Misunderstanding Mormonism

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 The true church that Jesus instituted was withdrawn from the earth, leaving behind nothing but a counterfeit.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.

Mormon Behavior, Mormon Speak

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?

Negative Views of Mormonism

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).

To Be Thought Acceptable

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.

Sticks and Stones

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

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

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.

Mormonism Now and Then

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.

LDS Church Public Education Campaign

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?

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."

'Mormon' Morphology

by Sharon

The recent arrest of Warren Jeffs, prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has The [non-fundamentalist] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerned again about public perception of the Mormon Church and polygamy.

The LDS Church issued a statement on Tuesday reiterating its claim that the term "Mormon" is "universally understood to refer to the 12-million member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Therefore, the Church wants the media to stop using the word "Mormon" in connection with any LDS group that adds an extra letter to the acronym of their name (e.g., FLDS - Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; or TLDS - True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; or RLDS - Restoration Latter Day Saints).

In addition, this request to restrict the use of the term "Mormon" to Latter-day Saints (note the hyphen) should be understood to also exclude any other group that traces the source of its doctrine to LDS founder Joseph Smith (e.g., the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days; or the [Original] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [i.e., Strangites, who prefer to be called Latter Day Saints but will also allow the term "Great Lakes Mormons").

The LDS news release attempts to clarify this complicated issue for the media:

Quite simply, calling Warren Jeffs a Mormon is misleading and confusing to the vast majority of audiences who rightfully associate the term “Mormon” with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The following information may be helpful in further drawing the distinction:

Warren Jeffs Is Not a Mormon
Warren Jeffs is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and never has been.

Mormons Do Not Practice Polygamy
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890.

There Is No Such Thing as a "Mormon Fundamentalist" or "Mormon Sect"
The term "Mormon" is a nickname commonly applied to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as a "Mormon fundamentalist," nor are there “Mormon sects." A correct term to describe these polygamist groups is "polygamist sects." The inclusion of the word "Mormon" is misleading and inaccurate.

Associated Press
The Associated Press Stylebook states, "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."

The LDS news release suggests journalists consult the LDS style guide when reporting on the LDS Church. The style guide says:

The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.

While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.

Is everyone getting this?

Boiled down, I guess what the LDS Church is saying is We are not 'Mormons'; but if you insist on using the word, it may only be used when talking about us. No wonder the media is confused.

Furthermore, consider this. The Church says the word 'Mormon' is not "authorized," but it is "rightfully" associated with Latter[hyphen]day Saints. My question is: Why does the LDS Church assume the authority to "authorize" the proper use of that word? What about the Latter Day Saints [sans hyphen] who are pleased to describe themselves as Mormons? This LDS assumption of authority reminds me of an experience I had in 1999.

I was participating in a Christian outreach outside the LDS St. Paul Temple. For several days our small group had offered literature to cars as they left the parking lot at the side of the building. One evening we had several extra people; so two of us moved to the sidewalk outside the front of the temple. After a few minutes an agitated LDS security person arrived and informed us that we could not stand there because it was not the "authorized" spot. We asked, "Authorized by who?" The LDS man had no answer; nobody had the authority to "authorize" where we could stand on public property to exercise our First Amendment rights.

Nor does the LDS Church have the authority to "authorize" who may or may not use the term 'Mormon,' or how it is to be used.

I agree that words ought to have specific meanings and ought to be used properly according to their precise definitions in order to promote effective communication. Yet this situation seems wryly ironic. Against the protests of those who define the word "Christian" according to historic doctrinal criteria, the LDS Church insists it has the right to call itself a Christian church while defining the term "Christian" however it so chooses. Given that, it seems that the Mormon Church should accept the prerogative of Latter Day Saints (or anyone else, for that matter) to define and call themselves 'Mormon' if they are so inclined. After all, turnabout is fair play.

Mormon Missionaries Confront Misperceptions

by Sharon

The ChronicleHerald of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, recently ran an article about Mormon missionaries serving in that area. There have been a plethora of such articles in the past few weeks that have crossed my desk. From Canada to Australia, from Florida to the San Francisco Bay area and places in between, newspapers have been telling their readers about the Mormon missionaries walking the streets of their towns. All of the articles have been very similar in content. They talk about the missionaries' long hours, their financial sacrifices, their limited contact with family back home (Christmas and Mother's Day phone calls and once-a-week letters), and how apart from the fact that they are serving a mission these boys are just like any other young men -- they like girls and fast cars.


In addition to the human interest feel-good elements reported in these articles, there are two additional themes that run through them all: rejection and misperception. With but one exception, all of the dozen or so articles I've read make a point of mentioning "slammed doors," "rebuffs," "rejection," "abuse," and "nasty people" who "yell" and "oppose" the LDS missionaries. Also with few exceptions these reports all tell readers that Mormonism is terribly misunderstood.

The "myths" highlighted in the articles range from people thinking Mormons churn their own butter to thinking Mormons aren't Christians; but by far the most common reported misperception encountered by the missionaries has to do with polygamy.

Apparently, although the LDS Church has received plenty of recent media coverage all over the world that sets the record straight, people persist in asking LDS missionaries about their church and polygamy. Though the majority of the recent articles about Mormon missionaries mention the misperception along with the standard LDS Church disclaimer that polygamy is a thing of the past, the ChronicleHerald article goes a bit further. Here the reader is given the reason nineteenth-century Mormons practiced polygamy:

Many people are fascinated by the early history of the polygamous Mormons, and so the elders explain. In the early days of the Mormon experience, persecution was rampant. Mormon families moved from region to region, heading West in their wagon trains and running into trouble in many places.

With Mormon men dropping like flies at the hands of lynch mobs, many widows were left with young children. They often banded together with other families for protection, becoming, in essence, families with one husband and multiple wives.

Only about two per cent of church members were polygamous back then, the elders say. Those who wanted to keep the polygamy tradition left the church, breaking off into splinter sects. A few such groups remain to this day. "They give (our) church a bad name," says Elder Bevan.

There are three historical claims made or implied here:

• Vast numbers of Mormon men were being killed off by enemies
  
• This left more women than men; not enough men to allow for monogamous families
  
• Only two percent of LDS Church members engaged in polygamy

We might be tempted to think Elder Bevan's claims are his alone; however, when I toured Brigham Young's Lion House in Salt Lake City earlier this summer the sister missionary leading my tour said the same thing. Tours at official LDS sites are scripted; therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that these historical claims are officially promoted by the LDS Church.

The question is, are the claims accurate?

Beginning with the percentage of early Mormons practicing polygamy, LDS historian Richard S. Van Wagoner wrote:

The most comprehensive study to date, detailing forty 1880 Mormon towns, found that almost 40 percent of St. George households were polygamous compared to 11 percent in nearby Harrisburg/Leeds. In Rockville only 10 percent was polygamous while 67 percent of Orderville was. In South Weber, north of Salt Lake City, 5 percent practiced polygamy, compared to nearly 30 percent of Bountiful. Other studies found a 15 percent incidence in Springville, while 63 percent of Mormon men in the Mexican colonies had more than one wife. (Mormon Polygamy: A History, second edition, page 91)

Furthermore, Mr. Van Wagoner wrote:

Some statements have suggested that the number was as low as 3 percent, but these estimates are usually based on figures given during the Reed Smoot hearings when a lower percentage was politically advantageous to the [LDS] church. Stanley S. Ivins in his analysis estimated 15-20 percent of Mormon families in Utah were polygamous. (Ibid., page 103, footnote 1)

Regarding the second historical claim, that polygamy was necessary because there were more men than women, LDS Apostle John Widtsoe wrote:

The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more females than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church...

The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States… The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence. (Evidences and Reconciliations, pages 390-391)

In addition, Joseph Smith's understanding of the reason for polygamy could not have been the same as that which the Mormon missionaries are promoting. Of the 33 documented women this founding Prophet of the LDS Church married, 11 of them had living husbands at the time they were (also) wed to Joseph Smith. (See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, pages 4-7)

Finally, the claim that Mormon men were "dropping like flies at the hands of lynch mobs" or other enemies is just plain untrue.

It is true that 17 Mormon men and boys were killed at Haun's Mill in Missouri in 1838, many years before polygamy became a known doctrine in the LDS Church. But beyond this there is no historical data to support or even suggest widespread murder of Mormon men. Though I searched for several hours, I was unable to find any specific documentation regarding the number of Mormon deaths due to persecution in the early Church. Given the emphasis the LDS Church places on its pioneer history and persecution, it is implausible to think that an actual murderous decimation of the early Church's male population would go unreported.

So while claiming to clarify "myths" and "misperceptions," Mormon missionaries, as representatives of the LDS Church, merely swap one set of misconceptions for another. They tell a story far more to their liking, but in the words of LDS Apostle Widtsoe, it "fails from lack of evidence."

(For more information on the massacre at Haun's Mill and early violence against Mormons click here.)

Mormon Prayer

A news story today from BerkshireEagle.com (Pittsfield, Massachusetts) is headlined "Mormons direct prayers to Christ." The purpose of the story is to "clarify" a story that ran on Sunday which mistakenly indicated Mormons pray to Joseph Smith.

I'm glad to see the error corrected. It would be nice to be able to erase all the false information about Mormonism that is floating around. But that is not to be, and this "clarifying" article from the Berkshire Eagle illustrates that truth.

From "Mormons direct prayers to Christ":

"'I am a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I have never prayed, nor will I ever pray to Joseph Smith,' wrote Chad Francom, a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah. 'I pray to Jesus Christ. The same Jesus Christ spoke of in the New Testament. The same Jesus Christ that my Catholic and Protestant friends pray to for their salvation.'"

Well technically, Mormons do not pray to Christ. As the article points out elsewhere, "Mormons direct all prayers to 'Our Heavenly Father' and close all prayers with 'In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.'" Since Mormonism's Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are two Gods, this is an important technicality.

Furthermore, as I noted in yesterday's post, LDS leaders have made it clear that the God of Catholics and Protestants is not the God of Mormonism. To take it a bit further than I did yesterday, let's look at a few additional statements from official LDS sources.

"It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (Seventy Bernard P. Brockbank, Ensign, May 1977, page 26)

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President 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.'" (Gordon B. Hinckley quoted in Church News, 20 June 1998, page 7)

"As a Church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say." (Gordon B. Hinckley, April 2002 General Conference, quoted in Ensign, May 2002, page 90)

"To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles is not to say that all that is in it is satanic." (Kent P. Jackson, Ensign, December 1994, page 9)

And this one bears repeating:

"And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ…" (Mormon Doctrine, page 269)

So in attempting to correct inaccurate reporting of Mormon doctrine, the newspaper is inaccurately reporting a different Mormon doctrine.

The Berkshire Eagle says:

"Misconceptions about the Mormon church have persisted for decades, said [local LDS resident Scott] Holley. Mormons continue to work hard to spread knowledge about their religion…"

Even so, I suspect there will be no outcry from the LDS community over the misinformation about Mormonism propagated in "Mormons direct prayers to Christ."