Experiencing the Mormon Temple for the First Time

Posted on May 14, 2012 by Sharon Lindbloom
Salt Lake City Temple

From Wikimedia Commons

I recently came across a web page on which a Mormon man recounted his first temple endowment experience. Following his story, he posted “sincere replies from other church members” who wrote about their own first temple experiences. The perspectives of these Mormons who were excited and ready for the spiritual experience of their lives is really interesting and filled with insight for those of us who have never been through a Mormon temple endowment ceremony. I encourage you to read the whole web page if you have the time, but for the sake of discussion here at Mormon Coffee, here it is in a nutshell. (Please note that many of these experiences pre-dated the 1990 temple ceremony changes; therefore, some things mentioned are no longer part of the ceremony as it is performed in Mormon temples today.)

The anonymous man who wrote the initial story talked about his pre-temple expectations for what he would learn and experience:

…I prepared for my first time all excited, expecting the endowment ceremony to be about the ministry of Jesus Christ. I thought, perhaps they would enact the Sermon on the Mount? Or maybe they would show the Last Supper and have us participate as disciples? Or maybe they would portray other scenes in Christ’s ministry that were lost to time that revealed spiritual meanings.

Above all, I fully expected the temple covenants to be related to Christ’s ministry – helping the poor and the sick, forgiving others and loving one another. I imagined that I would see some of Christ’s parables enacted, and then make a covenant to do as Jesus taught. For example, covenant to be a good Samaritan, or forgive the prodigal sons among us, or not judge others.

…I imagined the temple would be an elaboration on the main things Jesus had lived and taught us to do…

What a disappointment.

Unfulfilled expectations. Many Mormons wrote about what they imagined the temple ceremony would be like, only to be disappointed. They thought it would be highly spiritual, uplifting and wonderful. Some even thought it possible that Jesus Himself would be there.

I remember wanting to have some clue of what to expect and, of course, my loved ones would only say that it was “wonderful, spiritually enlightening, and the closest thing to heaven that exists on this earth.” I halfway took that, in my own mind, to mean that Jesus would be there in person. What else could be so sacred that we could not talk about it, even with other worthy temple Mormons?

Instead of being spiritually moved, these Mormons found the temple ceremony to be “boring,” “belittling,” and “bizarre.” One Mormon wrote about his/her experience:

It would have been creepy to get naked [while wearing a poncho-like “shield”] and be touched by a stranger and then have them dress you in hideous underwear even without the bait-and-switch atmosphere, but I think the way they set it up so you go in there being told it’s going to be a wonderful experience, and then having it be something that’s awful, and then having to reconcile in your mind the temple oaths and learning weird code words and making sure all your temple clothes are on and tied just right and being naked are the things that are monumentally important to Heavenly Father adds to the disappointment and the confusion…

Confusing. This was another common theme in these stories. These Mormons were confused over what they were learning in the temple. A few examples:

The secret temple handshakes and passwords were what really freaked me out though. God needs handshakes? I thought he knew us enough to just let us through the veil into heaven.

—

I also didn’t understand that if God loved me, and I was doing what he wanted, would I have to worry about my throat being slit.

—

Then we started receiving handshakes, making signs and learning death penalties. I was blown away. This seemed like a secret combination to me. I had a sick feeling in my stomach. It seemed that the Book of Mormon had warned against such secret combinations which used handshakes. I was a bit confused.

Surprising. Instead of finding the temple ceremony centered on Jesus (as they had been told to expect), some Mormons noted that they found it focused more on Satan. One wrote, “There was little Jesus but plenty of Satan.” Another wrote, “Jesus Christ’s brother Satan, on the other hand, is the star of the temple ceremony.” After explaining that during the ceremony Satan tells people that if they don’t keep the covenants they make in the temple they will be in Satan’s power, one Mormon wondered,

If the rites were really God’s truth, then wouldn’t Satan be trying to talk everyone out of them? If I pray to Satan to ask him what I should do, would he answer: “Be a good Mormon or I’ll get you?”

The temple endowment made me wonder, whose side is Satan actually on? Apparently he’s on the Mormon Church’s side – that is, if you take the temple ceremony seriously.

So just follow Satan’s advice if you want to be a good Mormon. That’s what I learned in the temple.

Frightening. Total shock upon experiencing the temple endowment ceremony was a common theme among Mormons writing of their “first times.” They wrote of being “afraid” in the temple, of the ceremony having been a “horrible experience,” and being “freaked out.” One wrote, “As we stood in the prayer circle in our temple clothes with our hands raised, I looked around and thought ‘oh no, I’m in a cult!’” Another wrote,

So my first time through the temple I was freaked, wondering, is this a cult? If so, don’t give in, but keep quiet. I raised my hand for the oaths like everybody else and said, yes, but each time, inside mentally recited NO!

One Mormon summed up,

I passed through the veil into the beautiful celestial room of the Salt Lake City temple. It was full of people dressed as unusual as I was. What an eerie sight. My parents were already there…

Everyone was happy. But inside I was confused. The experience was different than what I had anticipated. My mother explained that I needed to go often to understand it better. After a few minutes, we left and returned to the locker room where I shed my robes for my suit, attired now in my garments.

When we left, I was afraid.

Eventually, the strangeness of the temple wore off. Repeated visits makes it all seem normal. But one thing never changes, the look of people’s faces in the session company. As a temple worker later in my life, I would often look at the faces of those attending. Nearly all of them had an empty look. No smiles, no interest, no nothing. We all just sat there enduring to the end.

Erecting a Façade. Not all Mormons feel this way about their temple experiences, of course. Surely there are those who share their honest opinions when they tell un-endowed Mormons that the temple is wonderful and the closest thing to heaven on earth. Yet, I wonder how many just go through the motions. One woman talked about how uncomfortable she was in the temple and wrote, “My family and closest friends are there, so unless I want to disappoint everyone I care about, I’m stuck…”

Another Mormon described his ongoing struggle this way:

But I tried. I honestly tried. I whittled myself down over years of temple attendance to try to fit into that mold prepared for me. It was so uncomfortable.

It was a serious Emperor’s New Clothes moment each time I went back through the temple.

Dad: “Son, wasn’t that just awesome?”
Me: “uh, yeah Dad… totally.”
But inside I was screaming…
Because it wasn’t.

Christians, we have good news for these people: the Emperor really “hasn’t got anything on.” Mormons may carry on the pretense, praising the temple just as the people in Hans Christian Andersen’s story praised the Emperor’s new clothes, but the fact is, all are naked and exposed before God. The temple has nothing to offer, nothing to make us presentable to God. It is the Lord, Himself clothed with majesty, who provides us with exquisite attire that no moth can destroy.

I will greatly rejoice in the LORD;
my soul shall exult in my God,
for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation;
he has covered me with the robe of righteousness.
(Isaiah 61:10)

Posted in Mormon Temple | Tagged , | 11 Comments

Mormons see “anything but a unity of the [Christian] faith.”

Posted on May 10, 2012 by Sharon Lindbloom

LDS Apostle Jeffrey Holland was invited to speak at Harvard Law School last month (20 March 2012) during the LDS Student Association’s annual Mormonism 101 series. His talk was about what Mormons believe. After telling his audience about Joseph Smith’s First Vision and the Mormon proclamation of complete Christian apostasy, Mr. Holland explained,

“It is commonplace to note that in the Christian world we see anything but a unity of the faith, or any Christian cohesiveness that could remotely be called ‘the building fitly framed together [Ephesians 2:22].’ There seems to be none that would reaffirm one Lord, one faith, and one baptism [Ephesians 4:5].

“So it was in Joseph Smith’s day. This young boy-prophet lamented that his region was ‘a scene of great confusion and bad feeling . . . priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that [any] good feelings . . . were entirely lost in a . . . war of words and tumult of opinions.’ That says so very much about post-New Testament Christianity. (Find this quote beginning at 7:15 in the video. This quote is transcribed directly from the video; please note that the text that appears on the Mormon Newsroom website is somewhat different.)

Mr. Holland’s critical and dismissive attitude toward “post-New Testament Christianity” aside, as the Christian church understands Paul’s teaching in Ephesians, this Mormon apostle has got it all wrong.

In Ephesians 4 Paul is talking about a particular kind of unity: a unity of the Spirit (v. 3). Pastor and theologian John Piper explains,

“[Paul] pleads with the church to walk [in a way] worthy of our calling [v.1]. Specifically, the way he wants to emphasize is that we be ‘diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (v.3). We walk unworthily of our calling in Christ if we disregard the unity of the body and don’t expend any effort to safeguard what Christ died to obtain. ‘Be diligent,’ Paul says, ‘Be eager, be earnest’ to keep the unity given by the Spirit of God and obtained with the blood of Christ (2:16).”

Pastor Piper points to verse 2 which reveals that one character quality Paul calls for in maintaining that spirit of unity is, among other things, humility.

“The humility that leads to unity is not uncertainty and doubt and vagueness and confusion [about truth]. It is the demeanor that says: I am not the center; truth is the center and I submit to the truth and go where it leads. I am not king; God is king. My will is not the law; God’s Word is the law. I don’t tell God how many faiths are acceptable to him; he tells me. I don’t define the foundation of the unity of the Spirit; God does.”

God defines the foundation for the unity of the Spirit through Paul in verses 4-6:

“Here he gives the objective ground in reality for the subjective experience of unity that we are to pursue. The unity of the Spirit that we should be so diligent for is based on a given, objective unity outside ourselves that we have nothing to do with creating or defining. It is there, and we are humbly to recognize it and submit to it and rejoice in it and live it out.

“’There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.’

“One body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Father. This is the objective foundation of our diligent efforts to preserve the unity of the Spirit. It is not a fragile or ultimately vulnerable thing. It rests on the oneness of God, the oneness of faith, the oneness of baptism, and the oneness of the body. Those things are one, no matter what you or I do. They are fixed realities. Our task is to walk worthily of them.”

1 Corinthians 12:13So what are these fixed realities on which we are to be united? Pastor Piper explains,

… “there is only one God (the Father of all who believe, Ephesians 2:12) and only one Lord (the Lord Jesus Christ, Ephesians 1:2f.), and only one Spirit (the Holy Spirit poured out from the Father by the Son, Acts 2:33) and only one faith (faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, Ephesians 1:13, 15) and only one baptism (into Christ in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19f.), and only one body (the church of God gathered with Jesus as the head, Ephesians 4:15)—since there is only one God and one faith, we must take the news of this God and this faith to the nations. ‘There is no other name under heaven,’ Peter said, ‘given among men by which we must be said’ (Acts 4:12). Other religions and other lords will not save.”

This is exactly what we see in Christianity. Christians do share a unity of the faith and a unity of the Spirit. And, in fact, all Christians affirm “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”

Christians from all denominations are united in the Spirit as one body of believers. In that unity we act together to take the amazing truth of one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father over all to those who do not yet know Him and are not yet joined with us in this astonishing, God-given unity of the Spirit.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged , , | 15 Comments

Mormonism’s growth figures—what can you believe?

Posted on May 7, 2012 by Eric Johnson

Screaming front page headline in Wednesday, May 2, 2012’s Salt Lake Tribune (in bold, no less):

“Multiplying Mormons expand into new turf”

Subhead 1: “2010 census: LDS Church is fastest-growth Christian faith in 30 states, report shows”

Subhead 2: “Only Muslims, with 67% jump from 2000-2010, outpaces 45% LDS increase.”

Anyone picking up the paper on Wednesday received several messages:

1. The Mormons are a Christian faith.
2. The church grew by 45.5% over the past decade.
3. The church grew from 4,224,000 US members to 6,144,000 from 2000 to 2010.

These are amazing numbers. The problem is, the numbers were cooked. A person who only looked at the front page and the major headlines on Wednesday probably missed the follow-up article on Thursday. Instead of the front page, a story was placed in Section B of the Utah section next to the page’s main article, “Dry winter portends a busy wildfire season.” The one-column article next to it had a much smaller headline, reading, “LDS Church growth really near 18%.” The subhead: “Only 40% of Mormons attend church regularly, says researcher.”

Wait a minute. The day before, the number was 45%. The next day, it’s 18%? And then some new information—only 4 out of 10 Mormons go to church regularly. What’s going on? Was this story meant to be a retraction?

Journalist Peggy Fletcher Stack, the author of both articles, wrote Thursday’s lead this way:

“If you suspected the newly released U.S. Religion Census overstated the LDS Church’s growth rate, you were right. That’s because, this time around, the Utah-based faith changed the way it reported its membership to the researchers.”

In her lead, Stack makes it appear that the error (a word she never uses) is the fault of the researchers. Dale Jones, a Religious Census researcher, says he “wished the LDS Church had alerted him about the change in its reporting methods.”

So the church used numbers in a different way than they had done in the past…and nobody caught it? Where was the journalist, Peggy Fletcher Stack? Why did she take the numbers at face value when she had ready access to the information? After all, she could have easily looked at the Deseret News Almanac, printed every year by the church. If she had just taken two minutes and looked closer at the 2001 edition, she would have seen that the U.S. number given by the church was 5,113,000, not 4,224,000. In fact, if she went back to the 1991 edition, she could have also observed that the number in 1990 was closer to the 4,224,000 number that Wednesday’s article said the church had in 2000.

These numbers should have been an immediate tip-off that something was awry, especially since the Mormon Church is completely anal when it comes to reporting numbers.  And Scott Trotter, the LDS Church spokesman, would have been better off to direct Stack in the right direction. Instead, he’s quoted in Wednesday’s paper as saying that “the church is growing and we are grateful that people are embracing the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

So how well did the church—currently at 14 million—grow worldwide during these past two decades? Brigham Young University professor Daniel Peterson writes for a church newspaper how his people have become “complacent”:

“Today, we have been allotted tools for sharing the gospel of which [Book of Mormon prophet] Alma could never have dreamed. But we may have become complacent. Don’t we send out full-time missionaries? Isn’t that enough? Aren’t we ‘the fastest growing religion’? Actually, we’re not. Church growth has been falling for many years, and our current rate of missionary success is the lowest it’s been for decades. The harvest is great, but the laborers are still too few.” (“The Internet Aids Missionary Effort,” Mormon Times, April 7, 2011).

According to a Reuter’s article, Church Historian and Recorder Marlin Jansen addressed a religious studies class at Utah State University in the fall of 2011. Answering a student’s question about whether or not he knew that members were leaving in droves, he said he was “aware” of the situation.

“And I’m speaking of the 15 men that are above me in the hierarchy of the church. They really do know and they really care.” Jensen said that “not since a famous troublespot in Mormon history, the 1837 failure of a church bank in Kirtland, Ohio, have so many left the church.” The article also reported that “census data from some foreign countries targeted by clean-cut young missionaries show that the retention rate for their converts is as low as 25 percent. In the U.S., only about half of Mormons are active members of the church, said Washington State University emeritus sociologist Armand Mauss, a leading researcher on Mormons. Sociologists estimate there are as few as 5 million active members worldwide.” (“Mormonism besieged by the modern age,” Jan. 30, 2012)

And, in Thursday’s newspaper, an independent researcher is quoted as saying, “We estimate that only 40 percent of LDS Church members in the U.S. attend church regularly” (Salt Lake Tribune, “LDS growth really near 18%,” May 3, 2012, p. B4).

When it comes to numbers, during the first half of the 1990s, the church consistently grew by more than three percent per year. However, beginning in 1998, the rate of growth never reached three percent again, even dipping under two percent in three of the six years between 2005-2010.  Compare the LDS Church statistics with another nineteenth century American religious movement, the Brooklyn, New York-based Watchtower Bible and Tract Society whose members are known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Unlike Latter-day Saints, the Watchtower Society considers all members to be missionaries who are expected to go door-to-door and evangelize on a regular basis.

In 2010, this organization—which is about half the size of the LDS Church—grew by 294,000 converts (as compared to Mormonism’s 272,000 converts in the same time frame). This is a 4 percent increase from the previous year’s numbers, doubling the total percentage of LDS growth as listed by the LDS Church.

I admit, the LDS Church is still growing in numbers, much more than I would like. But at the same time, they are certainly not growing at the pace they were before the days of DSL Internet. The information is much easier to get. I just wish the LDS Church PR department as well as a Mormon journalist would do their homework and get their stories straight.

Posted in LDS Church | Tagged , | 9 Comments

Does Mormonism still teach God the Father was once a man?

Posted on May 3, 2012 by Sharon Lindbloom

Joe Carter at The Gospel Coalition blog recently wrote a good article providing relevant FAQs in answer to the question, “Are Mormons Christian?” The first topic Mr. Carter addressed was, “What do Mormons believe about God?” His answer began this way:

“Mormons claim that God the Father was once a man and that he then progressed to godhood (that is, he is a now-exalted, immortal man with a flesh-and-bone body).”

This answer represents pretty straight-forward traditional Mormonism. Even so, a Mormon commenter, Francis, took issue with the statement. As part of a larger discussion that included reference to Aaron Shafovaloff’s video project, God Never Sinned, Francis wrote,

“Actually they don’t teach that he was once a mortal man, what is taught is that he has a body of flesh and bone; hence we were made in his image… I am a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have never once EVER been taught that God has ever been mortal much less a sinner. ALL my instruction has always said he is the same now as he has always been, PERFECT and because of that perfection he cannot sin, and has had no need for a mortal probation… I find it severely upsetting myself that others in my religion believe that my Father in Heaven could ever have sinned. I am also upset that the entire world seems to base their view of my religion of the actions and personal beliefs of a few, instead of researching and gaining an understanding for themselves of what we truly believe and are taught. Not to be converted, or to take anything away from any other religion or belief system, but just to be able to speak intelligently on the subject.”

I don’t know how long Francis has been a Mormon, but the doctrine that God the Father was once a mortal man had been very clearly and unapologetically taught in the LDS Church from the 1840s up until 1997 when then-president Gordon B. Hinckley began claiming ignorance of the teaching. About five or six years ago Joel Groat at Institute for Religious Research noted changes in the way Mormonism portrayed this historic LDS doctrine. No longer taught openly and clearly, it is no wonder Mormons do not know what the Mormon Church has traditionally believed about God the Father. Therefore, for the sake of Francis and others who are left in the dark on this topic, here is a brief look at the Mormon doctrine, “As man is, God once was.”

First of all, the nature of God is a core doctrine that is the foundation of everything one believes. Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks told an audience at Harvard Law School, “For us, the truth about the nature of God and our relationship to Him is the key to everything else” (“Fundamental Premises of Our Faith,” 26 February 2010).

Joseph Smith in Nauvoo by grindael

Joseph Smith would agree. This is why, early in his famous King Follett Discourse, he said,

“…it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God…These are incomprehensible ideas to some; but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

Yet, 1844 was a long time ago. Looking at more recent Mormon sources we find the doctrine being taught in Church manuals:

“As shown in this chapter, our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state we call exaltation or godhood.” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, 1976, 132)

“God Was Once a Man As We Are Now” (Search These Commandments, 1984, 151)

In 1997, about the time President Hinckley was publicly distancing the Church from the controversial doctrine, a new Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society manual was released. The introduction said, “This book reflects the desire of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to deepen the doctrinal understanding of Church members and to awaken within them a greater desire to know the things of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997, v). In Chapter 4, under “Suggestions for Study,” the manual stated,

“The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church. How do you feel, knowing that God, through His own experience, ‘knows all that we know regarding the toils [and] sufferings’ of mortality?”

In 2006 Mormon Apostle Henry B. Eyring told BYU students,

“I bear you my witness that God the Father lives, a glorified and exalted Man.” (“Gifts of the Spirit for Hard Times,” 32:18, CES Fireside, 10 September 2006)

In 2007 Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks helped journalist and filmmaker Helen Whitney understand the “bold ideas” of Mormonism:

 “…that first revelation [Joseph Smith’s First Vision], concerning the nature of God as an embodied, glorified, resurrected Being, challenged the creeds of Christianity…

“Joseph Smith put together the significance of what he had taught about the nature of God and the nature and destiny of man. He preached a great sermon not long before he was murdered that God was a glorified Man, glorified beyond our comprehension, (still incomprehensible in many ways), but a glorified, resurrected, physical Being, and it is the destiny of His children upon this earth, upon the conditions He has proscribed [sic], to grow into that status themselves. That was a big idea, a challenging idea. It followed from the First Vision, and it was taught by Joseph Smith, and it is the explanation of many things that Mormons do — the whole theology of Mormonism.”

Then in 2009 when the Mormon Church released a new edition of the Sunday School manual Gospel Principles, the Church chose to still include this:

“Joseph Smith taught: ‘It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did’ (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

“Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as He did.” (Gospel Principles, 2009, 279. Ellipses in the original.)

To sum up, the “whole theology of Mormonism,” affirmed by a Mormon apostle five years ago and included in a Mormon Sunday School manual updated just three years ago, is the doctrine that God the Father was once a man like us. Furthermore, he is now an exalted, glorified, resurrected Man, who has set the rules whereby human beings may grow to the same status (i.e., godhood) themselves.

If you are a Mormon and do not know this – the whole theology of Mormonism and the whole point of the Mormon Church* – it would be good to ask why. And an even more important question: What else don’t you know about Mormonism?

My friends, the Mormon view of the nature of God (and man) is unbiblical, and therefore unChristian. If you are shocked or offended by the teaching that God the Father was once a man “like us” who “succeeded” in attaining the status of godhood (exaltation), “Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart to the LORD, the God of Israel” (Joshua 24:23).

—

* “The Church exists to help families gain eternal blessings and exaltation.” (Gospel Principles, 2009, 211)

Posted in God the Father, King Follett Discourse, Nature of God | Tagged , , , , , , , | 71 Comments

A Mormon Denominational Walkabout

Posted on April 30, 2012 by Sharon Lindbloom

The Community of Christ Temple in Independence, Missouri

On a recent visit to Kansas City I stopped in Independence, Missouri. It was a beautiful spring day, so I took a short stroll covering approximately a five-block area near the LDS Visitors Center. Of course, the Community of Christ’s temple dominates the landscape, but the small area is further dotted with churches that spring from Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

The Community of Christ used to be known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It once claimed to be the “one true church” but has lately chosen a more ecumenical perspective. It is about this church that LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “The truth is that the founders of the ‘Reorganized’ church were the ones who followed every will-o-the-wisp, bowed the knee to Baal, and departed from the faith. …the pretentions of the ‘Reorganized’ church are fraudulent. Judged by its history, doctrines and the unstable character of its founders, it is proved to be a counterfeit and nothing more” (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:248, 253).

The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) in Independence, Missouri

The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) says of itself, “The Church of Christ is the true Church restored in the last days by Christ himself to prepare the world for His final return. Organized by His divine revelation and patterned after the primitive New Testament Christian Church, the Church of Christ possesses true priesthood authority and spiritual gifts given by Christ…” This church clearly and unapologetically claims the Mormon Church is apostate. “The Church of Christ grew rapidly as the gospel was spread and was accompanied by the power of the Holy Ghost and with miracles. Unfortunately the devil was also hard at work at this time, trying to destroy the Church from without and within …in short order there were ideas and doctrines introduced which were not a part of the Gospel of Christ. …These doctrines included the consolidation of power into the hands of one man as ‘Prophet’ (not unlike the Pope) the offices of a High Priest and a First Presidency, the practice of baptism for the dead, the belief in a changeable God and the mysticism of Free Masonry. The name of the Church had even been changed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Independence, Missouri

The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims, “From its restoration in 1830 thru the Reorganization of 1860 and Renewal in 2000 the Remnant Church has remained the true successor of Christ’s New Testament Church.” This church believes the Community of Christ “has turned aside from some of the most basic beliefs of the Restored Gospel,” and that the Utah Mormon Church holds to “many spurious doctrines such as progression, multiplicity of gods, Adam as a god, polygamy, and many unscriptural temples ordinances foreign to the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Latter Day Revelation given through Joseph Smith Jr. and his true successors in office.”

The Church of Jesus Christ (Zion's Branch) in Independence, Missouri

The Church of Jesus Christ (Zion’s Branch) says in its Statement of Purpose, “We believe and are prepared to defend the Church of Jesus Christ as restored in 1830, and according to the covenants and commandments of God at its Reorganization in 1860, which today exists only where the servants of God have disassociated and abstained from the ordinances by that organization which once bore the name of Christ in purity, but now finds itself apostate and abhorrent in the sight of Almighty God” (Steven Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 291).

A Restorationist Camper in Independence, Missouri

This camper with Missouri plates was parked on the street near the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). Covered with writing, it was difficult to determine which religious group it represented, but its abundant quotes from the Book of Mormon coupled with doomsday warnings would seem to indicate yet another restorationist follower of Joseph Smith.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Visitors Center in Independence, Missouri

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joins the crowd of “true churches” clustered on this small piece of real estate. This church also claims to be the real–the only–restoration of Christ’s New Testament church. But each of these other churches pictured above (along with many, many others that continue to grow out of Joseph Smith’s teachings) might be pleased to turn Joseph Fielding Smith’s words back on himself and his own LDS church: “the pretentions of the [Mormon] church are fraudulent. Judged by its history, doctrines and the unstable character of its founders, it is proved to be a counterfeit and nothing more” (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:253).

Those who believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet are in a quandary. They very well may personalize Joseph Smith’s own dilemma: “In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often [say] to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?” (Joseph Smith—History 1:10).

Friends, “join none of them…they teach for doctrines the commandments of men” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19). Instead, open your Bibles and seek the One who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon History | Tagged , , , , , , | 29 Comments

Incidents of Persecution in Missouri

Posted on April 26, 2012 by Sharon Lindbloom

Earlier this week Michael Otterson, the head of public affairs functions for the Mormon Church, wrote at the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog that Mormons in Missouri are currently experiencing “a time of healing” from the persecutions they suffered at the hands of Missourians back in 1838. Mr. Otterson wrote,

“In the troubled history of Latter-day Saints in the 1800s, incidents of persecution in Missouri rank among the most heinous. The brutal shooting of seventeen Latter-day Saints, including a ten-year-old child, at Haun’s Mill on Shoal Creek in eastern Caldwell County, in October of 1838 came just three days after Missouri Executive Order No. 44 – more commonly known as the “Mormon Extermination Order” issued by Governor Lilburn W. Boggs. That order was formally rescinded by Missouri Governor Kit Bond in 1976, citing its unconstitutionality.

“Every Mormon knows this history from the Missouri period, and in any dispute it is rare that all the fault rests only with one side. But there was no trace of animosity, ill will or institutional memory as church leaders welcomed guests to the temple open house…

“‘Healing’ suggests not so much a debate on the rights and wrongs of history in which none of us had a part, as much as a willingness to set aside modern personal biases and engage in the kind of mutually respectful treatment befitting a nation that wears religious pluralism as a badge of honor. In such a society in 2012, we don’t call each other ‘cults.’ We don’t automatically assume the worst of those who worship differently from us. We don’t mischaracterize their beliefs or quote their scriptures out of context.”

Along with Mr. Otterson, I’m all for accurate dialog and respectful treatment toward one another. The current Governor of Missouri offered an olive branch of healing to the Latter-day Saints in April (2012); it was a fine gesture. But Mr. Otterson’s message of mutual respect and accuracy does not seem to be getting through to the rank and file Latter-day Saints. Let me provide two recent examples.

While in Missouri a couple of weeks ago I visited the LDS tourist site, the Historic Liberty Jail. A sister missionary began the tour of the jail with a recitation of early Mormon history in the area then opened the floor for tour participants to share their feelings. Immediately a Mormon woman began speaking about Governor Boggs and the 1838 “Extermination Order.” With great emotion, she indignantly finished her remarks with these words: “For more than 130 years it was legal to kill Mormons in the state of Missouri!” Nearly the entire group, as with one voice, murmured in anguish. Another Mormon woman spoke up to declare that it was greed that caused the Missouri government to order that the Mormons be killed, adding insult to injury. And the sister missionary who was leading the tour explained that a “false” accusation of treason* was the vehicle Joseph Smith’s enemies used to arrest and incarcerate him in Liberty Jail.

This tour group of Mormons at Liberty Jail was fraught with “animosity, ill will [and] institutional memory” aimed at the non-Mormons of western Missouri. These people “assumed the worst” of the non-Mormons and “mischaracterized” the facts associated with this turbulent time in western American history. (Please read more about the Missouri persecutions, the alleged legality of killing Mormons in Missouri, and the Missouri Mormon War.)

Another example that Mormons are not necessarily embracing the kind of mutual respect Mr. Otterson wrote about was demonstrated outside the Kansas City Mormon Temple. The same day Mr. Otterson’s blog article posted, a friendly Christian man, Shane, stood on the public sidewalk outside the temple freely offering literature to passers by. This literature discussed various aspects of Mormonism, looking at the faith from a biblical perspective. Here’s what happened:

“A [Mormon] guy pulled up down at the [lower] zone, tried to throw the paper at Shane but missed. He then proceeded to angrily harangue Shane and finally jumped out of the car. Shane quoted Brigham Young saying to take up the Bible and compare it with the religion of the Latter-day Saints and that was the final straw. He grabbed Shane’s jaw with his left hand and gave him a close-fisted punch to the kisser.”

I’ve been to many Christian outreaches at Mormon venues and I have to say that it is rare for a Mormon to become this violent toward a critic. While the idea of mutual respect is obviously absent here, the more pertinent part of this story is the way Mormon officials responded. After the assault Shane called the police, but since he was unable to get the license plate number for identification of the man who hit him there was nothing much the police could do. However, Shane had a witness. A Mormon volunteer assigned to manage traffic for the temple open house saw the whole thing; but he refused to talk to the police. Additionally, the LDS Church has recorded video of the assault; but they are (so far) withholding any offer to allow the police to view it. With what seems like “animosity and ill-will,” are these Mormons unwilling to “set aside personal biases” to come to the aid of another who was physically assaulted by one of their own?

Mr. Otterson has written impressive words that speak of healing and mutual respect, but when the rubber meets the road it’s just the same old slippery blacktop.

—

*On the charge of treason against Joseph Smith, LDS historian Richard Bushman wrote, “The skirmish at Crooked River led to the charge of treason against Joseph Smith and the Mormon leaders. Resisting a band of vigilantes was justifiable, but attacking a militia company was resistance to the state” (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, p. 364).

Posted in Civil Liberties, Mormon History | Tagged , , , | 21 Comments

Prophets, Seers, and Well-Oiled Signature Machines

Posted on April 23, 2012 by Aaron Shafovaloff

At tech.lds.org there is an article by David Parra called, “A Well-Oiled Machine”[1], concerning the complex process of programmatically creating a the famous “missionary letter”:

“Some may think that creating a one-page letter programmatically would be a matter of adding a few merge fields to a document, but the system does a lot more than that. Several technologies are used to generate correspondence that will be specific for each recipient. The system is capable of supporting any language; however, letters in only six languages have been printed to date. If you take into consideration each of the languages’ specific requirements that deal with gender and many other unique grammatical structures, the technical challenges to overcome are apparent. Additionally, the syntax and many other unique characteristics are taken into account to accurately generate a flawless translation of the missionary calls in six different languages.”

This article was posted on a forum elsewhere on tech.lds.org and some comments in the thread caught my attention. Although the article never specifically mentions the signature itself, “lionelwalters” comments:

“Very informative article, and an excellent use of technology. It does, however, throw a shadow on the heartfelt belief of many missionaries that the president of the Church himself signed their call letter…”

To this “mkmurray” responds:

“There has been no evidence given to indicate that the Prophet doesn’t still do this.”

“lionelwalters” replies:

“That’s true, I was just a bit concerned that by revealing so much of the mechanics supporting what is such a sacred process, it might somehow detract from the individuality of the call letter for a missionary. Personally, I still prefer to believe that the Prophet does sign the letters, but whether he does or doesn’t, a mission call is an inspired assignment and ultimately the Lord will personally sign His seal on the heart of a faithful missionary.”

This reminds me of the issue of what it means for the LDS apostles to be “special witnesses” of Jesus Christ. Many Mormons are inclined to believe that this means the LDS apostles have, like Paul, received personal, bodily visitations of Jesus Christ. The LDS apostles are quite aware of this common Mormon perception, yet intentionally choose not to correct it. Like so many other things in Mormonism, it is left in the suggestive, convenient “we can neither confirm nor deny” territory of plausibly deniability.

Among ex-Mormons it is well known that  missionary letters are ”signed by the signature machine of the president of the church.” Atheist ex-Mormon Steve Benson said (as summarized by Walt Jayroe):

“his grandfather [Ezra Taft Benson] would stumble through sermons and sometimes lose track of his words, leading to long silences and discomfort of audiences. A series of strokes led to impaired speech and invalid status. Personal letters to family began to arrive signed by signature machine, Benson said.”

Ever since then, the prophet’s auto-pen signature machine has spoken, and Mormons have listened to it as to the very voice of God. The debate is over… or is it?

—

[1] Published July 30, 2009. Accessed April 17, 2012.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Heart of Mormonism

Posted on April 19, 2012 by Sharon Lindbloom

Townhall.com posted an article on April 15 (2012) titled, “The Truth About Mormonism.” The article is a basic rehash covering some social aspects of Mormonism that are sometimes misunderstood/misrepresented in the media. Nothing much in the article caught my attention, but as I skimmed through the comments one jumped out at me.

For longtime Mormon Coffee readers this topic might bring a yawn. But because many folks are newer readers, and others are just passing through, this is a topic (in my opinion) worth binging up from time to time.

Last week I spoke with many Mormons as I handed out literature in front of the Kansas City Mormon temple during its public open house. One criticism I heard often from the Latter-day Saints was, “We don’t stand in front of your church and hand out critical literature.” Whenever I hear this complaint, my first thought is, “In light of the missionary movements of the early Christians as chronicled in the book of Acts, why don’t you?” But I don’t usually express this out loud. I usually answer with a recounting of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, which often leaves my LDS friend in quiet contemplation.

It should come as no surprise to me after all these years, yet I’m still astounded when I hear or read something like what Townhall.com commenter philbryson wrote.

“Thank you, Mr. Smoot [the Townhall.com journalist], for a fair article not based on motives to condemn an important, rapidly growing religion. The rapid growth has stimulated a lot of opposition from the insecure. Our growth is not based on attacking other religions, but on the desire to share our beliefs with others.”

Okay. Let’s talk about Joseph Smith’s First Vision. According to Joseph Smith, in answer to a prayer, God the Father and His Son appeared to Joseph:

“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’” (Joseph Smith—History 1:18-19)

Mr. philbryson (and others) believe that Mormonism is persecuted by “insecure” people of other faiths who are somehow less virtuous than members of the Mormon faith who would not dream of challenging or criticizing (“attacking”) other religions. Apart from the fact that challenging false religions and beliefs is biblical, the idea that Mormonism/Mormons do not criticize other churches is just plain wrong.

Mormonism’s very existence is predicated upon the LDS teaching that all non-Mormon churches are wrong; all non-Mormon creeds are an abomination before God; and all people who profess these beliefs are corrupt. That is talking about my church. That is talking about your church. That is talking about my faith and your faith. Unless, of course, you belong to “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30), identified by the Mormon religion as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Somehow, Mormons have gotten it into their heads that Christians who stand up and say, “Wait a minute,” are “insecure” and are lashing out at the LDS Church without reason. These Mormons do not recognize the historic and ongoing LDS criticism of all other faiths that emanates from Mormonism: brought door-to-door by Mormon missionaries; declared unabashedly in LDS scripture; taught from Mormon pulpits; and proclaimed in Church magazines and manuals. As much as Mormons would like to think otherwise, LDS Church growth is “based on attacking other religions.” Mormons cannot share the heart of their religion without attacking others. It is at the very foundation–the very formation–of the Mormon Church. Those who are the targets of these flaming darts are both obligated and justified to respond with truth (Ephesians 6:14-20; Jude 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Ephesians 4:14-15).

Posted in Great Apostasy | Tagged , , | 112 Comments

Mormonism “fell a heap of ruins.”

Posted on April 16, 2012 by Sharon Lindbloom

Stephen Burnett became a Mormon in November of 1830. In 1831 he was ordained to the office of High Priest, and in 1832 he became a Mormon missionary. He was a faithful Mormon for many years, but what he witnessed in Kirtland, Ohio, did in his faith. Historian Dan Vogel explains, “By late 1837 [Burnett] had become disillusioned with church leaders, and by 1838 had publicly denounced Joseph Smith.”

Joseph Smith responded to Burnett’s disaffection by stating that Burnett was only concerned for his money. According to Smith, Burnett justified his lack of financial support for the Church when he “proclaimed all revelation lies.”

Certainly Stephen Burnett’s disillusionment with Mormon Church leadership cannot be entirely divorced from financial issues. Kirtland, Ohio, like the rest of the United States, had experienced grave financial difficulties beginning in 1836. But one thing that set the 1837 failure of the (Mormon) Kirtland Safety Society apart from other bank failures of the time was that Mormons understood the Kirtland “bank” to have been established according to revelation. Many Mormons left the Church following the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society. Yet, according to Stephen Burnett, this was not the final straw for him.

On April 15, 1838 Burnett wrote a letter to explain why he decided to leave the Church.  The letter was addressed to Lyman E. Johnson, a man Burnett thought was one of the Twelve Apostles. Johnson had actually been excommunicated two days before this, but the news had not yet reached Stephen Burnett. The text that follows is taken from Burnett’s letter.

Br[other]. Johnson — …my heart is sickened within me when I reflect upon the manner in which we with many of this Church have been led & the losses which we have sustained all by means of two men in whom we placed implicit confidence, that Joseph Smith & Sidney Rigdon are notorious liars I do not hesitate to affirm, & can prove by a cloud of witnesses… I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it – loth to give it up – but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations was sapped & the entire structure fell a heap of ruins, I therefore three week[s] since in the Stone Chapel gave a full history of the church since I became acquainted with it, the false preaching & prophecying etc of Joseph [Smith] together with the reasons why I took the course which I was resolved to do, and renounced the Book of Mormon with the whole scene of lying and deception…believing as I verily do, that it is all a wicked deception palmed upon us unawares[.]

…after we were done speaking M[artin] Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain… I am well satisfied for myself that if the witnesses whose names are attached to the Book of Mormon never saw the plates as Martin H[arris] admits that there can be nothing brought to prove that any such thing ever existed for it is said on the 171 page of the book of covenants [D&C 17:5] that the three [witnesses] should testify that they had seen the plates even as J[oseph] S[mith] Jr & if they saw them spiritually or in vision with their eyes shut – J[oseph] S[mith] Jr never saw them any other way & if so the plates were only visionary and I am well satisfied that the 29 & 37 Chap[ter]s of Isai[a]h & Ezekiel together with others in which we depended to prove the truth of the book of Mormon have no bearing when correctly understood but are entirely irrelevant…  (Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, Volume 2, 290-293)

Stephen Burnett wanted to believe. He stuck with the Prophet — and the Church – believing (and doing) what he was told. But when he discovered that:

  • The Book of Mormon witnesses never actually saw the gold plates;
  • The witnesses’ signed testimonies did not mean what they said;
  • Certain Bible passages, when understood correctly, did not in any way “prove the truth of the book of Mormon”; and that
  • Even Joseph Smith, according to Mormon scripture, had not actually seen the gold plates;

The “last pedestal gave way” and the whole of Mormonism came crashing down. Stephen Burnett had the courage to be honest with himself. He “weighed the evidence for & against,” and though he did not want to give up his faith in Mormonism, he came to realize that a faith built on lies is worthless.

I don’t know if Stephen Burnett ever rested in the One worthy of unreserved trust, but perhaps, at some point, he found the hope expressed in a hymn penned right about the time his faith in Mormonism was crumbling.

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.

Posted in Book of Mormon, Early Mormonism, Mormon Scripture | Tagged , , , , | 25 Comments

Why Our Family Left The Mormon Church

Posted on April 12, 2012 by Aaron Shafovaloff

Posted in Multimedia | 63 Comments