Mountain Meadows and the Honorable Thing

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."

With Love and Charity to All

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

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

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?

Will PBS also be labeled "hateful"?

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

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.

The LDS Church is Not Amused

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...

Comfortable Vilification of Rebels

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

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

LDS Church Reports Growth

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...

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 LDS Church Calls it a Distortion

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."

Mormon Exports

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

Choose Life, Choose Truth

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"

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)