Will Pope Benedict become a Mormon after he dies?

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."

Commandment-keeping and God's Grace

My October, 2006 edition of Ensign just arrived. I wish more of my Christian friends who think Mormonism is abandoning its heretical past would take closer notice of what the LDS Church is still teaching; for instance, in an article titled “Plain and Precious Truths Restored.” On page 53, Clyde Williams, BYU assistant professor of Ancient Scripture, emphasizes the importance of commandment-keeping if a person hopes to achieve God’s grace.

Elder B.H. Roberts of the Seventy (1857-1933) explained how the unconditional nature of the Atonement in regard to Adam’s transgression and its conditional nature regarding men’s personal sins is a doctrine “peculiar to ‘Mormonism’…and is derived almost wholly from the teachings of the Book of Mormon. In that distinction the beauty and glory of the Atonement, the balanced claims of justice and mercy shine forth as no where else, even in holy writ, -- much less in the uninspired writings of men. It may be regarded as the ‘Mormon’ contribution to views of the Atonement of Christ, for it is to be found no where else except in Mormon literature.” The perfect relationship between the atoning grace of Christ and the obedient efforts of mankind is powerfully stated by Nephi: “We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). Furthermore, we are invited to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him.” When we deny ourselves “of all ungodliness,” then and only “then is his grace sufficient” for us (Moroni 10:32).

Think about it. Then and only then is his grace sufficient for us. There is nothing really new here that I haven’t heard before. Robert Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie said virtually the same thing when they also coupled 2 Nephi 25:23 with Moroni 10:32. They wrote, “Indeed, it is only after a person has so performed a lifetime of works and faithfulness -- only after he has come to deny himself of all ungodliness and every worldly lust -- that the grace of God, that spiritual increment of power, is efficacious” (Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon 1:295).

My question is, do these men really think they have “denied themselves of all ungodliness and every worldly lust”? If not, it seems clear by their own admission that the grace of God is not efficacious in their lives. If they think they have denied themselves of all ungodliness and every worldly lust, then I think they need to re-read 1 John 1:8, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

Mormon Circles

by Sharon

According to the LDS history web site, on this day (September 22nd) in 1827 Joseph Smith "received the golden plates from the angel Moroni on the hill where they were buried." Eyewitnesses reported that Joseph took the gold plates home and began translating them with the help of a seer stone -- that is, a stone Joseph placed in a hat and gazed at. When English words appeared on the stone, Joseph recited them to a scribe -- and the Book of Mormon was born. (see David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, page 12; see also A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1:129)

But years before the gold plates were discovered Joseph Smith used that same seer stone to find buried treasure for people who paid him for the service. In 1826 Joseph was brought before a justice to answer the charge that he was an imposter and was bilking people out of their money. (see Marquardt and Walters, Inventing Mormonism, pages 63-77) During the court proceedings Josiah Stowell, a man who had employed Joseph to find buried treasure, gave testimony.

I came across an interesting recounting of Mr. Stowell's testimony written by Abram W. Benton, a non-Mormon who lived in the area where the pre-trial took place. Mr. Benton's account was written in 1831 as a letter to the editors of the Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate. The account is reprinted in Dan Vogel's Early Mormon Documents, volume 4:

Josiah Stowell, a Mormonite, being sworn, testified that he positively knew that said Smith never lied to, or deceived him, and did not believe he ever tried to deceive anybody else. The following questions were then asked him, to which he made the replies annexed.

Did Smith ever tell you there was money hid in a certain place which he mentioned? Yes. Did he tell you, you could find it by digging? Yes. Did you dig? Yes. Did you find any money? No. Did he not lie to you then, and deceive you? No! the money was there, but we did not get quite to it! How do you know it was there? Smith said it was! (pages 97-98)

Mr. Stowell's gullibility and circular reasoning is easy to see in his testimony. When I read it, it made me laugh. But the fact that many Mormons use this same sort of circular reasoning in determining spiritual truth is no laughing matter.

Early LDS Apostle Anthon H. Lund said,

Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. His teachings prove that what he taught was divinely inspired. (Conference Report 1899, October 13)

What did Mr. Lund mean? We can rephrase his statement like this:

Joseph Smith's teachings were divinely inspired; therefore, he was a prophet of God. And because he was a prophet of God, we know his teachings were divinely inspired.

Does this sound a bit like Josiah Stowell?

In the April 2005 General Conference of the LDS Church we find these statements:

• We do not have to defend the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon defends him for us. (Boyd K. Packer, Ensign 5/2005, page 9)
  
  
• [The Book of Mormon] is a tangible thing that can be handled, that can be read, that can be tested. It carries within its covers a promise of its divine origin. (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign 5/2005, page 82)
  
  
• And upon the validity and truth of [Joseph's First] vision rests the validity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign 5/2005, page 81)

So Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon; and the Book of Mormon says of itself that it is divinely inspired; and we can believe that it is divinely inspired because Joseph Smith, who produced the Book of Mormon, had an encounter with God the Father and Jesus Christ; and we know Joseph had this encounter because he said so and a true prophet of God would not lie; and we know he's a true prophet of God because he produced the Book of Mormon; and the Book of Mormon says it's divinely inspired; and since the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired Joseph must be a true prophet because a false prophet could not produce a truly divine book; after all, God appeared to Joseph in the woods and called him to be a prophet…

I get dizzy thinking about it.

If you are a praying person, please pray with me for all those lost in "spiritual" circular reasoning, that God would grant them eyes to see and a reasoning mind to understand.

After All We Can Do

Last week I wrote about "Trevor," a man who took issue with a comment I left at a news web site (see Searching for Salvation: The Bible or TV Guide? My comment set Ephesians 2:8-10 ("For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves…") against a Book of Mormon passage, (2 Nephi 25:23: "…for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do"). Trevor accused me of deliberately distorting what Mormons believe.

I can only guess at what Mormon beliefs Trevor thought I was distorting, because he gave no particulars. So let's assume for the sake of argument that he thought I distorted the meaning of the Book of Mormon passage.

My proposition was this: In the Bible God offers sinful people eternal life as a free gift through Jesus Christ; the Book of Mormon promises salvation only after all we can do. There is no dispute regarding the wording of the respective passages; one does say we are saved by grace through faith, the other that we are saved by grace after all we can do. The question, then, would be in the interpretation. Therefore, take a look at what some LDS authorities and authors have said about the 2 Nephi passage and the LDS doctrine of salvation:

“What is meant by 'after all we can do'? 'After all we can do' includes extending our best effort. 'After all we can do' includes living His commandments. 'After all we can do' includes loving our fellowmen and praying for those who regard us as their adversary. 'After all we can do' means clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and giving 'succor [to] those who stand in need of [our] succor' (Mosiah 4:15)—remembering that what we do unto one of the least of God's children, we do unto Him. (See Matt. 25:34-40; D&C 42:38.) 'After all we can do' means leading chaste, clean, pure lives, being scrupulously honest in all our dealings and treating others the way we would want to be treated. ("After All We Can Do," Christmas Devotional, Salt Lake City, Utah, Dec. 9, 1982; quoted in Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson.)" ("Savior accomplished atoning sacrifice through His grace," LDS Church News, 02/03/96, page 14.)

“President Harold B. Lee treated the topic of working out one's salvation in one of his books, Stand Ye in Holy Places: 'We hear much from some persons of limited understanding about the possibility of one's being saved by grace alone. But it requires the explanation of another prophet to understand the true doctrine of grace as he explained in these meaningful words: "For," said this prophet, "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 Ne. 25:23.) Truly we are redeemed by the atoning blood of the Savior of the world, but only after each has done all he can to work out his own salvation.'"("Work out salvation with fear and trembling," LDS Church News, 09/14/91, page 14.)

“As is the case with all gospel principles, the doctrine of individual accountability grows out of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Teaching these principles, Nephi testified that we are saved by grace, but only "after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23.) It is by the grace of Christ that we have granted to us the materials of life with which we can build, but God does not do the building for us. The responsibility of building with those materials is ours. The plan of salvation is in a large measure a do-it-yourself project” (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Seeking the Spirit, page 99.)

“In the plan of salvation God does for human beings only what they cannot do for themselves. Man must do all he can for himself. The doctrine is that we are saved by grace, 'after all we can do' (2 Ne. 25:23)” (Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible!, page 186.)

“To explain how much confidence we should have in God, were I using a term to suit myself, I should say implicit confidence. I have faith in my God, and that faith corresponds with the works I produce. I have no confidence in faith without works. My faith is, when we have done all we can, then the Lord is under obligation, and will not disappoint the faithful; he will perform the rest” (President Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, page 155.)

It's clear from these teachings that the LDS doctrine on salvation is that it is given through grace only after all we can do—which is how I presented it in the Willamette Week comment. It's pretty hard to see how that could be compatible with Ephesians 2:4-9:

"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Since I did not "deliberately distort" this point of "what Mormons believe," perhaps Trevor was referring to the comment that Arthur Kane "decided to jettison the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon." I'll blog about that later this week.

---

I have previously blogged about the LDS doctrinal claim which states Jesus makes up the difference between our innate or self-achieved righteousness and the righteousness God requires. To read about this take a look at Insurmountable Debt.