Mormon Coffee

Last week Mormon Times ran a guest blog by BYU professor Daniel Petersen titled “Mormon-Catholic tolerance goes back to Brigham Young years”. Dr. Petersen’s remarks were an informal response to Francis Cardinal George, the head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who spoke at BYU on February 23rd (2010). Cardinal George reportedly wondered at how far Mormon-Catholic cordiality had come since the days of Brigham Young. In his blog, Dr. Petersen related stories of the friendliness and helpfulness early Mormon leaders provided the first Catholics who settle in Utah.

The noted Mormon-Catholic tolerance notwithstanding, Dr. Petersen acknowledged (but downplayed) “some harsh rhetoric over the years” that Mormons employed when discussing Catholics. Indeed, in 2009 the Salt Lake Tribune said the LDS Church’s no-cross protocol was instituted because of LDS President David O. McKay’s 1957 reaction against Catholicism.

What follows are a few more examples of the “harsh rhetoric over the years” to which Dr. Petersen alluded. One has to wonder: Does the LDS Church have greater respect for Catholicism today than indicated by these statements? Or has it just toned-down the rhetoric?

“…we would inform the Catholics, that the Church of Christ has not ceased to exist, neither has Peter ceased his existence, but both the Church and Peter are in heaven, far out of the reach of the gates of hell, and far out of the reach of the abominable soul-destroying impositions of popery. The gates of hell have prevailed and will continue to prevail over the Catholic mother of harlots, and over all her Protestant daughters; but as for the apostolical Church of Christ, she rests secure in the mansion of eternal happiness, where she will remain until the apostate Catholic church, with all her popes and bishops, together with all her harlot daughters shall be hurled down to hell; then it shall be said,… he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication…” (Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, No. 3, 44).

“Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the ‘whore of Babylon’ whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, April 1854, 255).

“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” (Hyrum M. Smith, Conference Reports, October 1916, 42).

“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. This Church was established in the only way in which the Church of Christ can be established, by direct authority from God” (David O. McKay, Conference Reports, April 1927, 105).

“Catholicism – See Church of the Devil” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 108).

“It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ’saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (1 Ne. 13:1-10) He saw that this most abominable of all churches was founded after the day of Christ and his apostles; that it took away from the gospel of the lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible; that this church was the ‘mother of harlots;’… (1 Ne. 13:24-42) Nephi beheld further that this church was the ‘mother of abominations,’ and ‘the whore of all the earth’…” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 130).

Comments (24)

National Geographic Magazine recently published an excellent feature article titled The Polygamists. Journalist Scott Anderson’s insightful piece about the FLDS church, its people, and its history is well worth reading.

In the midst of this article Mr. Anderson writes this about the FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs (who is currently in prison):

“Jeffs’s diary, also seized during the Texas raid, reveals a man who micromanaged the community’s every decision, from chore assignments and housing arrangements to who married whom and which men were ousted—all directed by revelations Jeffs received as he slept. He claimed that God guided his every action, no matter how small. One diary entry reads: ‘The Lord directed that I go to the sun tanning salon and get sun tanned more evenly on their suntanning beds.’”

In addition to revelations about people’s marriages and housing arrangements (and tanning salons), the National Geographic article mentions expulsions of men (from the church) that Jeffs deemed unworthy, and the “reassignment” of their families to more worthy men:

“In his diary Jeffs recounts reassigning the wives of three men, including his brother David, because God had shown him that they ‘couldn’t exalt their ladies, had lost the confidence of God.’”

The article notes that some people say this practice of reassignment “became one more weapon to hold over the heads of those who dared step out of line.

When I read this I was struck by the dictatorial and egocentric nature of Jeffs’ revelations and how they reminded me in some ways of many of Joseph Smith’s revelations. It seems to me that if you read Smith’s revelations outside of a presupposition that he was a true prophet, some of them come across as pretty self-serving.

According to an eyewitness (who later left the LDS Church), Joseph received a revelation forbidding him to continue his travel on the Missouri River (D&C 61) following the near-upset of his canoe, an event that deeply frightened him.

“…Joseph in the afternoon of the third day, assumed the direction of affairs on board of that canoe, which, with other matters of difference, together with Oliver’s curse, increased the irritation of the crew, who, in time of danger, refused to exert their physical powers, in consequence of which, they ran foul of a sawyer, and were in danger of upsetting …when threatened with the horrors of a watery grave, they unanimously desired, to set their feet once more upon something more firm than a liquid surface: therefore, by the persuasion of Joseph, we landed before sunset, intending to pass the night upon the bank of the river…

“The next morning, Joseph manifested an aversion to risk his person any more, upon the rough and rapid current of the Missouri, and in fact, upon any other river; and he again had recourse to his usual method, of freeing himself from the embarrassment[s of a former commandment, by] obtaining another in opposition to it. He succeeded according to his desires. A new commandment was issued, in which a great curse was pronounced against the waters; navigating them, was to be attended with extreme danger; and all the saints in general, were prohibited journeying upon them to the promised land. From this circumstance, the Missouri river was named the river of Destruction. It was decreed, that we should proceed on our journey by land, and preach by the way as we passed along.” (Letter from Ezra Booth, published in the Ohio Star 2:3, 24 November 1831)

Then there’s the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89). Brigham Young said,

“I think I am as well acquainted with the circumstances which led to the giving of the Word of Wisdom as any man in the Church, although I was not present at the time to witness them. The first school of the prophets was held in a small room situated over the Prophet Joseph’s kitchen, …in which the Prophet received revelations and in which he instructed his brethren. The brethren came to that place for hundreds of miles to attend school in a little room probably no larger than eleven by fourteen. When they assembled together in this room after breakfast, the first they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken. Often when the Prophet entered the room to give the school instructions he would find himself in a cloud of tobacco smoke. This, and the complaints of his wife at having to clean so filthy a floor, made the Prophet think upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating to the conduct of the Elders in using tobacco, and the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom was the result of his inquiry.” (Journal of Discourses, 12:158)

Add to these convenient revelations the frequent revelations Joseph Smith proclaimed which chastised individuals for behavior that “displeased” the Lord (e.g., disposal of their property contrary to counsel or speaking ill of Joseph), those that told people to stop arguing with the Prophet and start obeying him, and those that instructed individuals, by name, to “buy stock” in the Nauvoo House in order to provide for its construction, a building wherein “Joseph [Smith] and his seed after him have a place in that house, from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord.”

Consider the many revelations through which Joseph Smith directed the specific comings and goings of his followers, the frequent direction for named individuals to give their money and property to the Prophet’s endeavors, the revelations calling for various specific women to submit to plural marriages, and, of course, the “inspired” additions to Genesis 50 that “prophesy” about the Prophet himself.

True believing Mormons might say that God was just getting the foundation of His new church in order, attending to details. But if we look at them from a different perspective–not as a skeptic or a critic, but just as a not-yet-convinced investigator–don’t Joseph Smith’s convenient and apparently self-serving revelations raise some red flags? The apostle Peter warned that false prophets, in their greed, “will exploit you with false words” (2 Peter 2:3).

Be careful.

—

(For the text of most of the Joseph Smith revelations I referred to above, I used The Joseph Smith Revelations Text and Commentary by H. Michael Marquardt, 263-329)

Comments (39)

Why are some Apostate Mormons ‘re-instated’ into the Church after their death and promised the Celestial Kingdom if all are to be judged according to their works in this life?

There have been many, some murderers, but I would like to focus on one man:  an Apostle called by Joseph Smith, who was later ex-communicated  for apostasy.  After this man died, he was ‘restored’ to all his former blessings and one descendant was told by a prophet they would be with his family in the afterlife if they (the living family members) stayed worthy and that is only available in the Highest Degree of Glory in the Celestial Kingdom. This man was Amasa Lyman.

Lyman was a special counselor to Joseph Smith and was ordained an apostle by Brigham Young. He was married to Christina Partridge, (Daughter of Edward Partridge, First Presiding Bishop of the Church)  and had other plural wives.  Lyman was ordained an Apostle to replace Orson Pratt, but when Pratt repented and was restored, Lyman was bumped out of the Quorum.

Lyman followed Brigham Young to Utah, but began to believe in spiritualism and to deny the Atonement of Christ.  Excerpts of a sermon given in 1859 show he believed that:

[Jesus] “was a good man.” He acknowledged that Jesus “died for the world,” but added, “and what man that ever died for the truth that he died for, did not die for the world? … Have we found redemption through them? … We may talk of men being redeemed by the efficacy of [Christ's] blood; but the truth is that that blood had no efficacy to wash away our sins. That must depend upon our own action.”  – JOD:7:297-299

Stripped of his Apostleship in 1867,  he was finally excommunicated in 1870 after joining the “New Movement,” which was organized to oppose the political and economic control of Brigham Young in Utah. New Movement leaders [The Godbeites], who embraced spiritualism, named Lyman President of their Church of Zion.

Caroline  left Amasa after this and was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith.  As her daughter later recorded:

[she] “felt she must have the protection and the security of the Priesthood in her and her children’s lives. … Evidently in her dire circumstances she felt that the Prophet was the only secure anchor to be sealed to.” (source below)

After Lyman’s death and at Caroline’s funeral in 1908, Francis M. Lyman (President of the Quorum of the Twelve) told

“President [Joseph F.] Smith of my desire to do something for father. Told him of my dreams and my Sister Martha’s, how father had appeared to us and pied his cause. How President Snow told me that there was no doubt but that he could come out all right in the end.” (source below)

A short time later Francis M. told his son Richard (who later became another Apostle),

“This is one of the most important and happiest days of my life. In the temple today, President Joseph F. Smith placed his hands on my head, and by proxy restored my father to all his former blessings, authority and power.” (see, Loretta L. Hefner, “From Apostle to Apostate: The Personal Struggle of Amasa Mason Lyman,” in Mormon Mavericks, John Sillito and Susan Staker (eds.), Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002.) quoted from: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/Mormons/amasa_lyman.htm#lyman

“President Smith said during his talk that he was sure that  Amasa Lyman had paid the penalty for his wrong doing & would have all his wives and children who were worthy in eternity.  He also said that the celestial order of marriage, or polygamy could never have been carried out successfully had it not been for the Partridge sisters.” http://www.finarv.org/history/histcepl.htm

How can one pay the penalty for wrong doing after one has already died? Is President Smith saying that he had the power to judge Amasa Lyman?

Bruce R. McConkie states this about  “Restoration of Former Blessings”:

“Temple and priesthood blessings, as well as all others pertaining to the Church, are lost upon excommunication.  In the event of repentance and subsequent rebaptism, all or part of these former blessings — those pertaining to the priesthood, to endowments, and to sealings — may be restored by a member of the Council of the Twelve upon authorization of the President of the Church.” -Mormon Doctrine:634

But how does one ‘repent’ if one is dead?  McConkie is strangely silent on this question. Spencer Kimball, after quoting D&C 132, says in The Miracle of Forgiveness that this life is all you get:

“’For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it,  because you receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

“‘But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.

“‘This is eternal lives-to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.  

“‘Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law.’  -D&C 132:22-25. (Italics his, bold mine)

“How impressive the Lord makes the time element! Why should he so emphasize it over and over if there were no significance to it? Would these phrases in the world and out of the world mean that one could go haphazardly through the years of mortality ‘eating, drinking, and being merry,’ ignoring all the commandments and failing to keep his life clean and still receive the blessings?” -MOF: Chapter 1, page 12 (bold mine)

Kimball is clearly in line with the Book of Mormon on this point. Alma 32:34 says:

“For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.”

Joseph Smith said this regarding Apostates:

“All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin?  He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it;  he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy.  This is the case with many apostates of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When a man begins to be an enemy to this work, he hunts me, he seeks to kill me, and never ceases to thirst for my blood. He gets the spirit of the devil—the same spirit that they had who crucified the Lord of Life—the same spirit that sins against the Holy Ghost.  You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance; they make open war, like the devil, and awful is the consequence.”  -Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:358 (bold mine)

Isn’t this just what Amasa Lyman did, who was an Apostle, a special witness to Jesus Christ? Why then, are these Restoration of Blessings performed?  How can one Prophet say that an Apostate “had paid the penalty for his wrong doing & would have all his wives and children who were worthy in eternity,” while another says “You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance”?  Do the Mormon Prophets have the power to ‘grant dispensations’ and set aside the sins committed in this life like the Catholic Pope, or forgive sins like the Catholic Priests? Are they using their influence to ‘favor’ certain individuals and return their blessings?

Spencer Kimball intimated that there is such power in the Church and supported his understanding with a lengthy quote from J. Reuben Clark. At that time he was  first counselor in the LDS First Presidency, and he said in part:

“There is in the Church… the power to remit sins, but I do not believe it resides in the bishops. That is a power that must be exercised under the proper authority of the priesthood and by those who hold the keys that pertain to that function.”  -MOF:Chapter 21, page 333 (ellipsis in the original)

But do they have the power to do this after one is dead?  How are these claims of restoration of blessings and forgiveness of sins after death justified in the light of Hebrews 9:27, John 14:6, Isaiah 53:12, Hebrews 7:25, & 1st Timothy 2:5?

Comments (147)

On February 21st (2010) a young woman sent her secret to the Post Secret blog. She wrote,

“I started a blog to talk about how I’m ‘Faking it’ as a Mormon…I haven’t told my husband I joined for him.”

Calling herself “The Faker,” the blogger describes herself as “Married, childless, petless, late-20s… and, of course, fumbling through life as a make-believe Mormon.” Her blog, Faking It — The Life and Times of a Make-Believe Mormon, is the place where, she says, “I [can] tell the world how I really feel.” And she does.

The Faker fell in love with a Mormon man (returned missionary) and converted to Mormonism so she wouldn’t lose him. Then she married him. She writes,

“I have a handsome RM husband who absolutely adores me. He is an incredibly motivated person who is on his way up in a big corporation. Working is optional for me. We own a nice house. So on and so forth. And I totally wish I was as thrilled with that as I feel like I should be.

“In actuality, though, I’m not. I feel trapped a lot. I have a lot of resentment stemming from the pressure that was applied to me to convert. Worse than that, however, is the feeling I can’t shake that I was deceitful and made my own bed. After all, I pretended I was okay with converting and all that jazz. Much more serious than having pretended to love action films, for instance.”

The Faker isn’t mad at the LDS Church — she just doesn’t believe it and doesn’t enjoy going and being a part of that faith. And she feels trapped. After sending in her Post Secret last week she found she wasn’t alone. People who heard of The Faker’s blog flocked to her site to encourage and empathize. Some of the comments left by other make-believe Mormons are heartbreaking as they express their fears and regrets. A few excerpts:

“I went though the motions to marry the LDS girl I love, even the two year ‘wasted time’ adventure. I go to the three hour death march every Sunday. I don’t have a single true friend in the ward, but [what] I have is a phone ringing off the wall with folks asking me to do things for them…”

“I am a different person at church than I am at home — I am lucky my husband knows who I truly am, but I can’t open my heart to him and tell him how wrong I feel doing certain things. …I haven’t let him watch me weep…”

“I grew up in Utah…lived the ‘faking it’ life for about 5 years, 2 of which was married to the RM husband. I couldn’t do it any longer… It was a huge struggle for me day in and day out to ‘fake it’.”

“I am in my forties, I went on a mission for the LDS faith. Now I’m a faker for my children. I’m not sure how that’s going to go. My guess is that it will go badly.”

So these people find themselves between a rock and a hard place. What should they do? Continue the make-believe or come clean? The Faker writes,

“Whether or not [my husband] really *grasps* the full extent of my discontent is more iffy…It’s not like he has the constant barrage of doubts, thoughts, et cetera that I have. Understandable.

“The other problem is that the whole ‘doing something about it’ is easier said than done. For those of you who have been in the LDS church, you’ll know what I mean when I say it’s not a part-time religion. Your whole life tends to revolve around it…

“So, have no fear: I’m not pretending to be a Molly [Mormon] to my husband. And trust me, he’s expressed regret for pressuring me back in the day. We were both naïve. It’s just very difficult to know what choices to make from here. Where is my crystal ball?”

Many of The Faker’s readers told her to be obedient to the restored gospel, to fulfill her callings, to seek more diligently for a testimony of the Book of Mormon, to put the best face on her doubts and wait them out — in other words, keep up the charade. I don’t think that’s what Jesus would tell her to do. Nor would He tell her to consult a crystal ball. Finding wisdom in God’s Word, this is what I believe this young woman should consider:

• Regarding her relationship with her husband, love “rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6).
• Regarding feeling trapped, “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
• Regarding her relationship with her LDS friends, “Speak the truth to one another;… love no false oath,…[and] love truth” (Zechariah 8:16-18).

Jesus taught of the folly of building a house on the sand. When the winds and rain come, the house will fall. But, those who are wise build on the rock. Then when the storms come, the house will stand firm (Matthew 7:24-27). The Faker is building her house — her life — on sand. She fails to trust the words of Christ. She believes living the truth will cost her too much. But Jesus also taught, “[W]hoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25).

Truth is often costly. To each make-believe Mormon (and to everyone else), I encourage you to believe and act on Christ’s words: love the truth — the truth will set you free. Build your life on the Rock. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), so lose your life for the sake of the Truth, and by His grace, you will find new life — and be at peace.

I agree with The Faker’s sentiment, “The other problem is that the whole ‘doing something about it’ is easier said than done.” She’s right; it’s easy to say and yet much harder to do. Nevertheless, it is true — and it is worth doing something about.

Comments (90)

The song is from Andrew Peterson’s “Love And Thunder” album. I love his original Christmas album and his children’s music album.

Consider it our Protestant version of burning in the bosom material.

No delegated priesthood authority required.

To those who are afraid to leave:

Don’t be afraid. Taking the LDS Church out of your life doesn’t mean you lose out on a monopoly of family values. And it certainly doesn’t mean you have to lose out on the blessings of Jesus in your life. Jesus is all in all. With Jesus, no need is unmet. No joy is ultimately withheld.

“And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. To our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.” (Philippians 4:19-20)

Comments (8)

The LDS book Gospel Principles includes a chapter titled “Prophets of God.” In discussing what a prophet is, the book also considers the varied backgrounds from which a prophet may come. He might be young, old, educated, unschooled, a professional, or a laborer. Furthermore, the book points out,

“Ancient prophets wore tunics and carried staffs. Modern prophets wear suits and carry briefcases. What, then, identifies a true prophet?” (Gospel Principles [2009], 39)

This is a great question, one Christians are forever trying to get Mormons to think about, because Jesus warned us to beware of false prophets, even if they dress in wool ( Matthew 7:15).

The Bible often portrays Jesus as a Shepherd and His followers as sheep. When Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:15 that false prophets will come in sheep’s clothing, He’s telling us they will look like His followers: they will look like Christians. The apostle Paul also warned that false apostles and deceitful workers “disguise themselves” as apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13). Paul told Timothy: “But realize this, that in the last days…[there will be men] holding to a form of godliness” who do not belong to God (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

The Greek word translated “beware” in the Scripture actually means more than just “be careful.” It means “to turn one’s mind or attention to a thing by being on guard against it.” Therefore, Jesus is directing us to pay attention to what lies below the surface in order to guard against being deceived.

False apostles, dressing up in fine clothes while presenting sweet demeanors, will pretend to be true apostles, maintaining a façade of godliness and good works. Nevertheless, Jesus said they are dangerous and will usher their followers down the broad way that leads to destruction.

So, whether dressed in suits and carrying briefcases, or wearing tunics and carrying staffs, we need to identify whether someone claiming to speak for God is–or is not–a true prophet.

Gospel Principles asks what identifies a true prophet and answers:

“A true prophet is always chosen by God and called through proper priesthood authority (see Articles of Faith 1:5).”

These points may be requirements for a Mormon prophet, but they are not identifiers that would allow someone to ascertain whether a person is a true prophet; for anyone can claim he’s been chosen by God, and anyone can claim he’s been called through an assumed “proper priesthood authority.”

The Bible provides a pretty good list of identifiers for false prophets. Christian apologists Norman L. Geisler and Ron Rhodes explain,

There are many tests for a false prophet…Put in question form, the tests are:

1. Do they ever give false prophecies? Do 100 percent of their predictions of future events come true? (Deut. 18:21-22)
2. Do they contact departed spirits? (Deut. 18:11)
3. Do they use means of divination? (Deut. 18:11)
4. Do they involve mediums or witches? (Deut. 18:1)
5. Do they follow false gods or idols? (Exod. 20:3-4; Deut. 13:1-3)
6. Do they deny the deity of Jesus Christ? (Col. 2:8-9)
7. Do they deny the humanity of Jesus Christ? (1 John 4:1-2)
8. Do their prophecies shift the focus off Jesus Christ? (Rev. 19:10)
9. Do they advocate abstaining from certain foods and meats for spiritual reasons? (1 Tim. 4:3-4)
10. Do they deprecate or deny the need for marriage? (1 Tim. 4:3)
11. Do they promote immorality? (Jude 4, 7)
12. Do they encourage legalistic self-denial? (Col. 2:16-23)

A positive answer to any of the above questions is an indication that the prophet is not speaking for God. God does not speak or encourage anything that is contrary to his character and commands as recorded in Scripture. And most certainly the God of truth does not give false prophecies (Deut. 18:21-23).

If we look beneath the surface of suits and briefcases while asking the biblical identifying questions, how do LDS prophets fare? (You might start with a look at Joseph Smith here.)

———————-

Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.

———————-

Comments (197)

Mormon Times columnist McKay Coppins recently wrote about a bit of misadventure endured by LDS missionaries as they headed off to begin their missions. Before they even got beyond the airport they had suffered two incidents of rudeness directed at them because of their identifying missionary badges. To Mr. Coppins’ credit, he wrote,

“I am not relating these stories in an effort to paint the LDS Church or its missionaries as poor, persecuted Saints in an increasingly cruel world. On the contrary, I have consistently used this column to condemn the persecution complex so many of our members seem to have.”

Instead, Mr. Coppins suggested that it might be helpful if Latter-day Saints sought to understand the attitudes that seem to drive negativity directed toward Mormons. Therefore, he asked (as he titled his column), “Why do they hate us?”

The following week Mr. Coppins’ column related some of the responses he received, including such things as:

• a perceived lack of respect from LDS missionaries as they seek contacts;
• a judgmental attitude from Latter-day Saints toward those who have prayed but not received a confirmation that the Book of Mormon is true; and
• fear from seeing Mormonism as a threat to people’s cherished orthodox beliefs

While interesting, for the folks here at Mormon Coffee I think Mr. Coppins’ question, “Why do they hate us?” is the wrong question to ask. As far as I know, nobody here hates Mormons. A better question for Mr. Coppins to ask here (and perhaps elsewhere as well) might be, “Why do they challenge us?”

So I’m asking you, friends in the Mormon Coffee community: Why do you challenge Mormons and their belief system?

———————-

Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.

———————-

Comments (66)

The Gospel Principles 2009 manual essentially calls classical Christianity “false Christianity” and its theology of God “pagan” and its adherents those who are “called” Christian.

If we talked about Mormon beliefs and Mormonism and Mormon members this way, we’d get priesthood-slapped.

Yes, you heard me right. Let me explain.

In chapter 16 it implicitly taps into popular assumptions about Nicaea and then says that “false Christianity” (that the “Roman emperor adopted”) “taught that God was a being without form or substance.”

My first reaction was that the New Testament teaches that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and that God is spirit, etc.

But then it struck me: WAIT, did a 2009 LDS Church manual just make a delineation between true and FALSE Christianity partly the basis of teaching that “God was a being without [spatial] form or [material] substance”?

Read more »

Comments (35)

If you haven’t sung “How Great is Our God” with 5,000+ brothers and sisters in the Christ, full of the Holy Spirit, enraptured by the intrinsic glory and holiness and majesty of God (the one who never sinned), then you are missing out.

Biblically, I don’t think I will be merely singing for eternity after the resurrection.

But if that’s all I was assigned to do, I’d be one happy man.

“Name above all names, worthy of all praise.”

I can guarantee you that no Spirit-filled person is even close to thinking that needs the qualification of,

“Well, for this earth” or

“Well, as far as we are concerned”

If you want to limit God like that, then your God is not great.

But if you want to worship the same God as we do, then please, SING WITH US. We have an awesome God.

Comments (16)