utah Lighthouse Ministry web site

The Dos and Don'ts of Mormon Missionary Life

2007-02-12T14:57:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

The newspaper in my town, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, ran an article about Mormon missionaries over the weekend. Along with the article was a revealing companion piece: "Young missionaries live by rigid rules." Drawn from a "four-page list of rules for male Minnesota missionaries," the article listed twenty-seven for Star-Tribune readers.

The LDS Church wants its representatives to be recognizable (conform) and above reproach; therefore, many of the rules have to do with a clean-cut appearance or avoiding potentially compromising situations with children and people of the opposite sex.

The 'appearance rules' include things like the appropriate length of sideburns (above mid-ear), tie styles (no pink or purple), and hair cuts (no buzzes). While appearance rules are understandable, the necessity of this one baffles me:

All missionaries wear a part and comb their hair to the side. You will be the minority and feel out of place if you do not.

The 'cautionary rules' listed state that the missionaries should not become too familiar with children; no tickling, hugging, or allowing children to sit on a missionary's lap. In addition,

Always obey the Rule of Three: In order to enter a home to teach or visit a member or nonmember, there must be three men or three women 16 or older present in the same room. A person in the next room does not count. ... The only exception to this rule is that you may enter the home of a person of the opposite sex who is 70 or older. If a person 70 or older is home with someone younger than 70, you must follow the normal Rule of Three.

There is wisdom in setting up these sorts of rules. They are a hedge against false accusations.

Several of the other rules have to do with safety or cleanliness: wear a bike helmet; clean the apartment for an hour every prep-day; dry clean suits often; do all bike repairs outside. When remembering that the missionaries are young men only 19-21 years old, any mother would say these sorts of rules are a must.

But we should also remember that the LDS Church claims these young men have received a personal calling from Almighty God to go into the mission field. They have been individually prepared and equipped for their service: "Whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies," said LDS President Harold B. Lee (quoted in Ensign, November 1995, 50).

Because of this, some of the missionary rules seem out of place to me. Consider a few:

You may only call other missionaries within your district.

You may call home [only] on Mother's Day and Christmas for 45 minutes.

Missionaries may only access mldsmail.net, lds.org, mormon.org and josephsmith.net.

Internet usage [allowed only one day a week] is only permissible if companions can see each other's screens. No exceptions.

Missionaries may only e-mail family.

The following music is approved: Especially For Youth, church-produced music, LDS hymns, Mormon Tabernacle Choir, appropriate Christmas music (i.e., no rock) and classical music.

Please strictly follow the Elbow Rule: Always be near enough to your companion to hear him at a whisper while outside of the apartment. Do not separate for long periods of time within the apartment.

Missionaries may watch "The Other Side of Heaven" [a movie by Mormon filmmaker Mitch Davis] on preparation day only.

100% on the plan: Out of bed by 6:30 a.m. (not 6:31). One full hour of personal and companionship studies (not 59 minutes). Out of the apartment by 10 a.m. (not 10:01). One hour for lunch at the most. One hour for dinner, the latest time being from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Be out of the members' houses by 6 p.m. (not 6:01). Be in by 9 p.m. If you are teaching, you may be out until 9:30 p.m. at the latest. Plan the next day's activities starting right when you get in the apartment. Be either in your bed or praying by 10:30 p.m. (not 10:31).

Rather than supporting the idea that these young men "have been set apart for [their] sacred calling with the promise that the Spirit will be given as [they] meet the requirements set by the Lord" (Preach My Gospel, 4), these rules reflect an assumed immaturity (social and spiritual), plus a lack of trust in the missionaries' judgment and inspiration.

They're told who they may (and may not) email, what music they may (and may not) listen to, when and who they may (and may not) call on the phone and how long they may talk, how long they may linger over a meal, and what time they need to be in bed. Don't these missionary rules sound like something given to middle-school kids as they head off to summer camp? These young men, set apart and equipped for a "sacred calling," are not trusted to have the ability to make good choices regarding even the most basic stuff of everyday life.

I don't doubt that the Mormon Church's long experience with their missionary program has necessitated the institution of such rules. What I don't get is why we're supposed to believe these kids have power and authority from God when even the LDS Church doesn't seem to believe it.

The LDS Church Calls it a Distortion

2007-02-09T13:23:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

The Hollywood version of the gruesome Mountain Meadows Massacre is finally slated to hit the silver screen. From the movie's web site:

On September 11, 1857, in an unspoiled valley of the Utah Territory -- and in the name of God -- 120 men, women and children were savagely murdered.

Who ordered the massacre, and why, has been hidden in a cloak of secrecy and conspiracy.

And the reputation of one of this nation's mightiest religious figures has been preserved and protected.

On May 4 the truth will be revealed.

With typical Hollywood hype, the September Dawn web site and trailer (available there for online viewing) is designed to get people interested, to perpetuate the feeling of "secrecy and conspiracy." I'm guessing the film's producers want that interest to build from now until May 4th, which should result in a strong showing at the box office.

Rumor has it that the film implicates LDS Prophet Brigham Young, portraying him as an integral part of the unprovoked attack perpetrated against these non-Mormon pioneers. Some think the film will depict Brigham Young ordering the massacre, but September Dawn's writer-director Christopher Cain says the film sticks close to the historical record. There is no proof that Brigham Young ordered the massacre; Mr. Cain says the film portrays Brigham Young as condoning what happened, not ordering the attack.

On Tuesday LDS Church-owned KSL-TV reported:

A movie that hasn't even been released yet is drawing strong reaction from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Internet previews of the film portray the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre and strongly suggest direct involvement by then church President Brigham Young.

The writer-director of "September Dawn" told us his portrayal is historically accurate. The church calls it a distortion, and some, but not all, historians agree.

KSL asked eight board members of the Utah Westerners what they thought about Brigham Young's involvement in the massacre.

In a show of hands only three of the eight agree that Young ordered the massacre, and one more said Young condoned it. All eight agreed he covered up the facts.

It's no surprise the LDS Church is not happy about this movie. It will raise a lot of questions in people's minds and it threatens to mar the carefully cultivated squeaky-clean image the Church has been working to achieve.

According to KSL,

The LDS Church issued a statement today [February 6] which said, "From what we know of this movie, it is a fictional portrayal before, during, and after the tragic events at Mountain Meadows in 1857. This film is a serious distortion of history."

That's a pretty broad blanket condemnation/dismissal, especially since there's no indication that the Church has seen the movie or read the script. It appears as if this judgment has been formed based only on the 90-second movie trailer.

The day after the above was reported by KSL, the station presented another report. This one suggests the source for September Dawn was an award-winning documentary by University of Utah Film Studies Professor Brian Patrick.

Burying the Past, a documentary about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, was produced in 2004 and has enjoyed high acclaim from historians and film critics alike. Winner of 11 awards, the film has been praised for being "brilliantly honest," "beautifully produced," and "astute and brave." Nevertheless, this film was not welcomed by the LDS community either. From the website of Burying the Past comes this news report dated August 4, 2004:

There is a huge uproar over a film that was set to be shown next week at the "SpudFest" Film Festival in Idaho. Gilligan's Island actress Dawn Wells ("Mary Ann") has been promoting her Film Festival "SpudFest" which is taking place in Victor, Idaho August 3-8. The film in question is a documentary entitled "Burying The Past -- Legacy of the Mountain Meadows Massacre." The film has won 10 awards and has played in over 15 film festivals. "SpudFest" organizers received numerous phone calls from angry Mormon protestors planning to carry signs and picket all three screenings of "Burying The Past" that were scheduled for August 4th, 5th, and 7th. The Mormons also notified festival directors that they were advising all members of the Mormon faith to boycott the entire festival. The protestors are Mormon Church Authorities, Bishops, and Church members who have never even seen the film, but are nonetheless offended.

Burying the Past is known for its careful and even-handed treatment of the Mormons, the Massacre descendents, and the LDS Church; yet it was denounced as pressure was brought to bear to keep the film away from public viewing.

I suggest that the LDS Church and the Mormon people are not compelled in their concerns about September Dawn by any specific content of the movie; rather, it is the topic -- the Mountain Meadows Massacre -- that they wish would remain unknown.

The readers' comments on the KSL web site are pretty interesting. Many of them make excuses for the Mormons who murdered the pioneers from Arkansas, and express the idea that the film is produced for no other reason than to persecute the Mormon Church. But one summing-up comment of a different flavor caught my eye:

First the LDS church puts out a press release condemning the content of this film, apparently based solely on its trailer. Now, the flagship television station of church-owned Bonneville Communications makes accusations of plagiarism. Both actions seem like transparent public relations moves....

For those who would like to learn more about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the September Dawn web site offers several resources. Also, check out an article I wrote a few years ago: "In the Line of Duty: Mountain Meadows."

Brigham Young's Lecture at the Veil

2007-02-07T10:20:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

It was 130 years ago today that LDS recorder L. John Nuttall, by order of Brigham Young, transcribed the Lecture at the Veil in the St. George, Utah Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Lecture at the Veil was a lesson at the end of the LDS endowment ceremony which summarized important theological concepts that had been taught throughout the ceremony.

From the time the Lecture at the Veil was first recorded in 1877, until it was removed in 1990, it had been an important element of the endowment ceremony. The content of the lecture in modern times did not include some of Brigham Young's important teachings from the nineteenth century, the lecture having been revised during the intervening years.

The official transcription of Brigham Young's veil lecture is not available, but John Nuttall recorded much of the same information in his private journal. In recognition of this 130th anniversary of Brigham Young's Lecture at the Veil, an excerpt is provided here.

In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem. "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the on[l]y true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned.

We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth.

Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world.

And when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael, who is Adam our common Father, Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assi[s]ted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child.

It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve -- this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life -- Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man -- Now in the law of Sacr[i]fice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood...

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and come in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.

(as quoted in David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, 111-112. Paragraph breaks not in the original -- inserted here to aid online reading.)

Will Pope Benedict become a Mormon after he dies?

2007-02-05T14:51:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

So reads the headline of a recent Reuters article written by Religion Editor Tom Heneghan. The article, which discusses the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead, appeared today on the Reuters web site.

PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict was baptized at birth and will most likely be baptized again one year after his death, not by his Roman Catholic Church but by a Mormon he never met.

The Mormons, a U.S.-based denomination officially named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), encourage members to baptize the dead by proxy in the belief they are helping the deceased attain full access to heaven.

Church members are told to focus on their ancestors, a rite understandable in a relatively new denomination founded in 1830. But so many now perform the rituals for celebrities, heroes and perfect strangers that the practice has spun out of control.

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, King Herod, Al Capone and Mickey Mouse have all appeared for a short time in the International Genealogical Index for proxy baptisms, said Helen Radkey, a researcher specialized in the IGI.

Journalist Tom Heneghan suggests it is reasonable to expect Pope Benedict to be baptized by proxy in an LDS temple a year after the Pope's future but inevitable demise, citing "a centuries-long list of popes Mormons have baptized" already. Mr. Heneghan thinks it strange that Pope Benedict will be baptized LDS given the fact that, when he served in the capacity of "the Vatican's top doctrinal authority," he ruled that Mormon baptisms are not Christian.

LDS Church spokeswoman Kim Farah responded:

"There is no reason theologically why a former Pope or any other church leader shouldn't be offered the same opportunity given to the rest of mankind."

In fact, theologically, perhaps the Pope is more in need of this kind of Mormon intervention than the rest of mankind. According to past LDS apostles, the Catholic Church was founded by the Devil and all authority residing within that Church is only that "which his Satanic majesty was pleased to bestow upon her" (LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, 1884, page 205).

In explaining a passage from the Book of Mormon, late LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote,

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. (1 Ne. 13:1-10)

He saw that this most abominable of all churches was founded after the day of Christ and his apostles; that it took away from the gospel of the lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible; that this church was the "mother of harlots;"... (1 Ne. 13:24-42)

Nephi beheld further that this church was the "mother of abominations," and "the whore of all the earth"... (Mormon Doctrine, 1958 edition, page 130)

Later in the same book Apostle McConkie expanded on the doctrine a bit:

...speaking of harlots in the figurative sense, [Nephi] designated the Catholic Church as "the mother of harlots" (1 Nephi 13:34; 14:15-17), a title which means that the protestant churches, the harlot daughters which broke off from the great and abominable church, would themselves be apostate churches." (ibid., page 315)

Given the view of the Catholic Church expressed by LDS apostles, maybe that explains why Pope John Paul II was vicariously baptized in a Mormon temple four times (and Pope Pius XII three times); maybe "the same opportunity given to the rest of mankind" -- usually just one proxy baptism per person -- isn't sufficient for the worldwide leaders of Satan's great and abominable church.

Interestingly, the Reuters article points out that the public version of the LDS Church's International Genealogical Index available online is a "purged version," which does not show the temple ordinances that have been performed for the individuals on the list; that information is only available to Mormons. Furthermore, the article says the name of Pope John Paul II has been removed from the online IGI, though his now-anonymous files remain in the database.

Names are purged from the public IGI after being found and publicized. Pope John Paul I and Pope Paul VI were both baptized and were listed on the online IGI in December but removed after Reuters asked about them, [LDS Church spokeswoman] Farah confirmed.

Researcher Helen Radkey claims, "They remove any names that could potentially cause criticism."

I wonder if that's the same reason the current edition of Mormon Doctrine no longer designates the Catholic Church as the "whore of all the earth." While Bruce McConkie's exposition of 1 Nephi was clearly in line with the teachings of earlier LDS leaders, subsequent editions of the book (after 1958) have "purged" from its pages the controversial identity of Catholicism as "the Church of the Devil."

Mormon Exports

2007-02-02T14:21:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

There's a rather odd story coming out of the South Pacific today. Published at stuff.co.nz is "The growing fear of Pacific gang life" from Fairfax Media.

Al-Qaeda and fellow international terrorists are said to threaten failing Pacific states but as Michael Field reports the real menace comes from the streets of America and south Auckland.

They're shadowy and amoral; big and vicious men, now living in every village in Polynesia.

They learned their trade with American street gangs like the Sons of Samoa and the Tongan Crip Gang (TCG).

Samoan Warriors Bounty Hunters, Tongan Crip Regulators, Tongan Style Gang and the Baby Regulators fill out the world of hoods, hand signals, graffiti and crime.

And, according to the article, "they are mostly from Latter-day Saint families."

The claim is that these young people once lived in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. When they became uncontrollable they were sent "home" to the Pacific Island nations to be rehabilitated. But these kids brought the "skills" they learned in the inner cities of the U.S. with them, resulting in a burgeoning gang problem in the South Pacific.

Trouble became apparent last November 16th when riots erupted in the Tongan capitol of Nuku'alofa. When all was said and done, eighty percent of the business district of the city had been destroyed and eight people were dead. Since then, the police have been working hard to find the people responsible for what has come to be known as "Black Thursday." Fairfax Media reports:

Around 1100 people have since been arrested -- with New Zealand police help -- and over half are TCG who are mostly from Mormon Latter Day Saint (LDS) families.

LDS makes exaggerated claims to have 46,000 followers in Tonga and hundreds of families over the decades have gone to Salt Lake City in Utah, the church's headquarters.

Salt Lake has turned into a gang melting pot and [University of the South Pacific educator] Dr Taufe'ulungaki claims Mormon children, who joined TCG, have since been deported back to Tonga. Joined by disaffected youth from New Zealand they destroyed Nuku'alofa.

When I first read this article I thought it sounded a bit far-fetched. But then I found "The Gangs of Zion" which appeared in the Utah publication High Country News in August of 2005. According to journalist Tim Sullivan,

Polynesian kids don't seem to fit the profile of gang members, however. Most Pacific Islander families are the picture of stability. And most Polynesian families in Utah belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the pillar of family values and respectability. Because of the Mormon Church, in fact, Utah is home to the largest Tongan, Samoan and other Pacific Islander communities in the United States outside of Hawaii and California.

Yet while Islanders make up only about 1 percent of the Salt Lake Valley's population, they comprise 13 percent of the documented gang members. Detectives say that Polynesian gangs stand out due to their violence. Because of their intimidating physical size, their members often serve as enforcers for other gangs that traffic in drugs. They're known for their brutal fistfights, and for shooting at their rivals and at law enforcement officials.

Polynesian parents find it hard to believe that their churchgoing children are involved in the American scourge of gang violence. Their communities are supposed to embody everything this valley has stood for: family, faith and a new beginning.

But the "happy valley" in the heart of the Mormon Zion has become a crowded battleground. The Polynesian Saints traveled thousands of miles from one group of islands only to find themselves in another. On the west side of Salt Lake city, ethnic communities are islands unto themselves, surrounded by a sea of white suburbia; from the vantage point of West Valley City, Kearns, Taylorsville and West Jordan, the mountains that edge this valley only increase the sense of isolation.

Utah has a serious gang problem. I would even say the LDS Church has a serious gang problem. But apparently the Church would disagree with me. Tim Sullivan wrote:

Yet the Polynesian and law enforcement communities have had to work to get the church brass to listen. At one point in the mid-1990s, Isi Tausinga bluntly laid out the issue for members of the church First Presidency and General Authority. The church now has a representative on a local gang project committee, and has donated money to the Gang Unit's annual conferences, but 20 years into the gang problem, top church officials don't necessarily see themselves as having a role in solving it. Church spokeswoman Kim Farah says the Church prefers that local leaders like Purcell address the issues within their wards. That is not enough for Dorothy Fa'asou, who works on intercultural communication issues with Laie Association Utah. "The church has got to face up to these gang issues. It is too big for the community alone," she says. "We came here for the church, and the problems happened here, in Utah, in the church. For too long, they have ignored it."

The people of the Pacific Island nations are understandably frustrated. The imported gang members are negatively influencing Islander kids. Fairfax Media says these gang members

"live within villages and indoctrinate the young, the youth of the country. They are not isolated; they live together with the village people. They are in every community...

"They have no commitment, they are totally amoral, they have no commitment to anybody, no affiliation, they have no loyalty to anybody and they come with a great deal of hatred because they have been sent away from the people they know from their own environment to live with people they have never seen before in a totally alien environment."

Labelled 'remittance children', they are the off-spring of hard working migrant parents with two or three low paying jobs in the alien societies. The children grow up on working class streets picking up bad habits.

They are turned into gang members by their host societies, not by the Pacific countries. They should not be deported back to the Pacific which cannot cope.

"It's not our problem... We need to work with the countries, Australia, New Zealand and the US, not to deport their home grown problems into the Pacific, as a first step."

The parents of these kids aren't able to rescue them. The problem is too big for Utah communities to deal with. The LDS Church doesn't see these troubled member-children as a problem that requires its resources. The Pacific nations can't cope with the influx of Mormon gang members. Who will help these kids?

I lift up my eyes to the hills --
where does my help come from?
My help comes from the LORD,
the Maker of heaven and earth.
Psalm 121:1

Not the Christ of Whom I Speak

2007-01-31T14:27:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

The Associated Press reported Tuesday on Mitt Romney's visit to South Carolina, a "Bible Belt state" where "a few Republicans expressed deep reservations about backing a Mormon." Mr. Romney isn't really concerned about that, believing people recognize they will be electing a president, not a pastor.

Nevertheless, South Carolina Republican State Representative Gloria Haskins said,

"I don't think that I could see someone who is a member of a faith so contrary to my [Presbyterian] faith having my support," said Haskins, a graduate of Bob Jones University, the Christian fundamentalist college. Haskins is backing Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Another South Carolina Republican State Representative, Bob Leach, questioned Mr. Romney about his faith.

Romney attended a House Republican Caucus meeting that always begins with a Bible verse and prayer in Christ's name, led by Republican state Rep. Bob Leach.

Leach told caucus members he asked Romney who Jesus Christ was and Romney responded that Christ "was his personal savior."

Leach said that was good enough to earn his vote.

Sigh.

Setting aside the implication that Rep. Leach only needs to know two things about a presidential candidate in order to grant his support (i.e., that the candidate is republican and that the candidate claims Jesus Christ is his personal savior), I'm very troubled by the lack of spiritual discernment here.

Bob Leach is a member of Taylors First Baptist Church, a member-church of the Southern Baptist Convention. According to the church's web site, it subscribes to The Baptist Faith and Message as a statement of faith. That statement of faith says this in part:

The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being...

Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus perfectly revealed and did the will of God, taking upon Himself human nature with its demands and necessities and identifying Himself completely with mankind yet without sin. He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, fully God, fully man, in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord. (Please see the complete statement for supporting Scriptures.)

This is an orthodox Christian statement of faith, describing Christ as He is revealed in the Bible. One might say this statement of faith represents belief in the traditional Jesus Christ. But this is not the Jesus Christ embraced and worshiped by Mormons who hold to the teachings of the LDS Church.

As was reported in the LDS Church News a few years ago,

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President [Gordon B.] Hinckley spoke of those outside the [LDS] Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages." (Church News, June 20, 1998, 7)

There is no doubt or disputing President Hinckley's pronouncement that Latter-day Saints believe in a different Christ than the Being that is and has been worshipped by Christians throughout the history of Christianity. Some points on which the Christ "revealed in this dispensation" according to LDS prophets and apostles differs from the Baptist statement of faith quoted above are these:

Mormonism denies the doctrine of the Trinity, holding instead to a doctrine that divides the nature, essence, or being of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (i.e., three Gods).
Mormonism denies the eternality of Christ, claiming He is a created being.
Mormonism denies that the earthly body of Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, teaching instead that His body was conceived through a physical union between Mary and God the Father, a being of flesh and bone.
Mormonism denies the sufficiency of Christ's atoning death in providing reconciliation between God and man, teaching that some sins are beyond the power of Christ's blood to remit (e.g., murder).

(For documentation on these items, or to learn more, please see "Who is the Living Christ of Mormonism?" by Bill McKeever.)

So Mitt Romney answered Bob Leach's question about who Jesus Christ is, declaring that Christ is Mr. Romney's personal savior. What did Mr. Leach actually learn? Which Jesus Christ is Mr. Romney's "personal savior"? I'm guessing Mr. Leach believed Mr. Romney was talking about the "traditional Christ." And what, exactly, did Mr. Romney mean when he used the phrase "personal savior"?

A tract published by the LDS Church in 1973 says this:

Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much that is believed and taught on this subject, however, is such utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one's salvation. For instance, many believe or pretend to believe that if we confess Christ with our lips and avow that we accept Him as our personal Savior, we are thereby saved. They say that His blood, without any other act than mere belief, makes us clean. (What the Mormons Think of Christ, 22)

Well, this is what the Southern Baptist (and biblical) faith entails -- salvation by grace through faith alone:

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. (The Baptist Faith and Message)

This is probably what Bob Leach believed Mitt Romney was talking about. Mr. Leach's unfamiliarity with the doctrines and terminology of Mormonism put him at a disadvantage and left him with an assurance regarding Mr. Romney's faith that is wholly unfounded.

To be fair, "Who is Jesus Christ?" is a question which requires a long and complicated answer in order to effectively communicate how one Christ differs from another. A much better question could have been asked, one that would not have allowed Mr. Romney -- and Mormonism -- so easily off the hook. Charleston County GOP chairwoman Cyndi Mosteller suggested,

“The question is: Does Governor Romney support Joseph Smith's doctrines? We as evangelicals don't believe we can go in and change Paul's doctrine. I don't see how you move around this.”

Are Christians More Concerned About Doctrine Than Obedience?

2007-01-29T11:17:00.000-06:00

by Aaron

A friend once said,

"I think LDS see us this way though - more concerned about right belief than right living."

First, let me make clear that in the common Mormon mind, the alternative to this is being more concerned about right living than right belief. This thinking has essentially produced a kind of postmodernism that views their beliefs as largely just "practical" for helping them be "good people." This is the worldview from which many Mormons view religious criticism itself as unethical and "bashing" and mean-spirited. For many Mormons, just about any basic religion is inherently practical for right living and sincerity toward God, so none should be actively opposed. Missionary work is described as "adding" and improving upon the beliefs of others, not challenging or replacing them.

Second, in a way Mormons are right about us being "more concerned about right belief than right living," because Christianity is more about knowing and loving God than it is about treating people right. This may be a shocker, but think about the order of the two greatest commandments that Jesus gave. Christians inevitably do both. One of life's greatest ironies--an irony that I believe some unbelievers will dwell on forever in hell--is that we can only love people like Jesus wants us to once we have had our sins freely forgiven, and once our obedience becomes an outgrowth of our love for God. And how are we freely forgiven? By faith alone in the promises of God as they really are. And how do our hearts love God? By the focus of faith on the truth and beauty of who God really is. Faith, my friends, is theological, and, ironically, the best and only way to go about "right living" is to prioritize "right belief"--not just the right objective content of belief, but the right subjective heart-desiring, hungering, and thirsting faith that focuses on that right objective content (which is ultimately Christ Himself, as He really is).

Third, Mormons are only wrong about Christians being "more concerned about right belief than right living" if by that they mean we only care about right views of God, but care not at all about the works and obedience that accompany saving faith. The tricky thing is that the phrase "more concerned about right belief than right living" usually conflates two things, one good, and one bad. When challenged with the Christian passion and insistence on the right knowledge of God (replete with religious criticism of false views), Mormons often want to condemn both orthodoxy without obedience and orthodoxy-based-obedience altogether. The condemnation comes in the form of conflating both, and I think it ultimately stems from an unbelief in the power of the gospel (justification of the ungodly by faith alone in the promises of Christ) to change one's life. Paul anticipated their unbelief almost two thousand years ago in Romans 6:1 and 10:1-4.

But the Christian won't settle for this sweeping rejection of the primary and foundational role of "right belief." We will neither accept "right beliefs" without "right living," nor "right living" without "right belief." We believe in the power of God, through our "faith alone," to radically change our lives so that we become as the woman in Luke 7. She "wet [Jesus'] feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the [alabaster flask of] ointment," not to be worthy, and not to be forgiven, but because she was forgiven and because she knew the goodness of her Savior.

Christianity stubbornly refuses to accept any kind of love or obedience that isn't rooted in the right knowledge and faith and heart-desire toward who God really is, and what He has really promised.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:1-8),

Aaron

Further reading:

Faith: The Link Between God's Love For Us and Ours For Others

Also available as an MP3 file

Earnest People of Faith

2007-01-25T10:20:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

Deseret Morning News journalist Jerry Johnston recently devoted his column to supporting LDS presidential hopeful Mitt Romney with "Be willing to vote for a believer." The gist of the article was a challenge to those of the "Religious Right" who have concerns about voting for a Mormon. In the form of an open letter, Mr. Johnston wrote about some of the ways religions differ from one another and urged people of faith -- whatever that faith may be -- to stick together. He wrote,

Today, good people of every stripe must link arms. We can no longer afford to judge the value of each other's beliefs; we must look to the value of each other's hearts. More than ever, true believers must believe in each other.

In the end, it comes down to trust. If you can't trust the tenets of Mr. Romney's faith, at least trust the honesty and authenticity with which he holds them. He may not be able to embrace your beliefs, any more than you can embrace his. But he can -- and I think he does -- believe in your basic goodness and purity of your motives. I suspect he knows that religious faith never stands as a contradiction to the notions of the world; it is, by nature, more real than the world. Let the world have its irony. Others must be willing to vote for an earnest person of faith -- even if that faith is not their own.

I have no reason to question Mitt Romney's sincerity, honesty and authenticity; if his name is on the next presidential ballot you can be sure my vote will be cast after thorough due diligence, not decided solely by his church affiliation. But here I would like to move beyond the question of Mitt Romney and look in a more general sense at Mr. Johnston's comments. I'm really bothered by his suggestion that faith and sincerity are the important things -- that the content of any particular faith needn't enter into the question.

These days, people in America have largely bought into the idea that to disagree or reject someone's view is to disrespect the person who holds that view. We have lost the ability to separate the idea from the person promoting that idea. Because of our confused notions, we have been bullied to silence by the cry of "intolerance!"

As I see it, all people are equally valid, regardless of the views they hold. We should treat each other with respect and courtesy, giving opportunity for the expression of all manner of ideas and views. Tolerance requires us to be civil toward others, even when we disagree with them.

But not all ideas are equally valid. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason, says the classical view of "tolerance" is this: Be egalitarian regarding persons. Be elitist regarding ideas. I've discussed the idea of equal value of all persons above. Greg Koukl said of the value of ideas:

"When you are elitist regarding ideas, you acknowledge that some ideas are better than others. And they are. Some are good; some are bad. Some are true; some are false. Some are brilliant, others are foolish, and many are dangerous." (Solid Ground, January/February 2006, 2)

Ideas -- beliefs -- have consequences. We might even say that the more sincere, honest and authentic a person is in holding to his beliefs, the more diligent we ought to be in understanding what those beliefs are. Wisdom calls for understanding how someone's beliefs might affect us, or, in the case of a president, what consequences they might have for our nation or even the entire world.

There's a long history of cases in point we can look at. Consider Hitler, Stalin and Mao, whose sincerely held beliefs led millions of people away from God and into lives (and deaths) marked and marred by evil. Mr. Johnston says, "We can no longer afford to judge the value of each other's beliefs, we must look to the value of each other's hearts." Since we are unable to accurately judge another's heart (God alone knows the hearts of men -- 1 Kings 8:39), we must judge the values of beliefs and ideas.

On September 11, 1857, armed Mormon men (with the assistance of some Native Americans) slaughtered at least 120 unarmed non-Mormon men, women and children, as the pioneers' wagon train passed through Utah Territory. This dreadful event has come to be known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. People today disagree on some of the specifics that led to the massacre, but everybody agrees that it was religiously motivated. Whether Brigham Young ordered the attack or not, the men who carried out the murders held sincere and honest, authentic beliefs that drove them to commit this crime. Perhaps, if we could see their hearts, we would see that their motives were good and pure. Perhaps they believed they were serving God and His kingdom. They may have had the same earnest mindset as the religiously motivated men who attacked America on another September 11th.

Are we to look at these things and think, "While I can't embrace the beliefs that these men held, they were obviously true believers, so I believe in them"?

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that faith is a bad thing or that religion generally leads people to commit deplorable actions. Many of the truly good things in our world have been implemented by people of faith, people acting on their religious convictions. What I am saying is that "sincere faith," in and of itself, is not necessarily a virtue.

Mr. Johnston's idea that we need to be willing to vote for an earnest person of faith regardless of what that faith entails, in my opinion, falls into one of the categories Greg Koukl mentioned: this idea is dangerous indeed.

Choose Life, Choose Truth

2007-01-22T15:06:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

Today, January 22nd, 2007, marks the 34th anniversary of the legalization of abortion in the United States. Forty million unborn babies have been legally killed in this nation since that tragic ruling.

My father is in favor of legalized abortion, citing the gruesome stories of illegal back-alley abortions he heard about as a young man. I wasn't there, of course, but I've also heard plenty of horror stories about abortions that pre-dated Roe vs. Wade. Nevertheless, I'm compelled to place a higher value on pre-born life than my father does. Perhaps it's because we don't share a common faith in the Giver and Creator of life, the God who bestows value on all life.

Even so, there's an important argument that can be made for the sanctity of human life that doesn't rely on faith issues. But my dad won't talk about it. I think there are a lot of people who don't want to talk about it. Though it's legal, the topic is packed with emotion and conviction -- as it should be, since lives are at stake.

The LDS Church position on abortion is this:

If a child is conceived by those who break the law of chastity, they may be tempted to commit another abominable sin: abortion. There is seldom any excuse for abortion. The only exceptions are when --
1. Pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape.
2. The life or health of the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or
3. The fetus is known, by competent medial authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Even in those cases the couple should consider an abortion only after consulting with each other and their bishop or branch president and receiving divine confirmation through prayer. (Gospel Principles, 1992 edition, 251,)

This has not always been so. The previous edition of Gospel Principles (to the one quoted above) said,

If a child is conceived by those who break the law of chastity, they may be tempted to commit another abominable sin -- abortion. There is no excuse for abortion unless the life of the mother is seriously threatened. (1988 edition, 214)

Going back even further, Sarah Pratt, wife of early LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, related a story from when she lived in the Mormon community of Nauvoo, Illinois:

"One day they came both, Joseph [Smith] and [John C.] Bennett, on horseback to my house. Bennett dismounted, Joseph remained outside. Bennett wanted me to return to him a book I had borrowed from him. It was a so-called doctor-book. I had a rapidly growing little family and wanted to inform myself about certain matters in regard to babies, etc., -- this explains my borrowing that book. While giving Bennett his book, I observed that he held something in the left sleeve of his coat. Bennett smiled and said: 'Oh, a little job for Joseph; one of his women is in trouble.' Saying this. [sic] he took the thing out of his left sleeve. It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered.

"Bennett was the most intimate friend of Joseph for a time. He boarded with the prophet. He told me once that Joseph had been talking with him about his troubles with Emma, his wife. 'He asked me,' said Bennett, smilingly, 'what he should do to get out of the trouble ?' I said, 'This is very simple. GET A REVELATION that polygamy is right, and all your troubles will be at an end.'" (Dr. W. Wyl, Mormon Portraits: Joseph Smith The Prophet -- His Family and His Friends, 61-62)

I don't mean to suggest that Dr. Bennett's abortions were in any way sanctioned by the LDS Church. Dr. Bennett was a scoundrel by all accounts. Consider the sworn testimony of Joseph Smith's brother, Hyrum:

On the seventeenth day of May, 1842, having been made acquainted with some of the conduct of John C. Bennett, which was given in testimony, under oath…by several females who testified that John C. Bennett endeavored to seduce them, and accomplished his designs by saying it was right; that it was one of the mysteries of God, which was to be revealed when the people was strong enough in faith to bear such mysteries -- that it was perfectly right to have illicit intercourse with females, providing no one knew it but themselves, vehemently trying them from day to day, to yield to his passions, bringing witnesses of his own clan to testify that there were such revelations and such commandments, and that they were of God; also stating that he would be responsible for their sins, if there were any, and that he would give them medicine to produce abortions, provided they should become pregnant." (History of the Church, 5:71)

According to LDS authors Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, if the women he approached were reluctant to accept Dr. Bennett's proposals, he would tell them he came with Joseph Smith's approval (Mormon Enigma, 111). There exists contradictory testimony from faithful Mormons, and from Bennett himself, that Smith's name was never invoked during these encounters. Whatever the truth of the matter, Hyrum Smith's testimony indicates that Dr. Bennett "accomplished his designs" with at least some of the women he approached (see also fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 311). This raises a question in my mind.

Regardless of the level of responsibility Joseph Smith may have had in any of this -- whatever the official position of the LDS Church may have been -- what sort of society was it that proved to be fertile ground for Dr. Bennett's illicit proposals and his subsequent performance of abortions? What made these women vulnerable to his claims of revelations and commandments if they were contradictory to Church teachings? Perhaps this is where Joseph Smith becomes culpable. I'm uncertain whether he ever taught this principle publicly, or how often he may have taught it privately, but it's well known that in trying to convince Nancy Rigdon to become one of his plural wives, Joseph taught her:

"Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. …That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. …Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." (see Mormon Enigma, 111, including footnote)

This teaching -- in the context of secretive, illegal polygamous marriage -- opens the door wide for credulity and confusion. I wonder how many unborn babies have died because of it.

Prophet Counsels Against Being "Unequally Yoked"

2007-01-19T15:10:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

During the Priesthood Session of last September/October's General Conference, LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley spoke to the men and boys of the Church, urging them to be worthy of the LDS priesthood. President Hinckley instructed them to shun unclean thoughts, pornography and abuse of any kind. He told them to watch their language and stop dressing in a "slouchy manner." Then he said,

I call your attention to another matter that gives me great concern. …young women are exceeding young men in pursuing educational programs. And so I say to you young men, rise up and discipline yourself to take advantage of educational opportunities. Do you wish to marry a girl whose education has been far superior to your own? We speak of being "unequally yoked." That applies, I think, to the matter of education. ("Rise Up, O Men of God," Ensign, November 2006, 60)

When President Hinckley said, "We speak of being 'unequally yoked,'" I can only think he was referring to the New Testament passage where the apostle Paul says,

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. (2 Corinthians 6:14)

Of course President Hinckley was not suggesting that women with higher educations fall under the category of "unbelievers." He must have thought to broaden Paul's teaching on being unequally yoked.

For the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that President Hinckley is a true prophet and, while speaking in his official capacity as such, was giving prophetic counsel. He said the idea of being unequally yoked applies to the level of education achieved by each individual in a potential "couple." If the biblical command is to not be unequally yoked, and being unequally yoked is defined as being married to someone with a differing level of education, then the prophetic counsel given by President Hinckley boils down to this: Marriage must only take place between partners who are equally educated.

Have I got that right?

In the Priesthood Session of the October 2000 General Conference, President Hinckley gave another bit of prophetic counsel which, while on a different topic, was similar to the counsel on education in that it spoke to what constitutes proper behavior among Church members. On this occasion President Hinckley said,

The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also "the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes." We do not, however, take any position "on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings" -- one pair. ("Great Shall Be the Peace of Thy Children," Ensign, November 2000, 52)

Since President Hinckley gave his counsel against more than one set of pierced earrings per woman, the number of earrings in a Mormon girl's ear has become somewhat of a benchmark of her willingness to obey the prophet. Consider this story related by an LDS apostle in last month's Ensign:

Sister Bednar and I are acquainted with a returned missionary who had dated a special young woman for a period of time. He cared for her very much, and he was desirous of making his relationship with her more serious. He was considering and hoping for engagement and marriage. This relationship was developing during the time that President Hinckley counseled the Relief Society sisters and young women of the Church to wear only one earring in each ear.

The young man waited patiently over a period of time for the young woman to remove her extra earrings, but she did not take them out. This was a valuable piece of information for this young man, and he felt unsettled about her nonresponsiveness to a prophet’s pleading. For this and other reasons, he ultimately stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times. The young man was quick to observe that the young woman was not quick to observe. (David A. Bednar, "Quick to Observe," Ensign, December 2006, 31)

I wonder. Did President Hinckley's counsel against young men marrying women with unequal educations result in faithful members being quick to observe? Did the morning of October 1st, 2006 dawn over a Temple Square littered with the broken engagements of people who had planned to marry outside their level of education? If not, I wonder why not, for according to LDS Apostle James Faust,

We have been promised that the President of the Church will receive guidance for all of us as the revelator for the Church. Our safety lies in paying heed to that which he says and following his counsel. (Quoted in "Following the Prophets: A Book of Mormon Perspective," Ensign, July 2000, 22)

Be that as it may, I believe President Hinckley fails in his interpretation of what the Bible means when God tells us not to be "unequally yoked." Putting the passage in its context, Paul is making an impassioned plea to the Corinthian church to be holy.

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Therefore, "Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you." "I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the LORD Almighty." Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1)

Is this biblical passage really talking about unequal education in marriage? God is telling the Corinthians -- and us -- not to unite with unbelievers,* for they walk in darkness and dishonor God.

What does a college degree have to do with that?

* That is, false apostles (2 Corinthians 11:2-4), and perhaps idolaters (1 Corinthians 10:14)

Utah's Rich Beer-Making History

2007-01-17T13:56:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

The Salt Lake Tribune published a lighthearted article yesterday: "Beehive State Brew". In it, journalist Kathy Stephenson takes a look at the history of beer in Utah. She writes,

[Tourists to Utah] likely have heard plenty of tales of Utah's teetotaling ways.

But few visitors -- not to mention some longtime residents -- may not realize that the Beehive State has a rich beer-making history. And it began shortly after the Mormon pioneers arrived.

No kidding!

Ms. Stephenson interviews two people in her article. One is Utah resident Stan Sanders, a collector of Utah beer memorabilia. The other is Del Vance, author of the new self-published book, Beer in the Beehive: A History of Brewing in Utah. I was surprised by much of the information in the article; you might be, too. Here's a bit of it to wet your whistle.

"At one time, there was an awful lot of brewing going on in Utah," says Sanders, who will turn 80 this year.

Indeed, Utah was once the crossroads of the West, so there were plenty of travelers stopping in for a drink. But that couldn't account for all the beer that was consumed, said Sanders, during a recent interview at his Salt Lake City home. The locals had to be downing their fair share as well.

"I know they say the Mormons don't drink [alcohol]," he said, "But I don't know who else drank it."

…"The early pioneers seemed to live by a different set of rules than today," Vance wrote. "They believed in moderation rather than total abstinence from alcohol. Like the Puritans before them they didn't consider beer to be liquor -- yet."

For example, a Mormon named Richard Bishop Margetts started Salt Lake City's Utah Brewery… The brewery claimed to produce up to 500 gallons -- about 16 barrels -- of "good lager beer" a day, according to Beer in the Beehive.

While focused on beer, Vance's book does mention the fact that Mormons produced their own brand of whiskey, called Valley Tan. It was considered one of the better brands in the West and earned praise from many, including British adventurer Captain Richard F. Burton and Mark Twain.

Even the Mormon-owned department store, Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution (ZCMI) sold beer, wine and liquor at its downtown store.

"By 1870, three-fourths of the state's revenue came from the sale of alcoholic beverages," said Vance.

Prohibition, of course, ended all commercial brewing. (Ironically, Utah was the 36th and deciding state to ratify the 21st Amendment ending national prohibition.)

By then, however, the attitude toward liquor had permanently changed in the state. The Word of Wisdom -- a code of health which prohibits Mormons from consuming alcohol and other harmful substances -- may have originated in 1833, but not all Mormons followed it strictly until 1921, when adherence was required in order to be worthy of entering a sacred church temple.

Put Away Childish Things

2007-01-15T11:57:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

Last week Jeannie Berg posted an article on Blue Oregon: "Gordon Smith on Iraq -- Did the Elders Make Him Do It?" Ms. Berg questioned the recent about-face of Oregon Senator Gordon Smith regarding his position on the war in Iraq. In her article, Ms. Berg wondered if LDS Senator Smith's "new found opposition to the war" was in some way related to indicators that his spiritual leader, LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, had recently changed his position on the war.

Ms. Berg's hypothesis was interesting, and was made with supporting evidence. Though she left no doubt as to what conclusion she had reached based on the pertinent data, her article was primarily asking the question.

Beyond the basic idea of how much -- or even if -- Senator Smith's political decisions are influenced by his Prophet, the ensuing comments from readers are more interesting still.

Many of the comments left by readers were reasoned responses to the issues raised in the article; but too many others were impulsive, emotional reactions from those who took offense. Consider a few:

This post appears to be a thinly veiled attack upon Gordon Smith's religious affiliation.

Unbelievable! I thought you Democrats were the "party of tolerance" and yet here Jeannie is openly criticizing [sic] Senator Smith's Mormon faith.

Read her post, and where she says "Senator Smith" put in "Senator Wyden" and where she puts in "Mormon" put in "Jewish". If a republican had written something like this, every one of you would be outraged and call the author a bigot.

… I think you ought to ban Jeannie from ever posting an original article ever again.

Ms. Berg… You are ignorant of the Church. You are also a bigot. You are disgusting.

Come on Jeannie, use your head and get off the "I hate Mormons" bandwagon. I am amazed at just how many well educated generally sophisticated Americans give up all logic when they talk about Mormons.

If you read the article you'll see that Ms. Berg did not attack Mormons or Mormonism. She did not make any bigoted statements. She did not criticize Mormonism in any way. She even praised Senator Smith's deep commitment to his faith. Ms. Berg asked a valid question -- and brought a firestorm down on her head.

Interestingly, it wasn't so much that people were upset over the question of Senator Smith's "new found opposition to the war"; they were upset that Ms. Berg dared to ask whether the LDS Church might have an influence on politics. These readers were offended by the question, and they reacted with resentful indignation.

Is this what we've come to? Have we become so uncouth that we can no longer entertain different points of view? Have we lost the ability to present reasoned arguments in an effort to defend or persuade?

Apparently, author Peter Wood thinks so, or he thinks something akin to it. Dr. Wood has recently written a book titled A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now. Stanley Kurtz reviewed the book for National Review Online earlier this month. According to the review, the gist of the book is an examination of what the author terms "New Anger," which, in its definition, is juxtaposed against America's former model of "Old Anger."

Here's an excerpt from the review:

Before we lionized all those angry anti-heroes -- from Jack Nicholson in the movies, to John McEnroe on the tennis court -- Americans admired the strong silent type: slow to boil, reluctant to fight unless sorely provoked, and disinclined to show anger even then. Gary Cooper in Sargent [sic] York comes to mind. Old Anger was held in check by ideals of self-mastery and reserve. As Wood puts it, "Dignity, manliness, and wisdom called for self-control and coolness of temper." The angry man, Wood reminds us, was once thought a weak-minded zealot, bereft of good judgment and prey to false clarity.

…There was a time when Americans strove to train themselves away from actually being angry -- a time when even the private, inner experience of rage felt shameful and was shunned. Yet in compensation for the inner sacrifice and discipline demanded by the art of self-mastery, Americans experienced a mature pride in "character" achieved. In what Wood calls that "now largely invisible culture" of Old Anger, refusal to be provoked was its own reward.

That was then. America's New Anger exchanges the modest heroism of Gary Cooper's Sargent [sic] York for something much closer to the Incredible Hulk. New Anger is everything that Old Anger was not: flamboyant, self-righteous, and proud… The Civil War, and America's past political campaigns, may have witnessed plenty of anger, yet not until recently, says Wood, have Americans actually congratulated themselves for getting angry.

New Anger is nowhere more at home than in the blogosphere, where so far from being held in check, look-at-me performance anger is the path to quick success.

I think this hits the nail squarely on the head. The times, they are a-changin'. Unfortunately, rather than our culture becoming more refined, we've become a people who glory in behaviors which were once rebuked as childish.

The Bible has plenty to say about anger and offense. Most people are familiar with this Proverb:

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Proverbs 15:1)

Here's another one we'd all do well to keep in mind:

A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense. (Proverbs 19:11)

Mormonism Now and Then

2007-01-12T12:17:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

There's almost nothing in the news these days about Mormonism that isn't primarily about Mitt Romney. But usually buried somewhere in these articles is at least a short statement about the religion Mr. Romney embraces. This week an article appeared on AmericanThinker.com, "Mitt Romney: A Leader for America" by Amy D. Goldstein. Consider her mention of Mormonism:

As for those who seek to harm Romney's candidacy, by sowing discomfort with his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day [sic] Saints, they should learn more about this religion with American roots. Portraying Mormonism as the religion of the 1800's is like evaluating Christianity without the Reformation or Judaism without the Talmud.

My question: How so? Unfortunately, Ms. Goldstein doesn't give her readers any clues as to what she's referring.

Mormonism is based -- then and now -- upon the premise that God speaks through a living prophet. The prophet's words, spoken in an official capacity, are binding on LDS Church members unless and until a revelation is received that changes what was previously revealed.

According to an LDS Student Manual:

"When any one except the President of the Church undertakes to proclaim that any doctrine of the Church has been modified, changed, or abrogated, we may know he is not 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost,' unless he is acting under the direct authority and direction of the President." (Teachings of the Living Prophets, 13-14)

This teaching on the official procedure and source for doctrinal changes was reiterated in 2005 in an article explaining the purpose and authority of priesthood quorums in the LDS Church. The article states that the LDS Prophet is the only person who

"…has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church.” (Apostle Boyd K. Packer, "The Twelve Apostles," Ensign, 9/2005, 17)

The abrogation of doctrine has occurred a few times in Mormonism, as in the cessation of the practice of polygamy, and the removal of the ban against Blacks holding the LDS priesthood. These were nineteenth and twentieth century doctrines of Mormonism, respectively; to portray them as current doctrines would definitely be in error.

However, most of the unique doctrines which defined Mormonism in the nineteenth century have never been rescinded; the religion today remains primarily the religion as it was in the 1800s, doctrinally speaking. As current LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley has stated,

"Those who observe us say that we are moving into the mainstream of religion. We are not changing. The world's perception of us is changing. We teach the same doctrine." ("Living in the Fullness of Times," Ensign (Conference Edition), 11/2001, 5).

The LDS Church has not changed its position on such things as:

The nature of man
The nature of God
The nature of scripture
Continuing revelation
The authority of living prophets
The power inherent in the LDS priesthood
The nature of authority within the Church, etc.

Modern LDS prophets may not talk a lot about some of the revelations and teachings of past LDS leaders, but they have never officially denounced or revoked these doctrinal positions, which leaves them intact and relevant for twenty-first century Mormonism.

I'd like to know what, exactly, Ms. Goldstein thinks comprises an unfair portrayal of today's Mormonism. How is twenty-first century Mormonism substantially different from that religion as it was in the 1800s (beyond the obvious issues of polygamy and the ban on Blacks)? It's easy to make a bald assertion such as Ms. Goldstein has, but backing it up with examples may prove to be a bit more difficult. As for me, I'd like to see a list.

Three Passages That Should Impact Christian Evangelism and Public Dialog

2007-01-10T11:19:00.000-06:00

by Aaron

Titus 2:15:

Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority.

An ambassador for Christ should deliver the word of God with authority. The impression should be given that what is being communicated in scripture¹ is ultimately God's perspective, and that God seriously means what He says. An alternative is to speak in a way that tickles postmodern ears: "Well, this is my perspective."

Yes, as Christians we rightfully believe that, having been given the Holy Spirit, God's perspective has, in important ways, become our perspective. In other words, God has given us His word that we might share His perspective on reality. But if we continue to qualify our statements concerning Biblical truth as coming from "our perspective," we are doing our audience a disfavor and are probably dishonoring the authoritative nature of God's word. To our postmodern audience, this gives the impression that what we are saying is relative to our own minds and life-experiences. In other words, what we are communicating isn't a clarion call heralded from the heavens, but a personal perspective that bears no authority.

Secondly, this is the type of impression that seems to imply that increased mutual "understanding," "tolerance," and "acceptance" is a higher goal than urgent persuasion, repentance, and conversion. "Now is the day of salvation!" (2 Corinthians 6:2) What better communicates the urgency of salvation: authoritative communication of God's word which (at least implicitly) calls for a response of repentance? Or offering our own personal perspective on things?²

2 Timothy 2:23-26:

Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting His opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

I love Paul's balance in this passage. In some ways, I feel like this is impossible, yet in other ways, I am encouraged by what seems realistic. What seems impossible is the tightrope we must walk of a Christ-like, perfect integration of love for people and passion for God's truth. What is refreshingly realistic is Paul's expectation that Christians continue to teach and correct, and that by using such an approach we will bring "evil" from our "opponents" which we must "endure."

We are not to be involved in "foolish, ignorant controversies" which distract us from focusing on things of primary importance. We should focus on the most important things: the nature of God and salvation.
We are not to be given over to quarrelling. We should give people some breathing room, and not feel inclined to repudiate every false thing they say. This is especially the case in private one-on-one settings, where we have more of a context for patience.³
We are to teach. This is different than simply "sharing our perspective." We are to teach God's perspective on things from His word. Christians have something to teach the world from God's word, and no matter how arrogant this seems to the postmodern culture, it is the ministry we have been given.
We are to patiently endure their evil response. Paul simply assumes "evil" in response to "teach[ing]." Paul goes on to write,
"preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching." (2 Timothy 4:2)

The sort of patience Paul calls for comes from having corrected, taught and reproved. You don't need that kind of patience if you're simply sharing your "evangelical, personal perspective," because you won't get the same sort of response.
We are to be kind to everyone and correct them with gentleness. We are to make it as easy as possible for them to see that we want the best for them. Mingled with our correction should be recognizable tenderness. The challenge is to do this even with people (influenced by postmodernism) that interpret correction itself as unkind. We should give no person a real basis for, before God's judgment throne, characterizing us as having been unkind. In one-on-one settings with strangers this might be as simple as giving another person a fair listen, shaking their hand and extending a warm greeting to them. In personal relationships kindness can be expressed by grieving with another person over their loss, doing small favors, or taking the time to be slow and careful in speech.
We have theological opponents, and these are the people we are to correct. People who reject Jesus Christ for who He is and what He has freely promised are "enemies of God" (Romans 11:28). Jesus said that loving enemies was more radical than loving friends. Mormons may be our friends as neighbors and citizens and fellow parents, but they are not friends in Christ (cf. 3 John 1:15). If a Mormon feels as though he is no longer our theological enemy, then we have removed ourselves from the context in which Jesus wants His radical love to shine.
The aim is the repentance of our opponent. This goes far beyond what seems to be the chief focus of contemporary interfaith, public dialog: "tolerance," "acceptance," and "mutual understanding." Our aim is that the other person would be convicted and sorrowful over their idolatry and unbelief, and turn to the God of the Bible. We want Mormons to be like the Thessalonian Christians. Paul said of them:
"[W]e know, brothers loved by God, that He has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction... For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come." (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5,9-10)⁴
We are to view these opponents as in the "snare of the devil." This should give us a sense of urgency, encourage us to pray for them, and cause us to be serious about the high stakes of their spiritual condition. Mormons who are not willing to embrace the Biblical portrait of Jesus Christ and clearly repudiate traditional Mormon doctrine on God have not yet been born again⁵. If they do not repent, they will go to hell with Satan and his angels. They are "following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2). Their works do not flow from the joy of having been freely accepted and justified by faith before a holy God. Like Paul testified of the zeal of the Jews, we can likewise testify of the zeal Mormons have for their church and for a significant kind of moral purity. But this does not lessen the tragedy of their condition, it rather intensifies it.
"Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Romans 10:1-4)

2 Corinthians 4:1-2:

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.

Paul assumes that we are going to be tempted to "lose heart" and "practice cunning and tamper with God's word" as we give an "open statement of the truth." But since we have this ministry "by the mercy of God," and since God can shine a light in their hearts that causes conversion (vs. 3-6), we should stick to directly speaking to the conscience of the Mormon. We do this reminding ourselves that we are "in the sight of God," because in the sight of man we are tempted to please man. It is mercy that we Christians even have the opportunity to be about the ministry of the gospel. Why then would we ever tamper with God's precious word?

Notes:

1. Titus is specifically being told to use his leadership position to declare the apostolic admonition of Paul. Positions of leadership within the Christian church are themselves subordinate to the authority of the word of God, and in 2 Peter 3:16, Peter identifies Paul's letters as scripture.

2. This is why I believe that public dialog with false teachers should probably take the form of civil but passionate debate.

3. Ross Anderson of Wasatch Evangelical Free Church in Roy, UT, notes the difference of nature between public and private dialog:

"[I]n a private dialog, if something I say is misunderstood, I can probe the level of understanding, and correct the misunderstanding, by further discussion with my friend. But if I say something in a public setting that is misunderstood..., then that misunderstanding is cast into the open and spreads like leaves in the wind. I cannot go back to each person who heard those remarks to assess the nature of their misunderstanding or to make clarifications... [P]rivate civility and public civility are not the same thing. I can challenge my wife (or a close friend) about an issue in private, with kindness and respect, in a way I would not do in a public setting. Regardless of how kind and polite I was being, I would not choose a busy restaurant or the lobby at church to tell my friend that he has a problem with body odor. I would not announce in a microphone that his zipper is down. In other words, it's not appropriate to hold a friend accountable in public in the same way I would approach him in private. So [a public dialog with such a person] is not really a valid model of a civil discourse between real friends. Simply for the reason that it is public, there's no way it can model the depth of confrontation true friends sometimes have."

His comments seem appropriate for those who are not able or willing to engage in civil, public debate with someone. Such persons should keep their evangelistic relationships in a private, personal setting. Taking them public would be inappropriate, since, not willing or able to publicly debate or forthrightly correct, one is not able to hold the other publicly accountable for what is said.

4. We cannot be content or optimistic over Mormon neo-orthodoxy which lacks remorse over traditional Mormon idolatry and heresy. If Mormon neo-orthodox persons, who at least in their language seem to have adopted new doctrines, were truly cause for optimism, they would weep and cringe over the sorts of past statements LDS leaders made concerning God and grace and personal worthiness. As it is, they seem to have no shame over them.

5. This is in contrast with the view of Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, who sees a person like Mormon BYU professor Robert Millet as a fellow brother in Christ.

All-Purpose LDS Missionaries

2007-01-08T21:36:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

The Jackson Hole [Wyoming] Star Tribune reported Sunday that non-Mormon students at Brigham Young University believe they are at a disadvantage when it comes to the required Book of Mormon courses. Ninety-eight percent of the school's students are Mormon, but the other two percent represent twenty other faiths; all students are required to take two courses on the Book of Mormon as well as additional religion courses.

A Buddhist BYU student from Taiwan said,

"Salvation, celestial kingdom, I'm not familiar with these words like the other students."

Therefore, she -- and other non-Mormon students -- would like to see the school resume offering a nonmember Book of Mormon class, as it did until the end of winter semester 2005. Paul Warner, who taught the nonmember class until his retirement, said,

"We just went through the book in a basic way so they could ask questions and not feel threatened by returned missionaries, seminary graduates or long-term members in class."

Several non-Mormon students have asked why the school will not resume the class for nonmembers, but have not received satisfactory answers. Therefore, they wrote a letter to the editor of the BYU campus newspaper in which they requested "an explanation for the decision, separate tests for nonmembers in regular religion courses and teaching assistants or TAs specifically for nonmembers."

Another student responded to these requests a couple of days later in the "opinion section" of the campus paper with his solution to the problem:

"TAs are here. They are called missionaries."

I'm not quite sure what this student meant. Was he saying that LDS missionaries are available to tutor nonmember students so they get good grades on their Book of Mormon course tests? Or that LDS missionaries are not only called to proselytize but also to serve as teaching assistants to BYU professors? Or was he suggesting that the way to breeze through the Book of Mormon classes is to convert to Mormonism? Is that the way to get better grades at BYU?

Whatever the problem-solving student meant, the non-Mormon students weren't too crazy about the idea. A student from Singapore said,

"We don't want missionaries persuading us. We have our own religion. It's not that we don't want to learn about Mormons, we just don't want to be graded on the same curve."

History of Fanaticism

2007-01-04T20:00:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

The January 15, 2007 issue of The New Republic includes an article by Damon Linker: "Taking Mormonism Seriously. The Big Test" (subscription only). I don't subscribe to The New Republic and so have not read Dr. Linker's article. However, it appears that Dr. Linker has struck a nerve in some people.

TNR Online is hosting a debate on this issue. On January 3rd LDS author and emeritus professor Richard L. Bushman weighed in. Dr. Bushman's response is accessible to registered users (free registration) and interesting to read. In a nutshell, he believes Dr. Linker has mischaracterized Mormonism. In my opinion, Dr. Bushman makes some good points; and some of his points are deserving of critical response. But I'll leave that to someone else.

The part of Dr. Bushman's response that I want to look at has nothing to do with Mitt Romney and today's politics, but rather with LDS history. Dr. Bushman wrote:

Joseph Smith ran up against the fear of fanaticism almost from the beginning. It was the chief underlying cause of the recurrent expulsions the Mormons suffered. When non-Mormons could find no specific infractions to warrant prosecution in the courts, they resorted to vigilante action to drive the Mormons out. The Mormon presence was unbearable because they were so obviously fanatics. Quite typically, the fear of fanaticism led democrats into undemocratic extremes. Mormons were deprived of their property and the right to live and vote in a supposedly open society. In 1846, after a decade and a half of recurring attacks in Missouri and Illinois, a body of armed citizens forced out the pitiful remains of the Mormon population in Nauvoo by training six cannons on the town.

Dr. Bushman makes it sound as if the early Latter-day Saints were mistreated only because people were afraid the Mormons might do something alarming. In fact, the Mormons did alarm their non-Mormon neighbors by engaging in very alarming behavior.

Consider this portion of a speech made by LDS leader Sidney Rigdon, on the 4th of July, 1838:

We take God and all the holy angels to witness this day, that we warn all men in the name of Jesus Christ, to come on us no more forever, for from this hour, we will bear it no more, our rights shall no more be trampled on with impunity. The man or the set of men, who attempts it, does it at the expense of their lives. And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seal of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed.

If it's ever reasonable to fear fanaticism, the citizens of Missouri had good reason to fear after hearing that speech. This was not just empty talk by a rogue LDS member. Sidney Rigdon was a very close associate of the Prophet Joseph Smith and impressed the Prophet so deeply with his July 4th oration that Joseph Smith had the speech printed up in pamphlet form and distributed across the Mormon counties of the state.

According to LDS historian Richard Van Wagoner, on October 18th, just a few months after Sidney Rigdon's threats,

Mormon raiders were able to ride out. Apostle David W. Patten, known by his Danite tide "Captain Fearnought," descended on Gallatin [Missouri] with a large contingent of men and, after plundering the small village, burned most of it to the ground. Then the marauders pillaged the Daviess County countryside, depositing their spoils, which they termed "consecrated property," in the bishop's storehouse at Diahman" (Sidney Rigdon, Portrait of Religious Excess, 234).

LDS History of the Church records that six days after this Mormon marauding and plundering in western Missouri, Thomas Marsh, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, swore out an affidavit in which he exposed a Mormon vigilante group called the Danites -- who had taken an oath to "support the heads of the Church in all things that they say or do, whether right or wrong" (History of the Church 3:167. Italics retained from the original). Furthermore, according to Mr. Marsh's affidavit,

The Prophet inculcates the notion, and it is believed by every true Mormon, that Smith's prophecies are superior to the laws of the land. I have heard the Prophet say that he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, "the Alcoran or the Sword." So should it be eventually with us, "Joseph Smith or the Sword." These last statements were made during the last summer. The number of armed men at Adam-ondi-Ahman was between three and four hundred. (ibid.)

The day after Mr. Marsh swore out this affidavit, on October 25th, 1838, a Mormon militia attacked Missouri state troops on the banks of the Crooked River (see Stephen C. LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, 137ff). The conflict between the Mormons and non-Mormons continued to escalate but came to a screeching halt five days later when 200 Missouri troops attacked the Mormon settlement of Haun's Mill, killing 18 Mormon men and boys. Joseph Smith soon surrendered.

A similar history attends the Mormon problems in Illinois.

It wasn't fear of fanaticism that caused the "recurrent expulsions" of the Mormons from their homes; fanatical behavior by the Mormons brought on the predictable consequence of determined resistance from the non-Mormons, which led eventually to aggression and hostilities all around. I'm not making a judgment call on who was right or wrong; the whole affair is far too complicated to sort out here. But I am saying history clearly reveals that the Mormons were not blameless victims of violence brought on by the "fear of fanaticism." Dr. Bushman, a history professor and author of numerous LDS historical books, knows this. I find it a bit ironic that Dr. Bushman would scold Dr. Linker with these words:

Your essay chooses not to look at the historical record, because specific facts are irrelevant in explicating fanaticism. ...There is no effort to give a balanced picture. Certain key facts or incidents are made archetypal. In unguarded moments or exceptional instances the true nature of the fanatic mind reveals itself.

Light and Life

2007-01-02T13:34:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

Even though Christmas is behind us, I'm not yet ready to let it go. Christmas brings such a wonderful, tender atmosphere. The warmth of family, the sparkle of lights, the renewed joy of the birth of my Savior. I love the Christmas carols and the candlelight worship service, all bringing Christ into focus -- where He always ought to be.

My favorite Christmas tradition in my home is the lighting of the "Christ candle." First thing on Christmas morning I read these scriptures:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. …In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-5)

Arise, shine; for your light has come! And the glory of the LORD is risen upon you. (Isaiah 60:1)

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12)

But the LORD will be to you an everlasting light, and your God your glory. (Isaiah 60:19b)

Then I light a pillar candle that burns throughout Christmas Day. The pillar represents Christ as my strength and essential support. The color of the candle, which changes each year, represents Christ's holiness and purity (white), Christ's sacrificial death for me (red), or Christ's steadfast promise of eternal life (green). The flame represents the everlasting light that is Jesus, given to the world at His birth. This burning candle reminds me and my family, during all the festivities and other traditions of Christmas Day, that God is with us -- Immanuel has come.

It was amidst this Christmas backdrop that I read an article in the LDS Church News titled "Christmas Gift."

On Saturday evening, Dec. 2, Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve told Salt Lake Big Cottonwood Stake President Ellis Ivory that his stake "might receive the biggest Christmas present ever."

The next morning, President Ivory realized what Elder Ballard was talking about: President Gordon B. Hinckley made a surprise visit to the stake conference.

"It was a real gift to us," President Ivory said. "The members couldn't believe that he was there. Many were so emotional that they couldn't sing. It was by far the most tearful conference that has ever been in the history of our stake." (Church News 12/9/06, 5)

As reported in Church News, President Hinckley spoke to the LDS stake members about Church membership. He said:

"…whenever you lead someone into the Church, you confer upon him or her blessings that can be had in no other way in all of this world."

"There is nothing you can do that would bless the life of anybody that is more important than leading to membership in this Church."

"…nothing will reel in greater happiness or bring more permanent and wonderful blessings, than leading someone into this Church."

According to the Church News report, President Hinckley concluded his remarks by speaking of the atonement of Christ as the "most important facet of all the facets of the gospel." As far as I can tell by reading Church News, this was the first time in his address that president Hinckley mentioned Jesus, and was but a very small part of the message.

Following President Hinckley, LDS Apostle Ballard told the congregation that it was a great blessing to be "schooled by the president of the Church and a prophet of the Lord," and that it is a privilege to "learn the great lessons" taught by President Hinckley.

Maybe because of it being Christmastime I'm more sensitive to this, but it struck me as strange that the focus and adoration of the LDS congregation were directed to the man Gordon B. Hinckley, rather than to Immanuel -- God with us.

It struck me as strange that a man claiming to be God's mouthpiece on earth used this opportunity to address the people by speaking primarily of the Church, rather than speaking first and foremost of Immanuel -- God with us.

It struck me as strange that a man hailed by millions as a true prophet of God taught that the greatest happiness and blessing available to mankind is LDS Church membership, rather than the incredible and unsurpassable blessing of Immanuel -- God with us.

In the early Christian church, just after teaching that "the Word was God" and "in Him was life, and the life was the light of men," the Apostle John wrote,

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. …the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him… (John 1:6-14)

A true prophet of God, sent to bear witness of Christ. Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest prophet of all (Matthew 11:11). While Gordon B. Hinckley bears witness of the LDS Church and the attendant blessings of membership, John bore witness of the true Light Who became flesh and dwelt among us.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! …I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God." (John 1:29, 34)

What an incredible message! What an incomparable blessing! Immanuel has come; God is with us.

Bound for Glory?

2006-12-28T12:05:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

While reading the Book of Revelation I was struck by Jesus' words regarding the final judgment of those whose names are not written in the Book of Life:

…the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (21:8)

Jesus here draws a distinction between those who belong to Him -- those who will "inherit all things," who will forever enjoy Him as their God, who will be His sons and daughters -- contrasted with those who will not receive blessings but will instead "have their part" in the lake of fire. These will not receive eternal life in God's presence, but will receive the second death: eternal punishment.

The list of sinful behaviors and attitudes Jesus speaks of reminds me of another list, this one found in LDS scripture. Doctrine and Covenants says:

But [these] received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus,… These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. (76:101, 103)

Several items on the biblical list and the D&C list match:

unbelieving/received not the gospel
sexually immoral/adulterers-whoremongers
sorcerers
liars

It sounds like both passages are talking about the same group of people. But according to the Bible, Jesus says these people will be finally consigned to the "second death" in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, while Doctrine and Covenants says these people will inherit glory in the Telestial kingdom of God.

Some Mormon leaders, including 10th LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, have suggested that sinners such as those listed above will spend limited time in the lake of fire and brimstone; they will be released as heirs of salvation after they have sufficiently suffered for their sins. However, Mr. Smith wrote:

Spiritual death is defined as a state of spiritual alienation from God -- the eternal separation from the Supreme Being; condemnation to everlasting punishment is also called the second death. In other words, the second or spiritual death,…is the final judgment passed upon the wicked… (Doctrines of Salvation 2:217)

In Mormonism there seems to be some variance of opinion on exactly what "second death" is, who is deserving of it, and how long it lasts. But in Christianity -- historically -- the second death has been understood to be final, permanent, and hopeless. In Revelation Jesus contrasts the second death with eternal life. Those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb receive the gift of eternal life, while those who have died in their sins receive their part -- the consequence of being an enemy of God -- which is eternal damnation.

But according to Mormonism, after the wicked dead come to their senses and repent, after they suffer for their sins for a sufficient time, they will receive an eternal home in glory. This glory, which they have earned by personally paying for their sins (see Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual Religion 325-325, 204), is described in LDS writings. The inhabitants of the Telestial kingdom will delight in an existence of far greater comfort and enjoyment than anything available on earth; a glory beyond mortal understanding. There will be no death, disease, infirmity, taxes, wars, bills or menial labor. The people will be free to socialize, travel and learn (Victor Ludlow, Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel,240-241). In fact, Joseph Smith reportedly said,

The telestial kingdom is so great, if we knew what it was like we would kill ourselves to get there. (see Richard Neitzel Holzapfel,The Heavens Are Open, The 1992 Sperry Symposium of the Doctrine and Covenant and Church History, 155)

According to Mormonism, those deserving of the Telestial kingdom have lived their lives in open rebellion against God. They have hearts that are hard and cold when it comes to Christ. They are not just misguided people who have given in to the temptations of sin more often than not; they have "refused to worship the true and living God" (LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 778).

Even if it were possible for dead people to pay their own sin debt by suffering for a finite period of time (it is not), after their debt is paid they remain what they have always been at their core: enemies of God. This is something Mormonism misses. It's not just about what we do, but about what we are.

Jesus did not come only to pay the penalty for our sins; He came to make us new creatures. He came to take away our guilt and bestow on us His righteousness. The Apostle Paul wrote,

He made Him [Christ Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Because of Christ's righteousness, the sinner who places faith in Him becomes righteous before God.

Spending time in prison does not change a hardened criminal into a law-abiding citizen. During his prison sentence he works off his debt to society; he may even resolve to "go straight" in order to avoid future punishment. But he isn't changed from the inside out -- not unless God intervenes and makes him a new creature.

And being a new creature is what Jesus talks about in the Book of Revelation. He says,

Behold, I make all things new…It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (21:5-8)

Seeing how Jesus puts it, it doesn't sound to me like that second set of people are bound for eternal glory. He who has an ear to hear, let him hear.

The Gift

2006-12-26T10:02:00.000-06:00

by Eric

All the hustle and bustle of the anticipated Holiday
      is quickly closing nigh,
And many frazzled shoppers can at last let out
      a collective great big sigh,

Their present-buying is done and all the
      cards are finally addressed,
The children have been put to bed as it’s time
      for them to get some rest.

Most of the world now awaits Santa Claus,
      he’s flying through the air,
He and his reindeer will deliver what all the
      elves have made to share.

So as everyone’s heads hit the pillows on this
      quiet Christmas Eve night,
Not a creature is stirring, and even the tiny mice
      are sleeping out of sight.

Many people are merely dreaming about what
      the Jolly Fat Man can lift,
Yet Someone more special is wanting to deliver
      a different kind of gift.

What kind of gift, you might ask? It’s something
      that can never get broken,
You would never have to wait in a return line,
      it’s much more than a token.

While the presents under the tree last usually an hour
      or two, maybe three,
What I am talking about goes on and on and actually
      right into eternity.

But just like the fake Rolex on the corner many
      charlatans want to imitate,
They will say this “gift” is what you work for,
      hurry up before it’s too late.

What if I pull out my wallet when I get a gift,
      what would the giver surmise?
No, we understand that a gift is a gift,
      this should not be a great big surprise.

And this is the way it is with the Babe
      who came to us in a smelly old stable,
Yet how unfortunate that so many consider this
      to be just an annual fable.

Immanuel, given to us two thousand years ago
      cannot be purchased in a mall,
This one--born, lived, and died before He was resurrected--
      offers a Gift to all.

Truly if we open up our hearts and receive this Gift --
      Jesus Christ to the earth,
There is nothing I consider more valuable
      or anything that has a greater worth.

Without the Father’s grace, mercy, and love,
      all of us share an eternally bad fate,
But receivers of the priceless Gift, it’s heaven we get,
      how amazing we now rate!

So this Christmas Eve, when everything is finished
      and you lay your heads down,
Remember the Gift given to those who believe,
      this is what they call Paradise Found.

2006-12-24T12:23:00.000-06:00

Of the Father's Love Begotten
by Aurelius Clemens Prudentius (348-413 AD)

Of the Father’s love begotten,
Ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha and Omega,
He the Source, the Ending He,
Of the things that are, that have been,
And that future years shall see,
Evermore and Evermore!

O ye heights of heaven adore Him;
Angel hosts, His praises sing;
Powers, dominions, bow before Him,
And extol our God and King!
Let no tongue on earth be silent,
Every voice in concert ring,
Evermore and Evermore!

Christ, to Thee with God the Father,
And, O Holy Ghost, to Thee,
Hymn and chant and high thanksgiving
And unwearied praises be:
Honor, glory, and dominion,
And eternal victory,
Evermore and Evermore!

Trying to make it more difficult to get to the facts

2006-12-22T09:34:00.000-06:00

by Bill

Larry Burkdall certainly understands the effectiveness of the World Wide Web. Burkdall, the president of the Latter-day Foundation for the Arts, Education and Humanity, recently made a plea on "The Collegiate Entrepreneurs' Organization of BYU" blog site asking for assistance in the organization's new effort to "drive down Church enemies from prominent search engine positions" and "teach the gospel of Jesus Christ via the Internet." Burkdall concedes that the Internet has become a formidable opponent to the Mormon Church's missionary efforts when he writes:

A missionary in England reported his "golden" contact excitedly consulting the Internet about Mormons after the first discussion. The investigator found a mountain of anti-Mormon material and immediately cancelled all future appointments with the missionaries…The LDS Church tracks about 6,500 anti-LDS Web sites in the English language, whose content dominates search results. Thousands more dominate search engine positions in other languages. Potential converts are abandoning the missionaries once they consult the Internet for more information. Only vast quantities of positive material, correctly optimized, can resolve this problem. We cannot drive the enemies of the Church off the Internet, but we can displace their prominent positions.

Now I admit I have a hard time believing that the LDS Church actually has personnel tracking 6,500 web sites. Perhaps they do. Regardless, I personally find this to be quite encouraging. However, if my mail is any indication, Burkdall's concerns are not at all surprising. I regularly receive emails from angry Mormons who insist that people should not be getting their information on Mormonism from sites like mrm.org (regardless of the fact that much of what we quote is taken directly from LDS sources). For some reason, a lot of Mormons do not want people reading stuff published by their own church.

Anyway, Burkdall's call for the Cavalry resulted in a serious backfire. The great majority of the comments posted on this blog were not encouraging at all. Instead, most of them were sharp rebukes, many from former Mormons who were BYU grads. Comments included:

"For people investigating the LDS Church, the Internet is their best friend, not some naive 19 year old missionary. If the LDS Church is true then why is not the advent of the Internet increasing conversion rates rather than decreasing them? Cults can not stand the light of the noon day sun, thus the bright light of the Internet magnifies the bizarre nature of Mormonism and its sordid history. A few clicks Googling Mormonism and the wise person will flee for their spiritual life. I clicked a few times, woke up, smelled the Postum and officially resigned my Mormon membership shortly after the Internet was born. I am a BYU alumnus."
"I resisted posting when I was first referred to this site. But, given two of the posts above, perhaps it won't be futile to add my ideas. I am also a BYU alumnus. I also have resigned my membership in the LDS church (after being a BIC member of over 60 years at the time of my resignation.) And, the Internet was instrumental in my disengagement and subsequent disaffiliation. It strikes me that your purpose, as noble as it may be, is oriented more toward "marketing" than it is toward 'product." As long as the missionary program, whether live or via the internet, relies upon marketing strategies and ignores the product, it is bound to fail. Unlike the LDS church, which has tens of thousands of representatives (missionaries) trying to sell its product, those who are "anti-Mormon" (your words, not mine) rely almost entirely on the internet, or the printed word. While you are stressing 'marketing', your opposition is concentrating almost entirely on 'content.' No 'business plan' in the world is going to succeed at making a 'sow's ear' appear to be a 'silk purse.' All in my opinion, of course."
"This reminds me of when Joseph Smith led a mob to destroy a printing press that revealed his secretive practice of polygamy (which led to his imprisonment at Carthage). You can attack the sources of unconvenient facts, but it just makes you look more like a cult. In the end, your attempts to stop free intercourse of ideas will only lead to unintended consequences. As an M.B.A., I suggest you open up more by responding to the information that you view as false more openly, as opposed to trying to remove your opponent's information. The latter makes you look like a cult. You can't stop the dissemination of information, and you shouldn't try."
"What does manipulating search engine results have to do with Arts, Education or Humanity. Sounds like you don't want people to exercise their free agency by gathering information before committing time, money and their soul to a questionable multi-level marketing scheme…errr…'church'"
"You are arranging deck chairs on the Titanic if you think this is going to be of any service in keeping people from finding out the truth about the Pearl of Great Price, the Kinderhook Plates, and Joseph Smith's zeal in pursuing married women when their husbands where on missions. As a BYU alum, I would encourage you to put your talents to use in making a difference in the real world, rather than trying to get higher search results trying to prop up the Church's sanitized view of history."
"I agree with the others who point out that the problem is not so much with anti-Mormons fighting the LDS Church. Instead it is the LDS Church's failure to address its history in an adequate and honest manner that is the problem. If I were you I would invest some effort into that. What you suggest doing here is dishonorable. Destroying the Nauvoo Expositor was one of the two stupidest things Joseph Smith ever did. Don't repeat his error in letter or in spirit. If you believe in something many people consider crazy, simply have the guts to own up to it. If you don't believe it, don't sell the edited list of your beliefs to others as though it were the whole story. I am sorry that the LDS Church cannot be clear about its position on history. I know it makes your life and their job that much more difficult."
"In my opinion, looking at a topic from varying points of view is healthy. It provides the researcher with a broad foundation of knowledge and when they reach a certain conclusion they 'know' they have solid information to back it up, in addition to whatever they 'know' in their heart. An acquaintance once said, 'The truth should withstand scrutiny.' What is the church afraid of? If the church were true, it wouldn't be so worried about it. I'm a BYU grad, returned missionary, etc, and I left the church not because of anything I read online but because I didn't like the temple ceremony and I read a book by a Mormon that gave me even more reasons not to like it."
"i like the plan. well actually, what i like is the fact that someone on an 'anti-mormonism' site linked me here."
"if there are instances where these sites are presenting false information, by all means, point them out. lets get the facts straight and lets remedy the misinformation with truths. but please, dont insult millions of internet users, mormons and search engine operators with your little gimmick of an attempt to game the system by sanitizing history and perpetuating the lies."
"Go for it! Then I'll laugh when I read media articles documenting how you tried to game the system to hide sanitized history and all the science refuting the Book of Mormon. The more the publicity the better, as the LDS Church withers under the spotlight. I'm also BIC, RM, BYU B.S. and M.Ed. alum, temple married, and active, until I started researching the lies, and subsequently left."
"Barkdull is not willing to let the natural course of things play out but wishes to artificially manipulate the superficial appearances of search engines to deceitful ends -- another example of what the church is underneath. It was fascinating to learn the ". . . Church tracks about 6,500 anti-LDS Web sites." It's so comforting to know Big Brother is watching. Perhaps it is tactics like this that is producing the backlash of members resigning enmasse and thousands of websites springing up to expose these nefarious deeds. It is perhaps asking for too much that rather than trying to cover up the church's dark underbelly Barkdull instead demand the church open its dark history, and its financial secrets, and turn from being a heartless, paranoid corporation to actually being, perhaps for the first time, an actual Christ-centered church!"

Ouch! Needless to say the page has now been taken down and replaced with a sermon by the late Mormon Apostle Neil Maxwell on the subject of repentance. Repentance? Do you think there is some irony here? Who should be repenting? The people who are trying to make it easier to hear both sides of the issue? Or the ones wanting to make it more difficult?

Assurances and Promises

2006-12-20T11:29:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

Here it is again. The LDS Church has once again been confronted with concerns from the Jewish community over the Church's inclusion of Holocaust victims and survivors in the LDS International Genealogical Index.

On Monday, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles demanded the LDS Church remove the name of late Jewish leader Simon Wiesenthal from the Index. The name was only recently discovered in the Church's database, which is used for tracking vicarious LDS temple ordinances performed by Church members in order to enable deceased persons to become Mormons in the afterlife.

The LA Times reports:

"We are astounded and dismayed that after assurances and promises by the Mormon Church that Mr. Wiesenthal's life and memory, along with so many other Jews, would be trampled and disregarded," Rabbi Marvin Hier, the Wiesenthal Center's founder and dean, said in a statement.

"Simon Wiesenthal was one of the great Jews in the post-Holocaust period. He proudly lived as a Jew, died as a Jew, demanded justice for the millions of the victims of the Holocaust and at his request was buried in the state of Israel. It is sacrilegious for the Mormon faith to desecrate his memory by suggesting that Jews on their own are not worthy enough to receive God's eternal blessing," Hier added.

The "assurances and promises" to which Rabbi Hier referred are those made (and allegedly broken) by the LDS Church over the last eleven years. In 1995 Jewish leaders and LDS Church representatives met and signed an agreement which sought to prevent the names of Holocaust victims being included in the Church's genealogical index. In 2002 that agreement was reaffirmed by both parties. In 2003 Jews accused the Church of not honoring the agreement. In 2004 this accusation was restated. In 2005 Jewish leaders met with LDS representatives to express their dismay that the Church had broken the agreement; which the Church denied. In May of 2006 the Jewish community raised the issue again; and now, in December 2006, the name of Simon Wiesenthal is found in the Index. No wonder Rabbi Hier is upset. (For more information on the history of this issue see Mormons Should Try Walking in Jewish Shoes.)

KSL TV out of Salt Lake City, Utah reports:

An official statement from the LDS church says: "In response to a request by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and in accordance with the commitments the Church made in 1995, no Church ordinance was performed for Simon Wiesenthal and his name was immediately removed from the International Genealogical Index."

There are hundreds of readers' comments about this story posted on the KSL web site. Many people seem to think the whole story is just persecution against the LDS Church. They think the Jewish community is over-reacting and should get over it rather than give the media something else to criticize involving the LDS Church. One person on the KSL web site remarked to someone with a differing opinion, "What was a positive story for the Church, you are turning into a negative story…" So the LDS Church accidentally baptizes in behalf of Jewish Holocaust victims -- "Who cares?" they ask.

The Jewish community cares. Rabbi Heir is quoted in the KSL report:

"We do not charge this was done maliciously." "But their good intentions is considered by others insulting because to people in our community, it sort of says, 'We're the gatekeepers of heaven.'"

According to second LDS President Brigham Young, the "gatekeepers of heaven" are angels who stand as sentinels, requiring "key words" and "signs and tokens" from any who wish to pass by them to gain eternal life (Journal of Discourses 2:31). The only place one can learn the required key words, signs and tokens is in a Mormon temple. And the only people admitted to Mormon temples are worthy Mormons.

Furthermore, Brigham Young taught,

"…no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are…" (Journal of Discourses 7:289).

So Rabbi Heir is right. The LDS Church does seem to believe it is the gatekeeper of heaven.

But read and understand the wholly trustworthy assurances and promises of Jesus:

"I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep… I am the gate; whoever enters through Me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. …I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:7-9)

LDS Church Public Education Campaign

2006-12-18T16:17:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

An article posted today on the American Spectator's web site suggests that the LDS Church is worried about the publicity Mitt Romney's presidential campaign may bring to the Church. "Mormonism in the Spotlight" says,

The Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is growing increasingly concerned about the public-perception hit the presidential candidacy of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney may have on the Mormon Church.

That's one reason the church is looking at what is being called a "public education" campaign that could reach a budget in the tens of millions in media buys for TV, radio and print.

"There is an expectation that some of the church's more archaic traditions and obscure points of history will become more widely publicized by Governor Romney's opponents in an effort to embarrass him and raise doubts about his faith in the minds of the public," says a New York-based media consultant who has heard buzz of the potential campaign.

Already, the Mormon Church runs a series of radio ads about family issues that are branded as messages from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is also a small TV campaign that runs occasionally highlighting the church and some of its faith-based publications.

But the current campaign is of a different sort, one that would be high profile in as much as the church would be openly discussing and clarifying points of the Mormon faith that have long been either misunderstood or misreported.

I, for one, would love it if the LDS Church would "openly discuss" and truthfully clarify points of Mormon doctrine in a public forum. Whether or not the Church really will launch such a campaign remains to be seen, but it's evident that this strategy is not yet in place.

An article appearing last Sunday at GoUpstate.com (The Spartanburg [SC] Herald-Journal) reports:

One obstacle Romney may face is that while Mormons consider themselves Christians, not all Christians consider Mormons the same way…

Benoit Duquette, a stake president in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hopes that public interest in Romney's campaign will spur interest in learning more about the church as a whole, and about its beliefs. Duquette oversees seven Mormon congregations in the Upstate, including those in Greenville, Spartanburg, Boiling Springs, Gaffney and Union.

"Once we know that Jesus is the Christ is central, the rest is just an appendage to that knowledge. Everything else revolves around that truth," Duquette said.

Mr. Duquette, in his remarks as an official representative of the LDS Church, hasn't helped to clarify Mormon doctrine at all. Instead, he continues promotion of a misunderstanding of Mormon doctrine by stating "Jesus is the Christ" without further explanation.

It's the same approach Mitt Romney takes when answering questions about his faith. The December 25, 2006 - January 1, 2007 issue of Newsweek begins an article about Governor Romney recounting an October meeting between this presidential-hopeful and evangelical leaders who were gathered together to discuss Governor Romney's Mormonism.

Richard Lee, a Baptist minister from Cumming, Ga., got to the heart of the matter. What did Romney really believe about Jesus Christ? Romney didn't hesitate. "When I say Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior, I realize that means something different to you than it does to me," he admitted. But he urged them to remember their shared beliefs: the faith that Christ was born of a virgin, was crucified and rose after three days. The ministers were pleased.

I'm guessing that if these evangelical ministers understood what LDS leaders have taught about the Virgin Birth they would not be pleased.

Here's the thing. In follow-up to a BYU student's earlier letter to the BYU NewsNet Readers' Forum, this letter appeared in the same Forum on Friday:

In response to the poor confused author of "Not a Christian?" (Dec. 13) who didn't know if he was Christian, allow me to clear a few things up for this poor guy. Christianity as defined by non-members means that a person believes in doctrines such as the trinity and transubstantiation (the sacrament literally becoming the blood and body of Christ upon consumption).

If you were to tell a "Christian" that you were a Christian, you would be wrong, since their definition is different from yours. In the LDS Church, we use the word Christian to define a follower of the gospel of Christ. So, by the Latter-day Saint definition, you are a Christian. But, according to the non-member definition, you are not a "Christian."

Leslie Kuykendall
Bakersfield, Calif.

That's the point. Historically, certain Christian terms have been defined and understood in specific and accepted ways. Mormonism came along almost 2,000 years later and chose to incorporate some of these same Christian terms, but define them differently -- and not tell the public that they have done so.

So if the LDS Church launches a multi-million-dollar public relations campaign that clarifies what is actually meant when a Church representative says Mormonism proclaims, "Christ was born of a virgin" or "Jesus is the Christ," I will be happy. I want people to know what official Mormonism is, in order that they may make informed decisions about their potential involvement with that religion. Therefore, until the day the LDS Church is willing to make full disclosure of the teachings of their prophets and apostles and the resulting official doctrines, you'll find me continuing an honest effort to do it for them.

Christian or Not?

2006-12-15T11:37:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

A Latter-day Saint student at BYU sent a letter to the BYU NewsNet Readers Forum this week. He wrote:

I grew up considering myself both a Christian and a Latter-day Saint. I heard of people claiming we aren't Christians, but I still felt comfortable in identifying with both titles. I never felt any wrong in doing this until I arrived at BYU and now suddenly, I'm wondering if I really am a "Christian" and I've been left confused. A year ago my old BYU Bishop compared some of our beliefs with those of "Christians." Just last week, my New Testament professor said that "Christians" believe the sacrament is the literal body and blood of Christ. Another professor mentioned how "Christians" believe that Christ was born on Dec. 24, but as Latter-day Saints we know otherwise. I've heard lots of my peers talk about our Christian friends and how they are so different as well. This has all led me to believe that as a Latter-day Saint, I am not Christian. That's good to know; now I won't knock up any fuss the next time a "Christian" tells me I'm not one of them. Thanks, BYU, for ending my confusion.

Alan Peters
Oak Lawn, Ill.

Well, Mr. Peters' BYU professors haven't really got a handle on what Christians actually believe, but the point is well made. Latter-day Saints want to be known as Christians, but the Mormon belief system doesn't fit the Christian model. And because of that, Mormons can't consistently live the idea that they are "Christians."

There is a distinction between what Mormonism is and what Christianity is; that there is a distinction comes out naturally in conversation and teaching. For example, the LDS Church made a big deal in March about the 50th anniversary of "the beginning of the preaching of the gospel in Taiwan," but the Christian gospel has been preached in Taiwan for over 300 years (see Mormon Coffee "Preaching Mormonism in Taiwan"). Obviously, there is a recognized difference between the LDS gospel and the Christian Gospel.

Perhaps Latter-day Saints could eliminate some of the confusion if they were to follow the examples set by earlier Mormon Church leaders. Instead of talking about what "Christians" believe, make the distinction as Brigham Young and others were fond of doing: speak of the "so-called Christians":

Brigham Young: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73).

Daniel H. Wells: "…but the so-called system of Christianity is not only an error and a snare, but is a monstrous iniquity fastened upon the children of men throughout the earth" (Journal of Discourses 24:320).

George Q. Cannon: "…no thinking man can admit that Christianity so-called -- I call it a false Christianity, untrue to its name -- satisfies the wants of humanity at the present time" (Journal of Discourses 24:185).

Bruce McConkie: "Christianity is the religion of the Christians. Hence, true and acceptable Christianity is found among the saints who have the fullness of the gospel, and a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (Mormon Doctrine, 132).

Wouldn't this kind of explicit language clear up a lot of confusion for both Latter-day Saints and non-Mormons alike? Perhaps this procedure should be written into the Associated Press Stylebook right next to the section on the proper use of the term "Mormon."

Mitt Romney and Mormonism

2006-12-13T11:00:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

There's a new video produced by JesusNotJoseph.com available for online viewing: "Mitt Romney and Mormonism." The introduction states,

[Mitt] Romney is a Mormon Republican who’d like to be the next president. People are asking the question: Will his religion affect whether or not evangelicals vote for him? That’s a good question. But to many of us evangelical Christians in Utah who witness to Mormons, we think there are more important questions. Will this be an opportunity for the public to learn about what Mormonism really teaches? Will the doctrines of Mormonism be accurately portrayed? Will people understand the differences between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity?

This video is more about Mormonism than it is about Mitt Romney.

What follows is 32 minutes of insightful information about the official teachings of the LDS Church. Springboarding from an interview Mitt Romney did on the Charlie Rose show on 5 June 2006, the video discusses six specific issues related to Mormonism.

When Judy Woodruff interviewed Governor Romney for the Charlie Rose show, she remarked,

There are some aspects of Mormonism that many Americans might not understand; the belief that Jesus Christ will appear again in the state of Missouri, or that God has a material body, that He was fathered by another God…

Governor Romney replied that Ms. Woodruff didn't have those LDS doctrines right, and that the "most unusual" thing about Mormonism is the story of Noah and the Flood. Therefore, "Mitt Romney and Mormonism" takes a look at these questions:

Will Christ Appear Again in Missouri?
Does God the Father have a Material Body?
Does God the Father have a Father?
Is the Great Flood the Most Unusual Belief in Mormonism?

Presented in the form of interview clips, noted Christians involved in ministry to Mormons draw on documented LDS sources to answer these questions clearly and definitively; all according to official LDS teachings.

The section on the most unusual belief in Mormonism is a fast-moving enumeration of unique LDS doctrines including such things as baptism for the dead, the endowment ceremony, the idea of the existence of many worlds governed by various Gods, and the individual doctrines contained within the LDS teaching on Eternal Progression. After watching this, the viewer is inclined to agree with Timothy Oliver who, at the beginning of the segment, said he thinks it is "disingenuous for Mr. Romney to suggest that belief in the Flood is the most unusual thing about Mormonism."

The next section of the video is titled Ambiguity, Transition, and Diversity in Mormonism. Here is discussed the observation (based on the experience and research of the interviewees) that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to receive straight-forward answers from Mormons about the doctrines Mormonism advocates. Indeed, though there is a big difference between "folk doctrine" and official LDS doctrine, many Mormons seem to be unaware of that fact.

A very interesting interview in this segment is with a returned Mormon missionary who remains active in his faith. Jason Larson states that Mormonism and Christianity are two religions for a good reason: they have "pivotal differences." Mr. Larson admits that the only real similarities between Mormonism and Christianity are some "common names and terms" used by members of both religions; but, he says, the definitions of these terms "at the core are completely different."

Finally, the video winds up with a look at the question "Should Christians Vote for a Mormon?" Cogent information and perspectives are set before the audience, which gives viewers some tools and thought-provoking ideas to consider as they evaluate and answer that question for themselves.

"Mitt Romney and Mormonism" is critical of the LDS belief system as it deviates from the Christianity embraced by the producers, but the information it imparts is accurate. It brings significant issues to light and thus is a valuable tool for those seeking answers to the "more important questions" we all should be asking.

Total truth? Or is everything relative?

2006-12-11T11:02:00.000-06:00

by Eric

A warning cry that some theologians and apologists have made for more than a decade involves what has been called "Postmodernism." Theologian Norman Geisler points to the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 as the end of Modernism (which he says began with Nietzsche's "Death of God" movement at the turn of the 20th century) and the beginning of the "Death of Truth." For many, especially in America, there is no such thing as "absolute truth." Rather, there's "your" truth and "my" truth, and the two can both be "true" depending on one's perspective.

This week I saw Postmodernism in all its glory as I served on a U.S. District Court case that involved a U.S. Border Patrol agent who shot an illegal alien accused of throwing a water bottle-sized rock at the agent. After listening to four days of testimony, a group of 12 of us were ushered into a side room to begin deliberations. Nobody wanted to be the jury foreman, so I volunteered because I believed I could help keep the jury organized and on target.

It took us about two hours to make a decision on four of the five counts, which seemed to be pretty clear-cut for most of us. Now we were down to the last felony count, assault on a federal officer. According to the testimony, the defendant and three other aliens were caught in the heavily-polluted Tijuana River by five Border Patrol agents as they were attempting to make their way into the U.S.

At first vote, it was six for guilty, five for not guilty, and one undecided. We pored over the evidence, which included:

three officers saw the defendant pull a rock out of the thigh-deep water and lift it up to throw it at the officer, who then shot the alien in the arm with his service revolver;
four people--including one of the aliens--had testified that the defendant put his hands in the water, which he denied ever doing;
the integrity of the defendant was doubtful, as he lied many times before in previous arrests and contradicted himself more than once on the witness stand.

After a full day of deliberations, we voted again: eight for guilty, three for not guilty, and one undecided. But I knew we were in trouble in ever reaching a unanimous verdict when I had the following exchange with one of the "not guilty" female jurors (Juror 5):

Me: Why are you saying that the defendant is not guilty?

Juror 5: Because, from my perspective, he never had the rock.

Me: But three officers saw the rock. The defendant's hands were definitely in the water, which the alien behind him in the river even admitted. His testimony on the stand showed that he was lying about other facts, and his own lawyer testified in his closing statement that his client had a checkered history and was not a 'model citizen.'

Juror 5: From your perspective and the perspective of the officers, the defendant had a rock. But from his perspective as well as mine, he did not. The evidence differs depending on your perspective.

Me: Are you even suggesting that truth differs depending on perspective? Is it even possible for the defendant to have a rock and not have a rock at the same moment of time? Wouldn't this violate the 'law of non-contradiction'?

Juror 5: As far as I am concerned, your truth is your truth, and my truth is mine.

Immediately, I knew that this first count was history and would have to be thrown out of court (which it eventually was by the judge). There was just no changing this juror's mind about her perspective on truth, as she even admitted to us that all the evidence in the world wouldn't change her mind about her feelings.

This scenario reminds me a lot of Mormons who insist that their feelings can be trusted, even if they contradict the facts. More than once I have been in conversation with a Mormon who has admitted, in one way or another, that the information I presented showing Mormonism as contradictory to the Bible sounded true. However, the mantra more than once goes like this: "I've prayed about the Book of Mormon and know it's true." This is in total disregard of the information that was just presented.

When truth becomes relative in a jury deliberation, it appears that a defendant could both commit a crime and not commit a crime at the same time. In the world of religion, one's feelings can supersede the known facts. The evidence becomes secondary to the feelings and personal opinions that a person might have. What a scary world this has become!

A God-fearing people

2006-12-08T14:27:00.000-06:00

by Sharon

I've been reading in the Book of Revelation. I've been quite affected by the imagery of God as recorded by the Apostle John. We find God seated on a throne covered in radiant color and glory, surrounded by myriads of myriads of angels and elders and other living creatures, falling before Him in worship. They tell us He is holy, holy, holy. They cast their crowns down before Him. They sing His praises night and day. This is a picture many of us hold closely in our hearts. But there's more.

Revelation also gives us this:

From the throne came flashes of lightening, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire… (4:5)

The creatures in heaven speak with voices like trumpets and thunder. By God's command they call out horses and riders who bring judgment to the earth: war, famine and death. They kill with sword, pestilence and wild beasts. They bring earthquakes and gales; every mountain is moved and the sky is rolled up like a scroll. By God's will the trumpets are blown and the earth is showered with hail and fire mixed with blood. Stars fall from heaven like blazing torches; an eagle flies overhead calling, "Woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth…"

Another angel flies overhead proclaiming "an eternal gospel." He says,

Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water. (14:6-7)

Yet another angel warns that those who don't fear God and give Him glory (i.e., those who align themselves with the enemy of God),

…will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of His anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night…" (14:11)

What rich and frightening imagery. Picture this scene and realize that God, in the midst of it all, is not dwarfed or obscured by these magnificent creatures and mighty events. He remains the overpowering Presence and focus of both heaven and earth.

I think most of us like to think about God in a far less fearsome way. We cling to His tenderness, His mercy, His image as Abba, Father. We say, "God is love; God is forgiving." This is true, of course. But we tend to emphasize these attributes of God and ignore His awesome power and His inherent wrath.

If we truly recognized God in His fulness, if we understood not only His love but also His judgment, we might understand what it means to fear God. If we truly feared God, who would dare to speak lightly or carelessly about Him?

Consider this from an LDS man who occasionally emails me:

The real reason that faithful Latter-day Saints cannot accept Evangelical-Protestant beliefs is simple, because your god is a LOSER…. For you, the choice is heaven or hell and either choice you make is made from fear and ignorance. Ultimately, this means that your god is a SADDEST and a LOSER.

Obviously, faithful Latter-day Saints do not share your same dismal view of deity. I think it's truly a shame that you don't have a more clearer description of your Creator and the Plan Of Salvation.

As for Latter-day Saints, our LOVING God came to seek and save that which is LOST. For us, this just happens to include EVERYONE.

This man seems to cling to certain attributes of God while neglecting others. If we truly feared God, who would dare to mock Him?

Consider these words spoken by Joseph Smith about the biblical God worshiped by Christians:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow -- three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. …All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God -- he would be a giant or a monster. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 372)

Or this:

I combat the errors of the ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the Gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth -- diamond truth; and God is my 'right hand man.' (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:78, emphasis retained from the original)

I tremble to think of "the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of His anger."

A poem by Stephen Crane comes to mind:

A Spirit Sped

A spirit sped
Through spaces of night;
And as he sped, he called,
"God! God!"
He went through valleys
Of black death-slime,
Ever calling,
"God! God!"
Their echoes
From crevice and cavern
Mocked him:
"God! God! God!"
Fleetly into the plains of space
He went, ever calling,
"God! God!"
Eventually, then, he screamed,
Mad in denial,
"Ah, there is no God!"
A swift hand,
A sword from the sky,
Smote him,
And he was dead.

The Book of Revelation reveals our fearsome God, a hater of sin and idolatry, a dispenser of fierce and righteous judgment. Yet at the same time He is our Rescuer and Redeemer who says,

Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." (21:3-4)

As John ended his recording of the Revelation, he cried out in joyful anticipation, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus!" I'm ready for that day. Are you?

Fair above all virgins

2006-12-06T14:40:00.000-06:00

by Bill

In the recently released movie titled, The Nativity Story, viewers are given a glimpse at what life was probably like for Mary and Joseph after it was learned that the espoused Mary is pregnant. Though I've heard pastors and theologians discuss the social ramifications of such a predicament, I can't recall any film that does so. Since the Christmas story is recounted in only a minimal amount of New Testament paragraphs, some artistic license naturally comes into play; but the film does utilize quite a bit of scripture and there is no doubt that the Christ-child is "God made into flesh."

Peggy Fletcher Stack offers some interesting insight on the LDS view of the mother of Jesus in her recent piece in the Salt Lake Tribune titled "Something about Mary." She notes that,

"Mormons will drag Mary out of the shadows of their faith again this season and plop her into the annual Nativity scene,"

but for most of the year, she says,

"Mary is largely tucked away -- respected for her submissiveness, admired for her faithfulness, but largely invisible."

Stack goes on to explain,

They do, however, believe she was a virgin when she conceived Jesus in her womb. The Book of Mormon, which Latter-day Saints believe was written some 600 years before Jesus' birth, predicts the Messiah will be born in Jerusalem of a "precious and chosen vessel." She would be "the most beautiful and fair above all other virgins," the LDS scripture says.

Most Mormons choose to stop there. However, Stack goes on to say,

But Mormons also believe that God has a body and that Jesus was his literal son. Early LDS leaders including Brigham Young speculated that Jesus was created in much the same way as every other child -- in the marriage bed. But only one partner was human.

There is no denying that several LDS leaders taught that God the Father physically impregnated Mary. In an official LDS Church manual, sixth Mormon President Joseph F. Smith taught:

Now, we are told that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death: but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven. (Family Home Evening Manual, 1972, 125)

The same manual carried the above illustration showing the figure of a man, woman, and child. On page 126 LDS parents are told they should use this to explain to their children "how Jesus was the only begotten Son of God." Daddy plus Mommy equals you; Heavenly Father plus Mary equals Jesus.

The above comments raise an interesting question, "How can a Mormon reconcile the notion that Mary "was a virgin when she conceived in her womb," and also believe LDS leaders who taught that Jesus "was created in much the same way as every other child -- in the marriage bed." Certainly these statements are mutually exclusive.

Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie obviously felt he had the solution when he wrote:

For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being. (The Promised Messiah, 466)

Traditionally, the definition of a virgin is a person who has never had sexual intercourse, and this is the definition historically held by Christians when it comes to Mary's conception. However, in order to defend the teachings of LDS leaders, McConkie is compelled to redefine this term. I find such an explanation to be very disturbing. I can only hope that Mormons are equally disturbed.