Mormon Coffee

Since 1981 the Introduction to the Book of Mormon has stated,

“The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting Gospel.”

Recently the Introduction was changed; among other things, the words “as does the Bible” have been removed. This change is consistent with the teaching of LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer found in an article which appeared in the March 2008 issue of the Ensign magazine. In “Who Is Jesus Christ?” Mr. Packer stated, “Nephi testified that the Bible once ‘contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record’” but later the “great and abominable church” took away many “plain and most precious” parts of the gospel (Ensign, March 2008, 16).

The above reference to the teaching of Nephi in the Book of Mormon has been a component of LDS doctrine since the Church’s inception. LDS prophets and apostles have preached continuously that the Bible has been corrupted and much truth lost from the original text. This LDS view of a corrupted Bible is now and has always been a major concern among Christians. The idea that the Bible is missing parts of the LDS Gospel is nothing new or shocking; but with this recent change to the Book of Mormon Introduction, the incongruity of the pre-changed text is brought to the forefront.

The Introduction was originally written for a new edition of the Triple Combination (one volume which contains the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price) published in 1981. The new edition of the scriptures was heralded as “the product of years of research and inspired direction.” * One wonders, therefore, how the inaccurate claim that the Bible contains the fullness of the everlasting Gospel came to be included in the first place. It certainly did not reflect the true teachings or doctrine of the LDS Church, yet it remained in the Book of Mormon Introduction for about 25 years.

Why?

———–

* Edward J. Brandt, “Using the New LDS Editions of Scripture—As One Book,” Ensign, October 1982, 42

Comments (2)

The LDS Church has posted a rebuttal to an opinion piece written by Timothy Egan that appeared on the New York Times blog on April 23rd (2008). Mr. Egan’s article, “Faith of Our Fathers,” makes a critical comparison between FLDS polygamy and the early Mormon Church. He writes,

“Faith is a moving thing; witness the throng in Yankee Stadium who came away in a fever of fellowship after listening to the Pope last weekend, or the 55,000 moved to practice random acts of compassion by the Dalai Lama at Qwest Field in Seattle two weeks ago.

“But religion can also be used as an excuse for awful behavior – from the torture of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, to beheadings by Jihadist killers, to the sexual manipulation of children by early Mormons and their latter-day sects.

“…The [LDS] church has been vocal about denouncing the renegade Mormons in Texas, and quick to point out that it abandoned polygamy in 1890, as a condition of Utah’s statehood.

“For a long time, though, the church was at odds with basic American ideals, and not just because old guys sanctioned marital sex with dozens of teenage girls. What you see in Texas — in small part — is a look back at some of the behavior of Mormonism’s founding fathers.”

The LDS rebuttal, “Polygamy Then and Now,” written by LDS Church Historian Marlin K. Jensen, begins with this:

“…Egan wrote a post on the Outposts blog claiming that the way polygamy is practiced today by members of the FLDS sect in Eldorado, Texas is the same as it was practiced by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in the 19th century.

The alert reader might notice a disparity here. In the New York Times article Mr. Egan does not say, as the LDS rebuttal claims, that the way FLDS practice their polygamy (which might include, for example, forced marriages, exiling young boys, etc.) is the same as the way in which early Mormons practiced polygamy. Mr. Egan actually writes that what we see in the Texas FLDS community is a look back at the behavior of early Mormon leaders “in small part.”

The LDS rebuttal continues,

“Much of the argument Egan makes for similarities between FLDS polygamy and early Mormon marriage practices relates to the claim of ’sexual manipulation’ of children as evidenced by the age of marriage.”

Mr. Egan does mention the young age of some of the plural wives of both early Mormons and today’s polygamists, but the bulk of his argument is based on “some of the behavior of Mormonism’s founding fathers”; specifically, the claim of divine revelation commanding polygamy coupled with militant defiance against the government.

Mr. Egan’s charge of “sexual manipulation of children by early Mormons,” is not set forth as an empty claim. He provides his readers with one example as background. Speaking of Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s first prophet, Mr. Egan writes:

“Before he died at the hands of a mob, he married at least 33 women and girls; the youngest was 14, and was told she had to become Smith’s bedmate or risk eternal damnation.”

The LDS rebuttal points out that it was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for 15-year-old girls to wed. Yet it misses an important point and does not address the other factors involved in these Mormon marriages: the 15 year-old girls often married men twice their age, and they married men who had multiple wives.

The remainder of the LDS rebuttal does not address issues raised in Mr. Egan’s opinion piece but rather addresses differences between early Mormon society and the FLDS communities that the LDS Church would like to stress. For example, it talks about the freedom enjoyed by Mormon women in the nineteenth century, about the industriousness of the Mormon communities, about the involvement of these early Mormons in things like politics and education; all starkly contrasting with today’s FLDS model.

At the same time that the LDS rebuttal discusses these non-issues in relation to Mr. Egan’s article, it avoids discussion of the core of Mr. Egan’s comparison: the divinely commanded and divinely required practice of plural marriage in defiance of the law.

The LDS rebuttal concludes,

“Mr. Egan’s cavalier comparison of FLDS polygamous practices with those of 19th century Latter-day Saints is historically unsupported and simply wrong. By implication, he also unfairly impugns the integrity of all Latter-day Saint marriages and families, the very institutions they hold most dear.”

Though the Church is loath to admit it, Mr. Egan’s statement, “What you see in Texas — in small part — is a look back at some of the behavior of Mormonism’s founding fathers,” is historically supportable and accurate. Does Mr. Egan “unfairly impugn the integrity” of polygamous Mormon marriages? He is entitled to his opinion. And you and I are entitled to ours.

Comments (11)

Catholic News Service (CNS) reported last week on an April 2008 Vatican directive sent to Catholic dioceses throughout the world. In the letter, Catholic bishops are instructed to prohibit Latter-day Saints from microfilming and digitizing information contained in parish registers. CNS explained:

“Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said the step was taken to prevent the Latter-day Saints from using records — such as baptismal documentation — to posthumously baptize by proxy the ancestors of church members.”

The Vatican directive says the purpose of this policy is to:

“ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in [each bishop’s] territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Father Massa commented that the directive has the potential to strain relations between the Catholic Church and Latter-day Saints,

“but I would also say that the purpose of interreligious dialogue is not to only identify agreements, but also to understand our differences. As Catholics, we have to make very clear to them their practice of so-called rebaptism is unacceptable from the standpoint of Catholic truth.”

On Sunday (May 5, 2008) LDS-owned Deseret News reported on the Vatican directive, logging many comments from readers. Through these comments, the Catholic Church is accused of bigotry, secrecy, stinginess, closed-mindedness, being pawns of the devil, etc. Many Mormon comments include disbelief and the question of why the Catholic Church would even care about LDS proxy baptisms if it doesn’t recognize that rite as efficacious anyway.

A fascinating theme repeated over and over by Latter-day Saints on this forum is this: The fact that the Catholic Church has decided to deny the LDS Church microfilming and digitizing access to Catholic parish records proves that the LDS Church is true. And not only that; it also proves the Catholic Church knows the LDS Church is true.

Though the Vatican says that the LDS practice of baptism for the dead is understood within Catholicism to be “detrimental,” “erroneous,” “unacceptable,” and outside the boundaries of “Catholic truth,” according to these Mormons, Rome’s actions speak louder than words. Consider a few comment excerpts:

“Strange that the boys in Rome are concerned with what they say [is] erroneous doctrine. Perhaps they are slowly realizing that Joseph Smith is indeed a prophet and they see a threat to their man-based religion with all its wealth. More confirmation that the gospel has been restored…”

“I don’t understand why the Catholic church would withhold family information from people of all denominations, who are trying to make links with their ancestors, unless the Catholic church believes that there just might be some credibility to the work done for the dead in LDS temples.”

“It makes the Catholic Church sound as if it is afraid LDS doctine might be correct! If the doctrine is wrong, what difference does it make? If it is correct, do you really want to put yourslf in direct opposition to God’s will? This makes the Catholic Church appear unsure of its doctrine.”

“… perhaps they consider the possibility that mormons are right but don’t want to admit it.”

“Like the Jews, apparently he [the Pope] must believe in the LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead and sealings of families or there would be no reason to fear how these records might be used by the church.”

The Catholic Church has plainly stated that it does not want to “cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in regards to proxy baptism. Is it possible that this is the real reason for the Vatican’s directive? Could it be that the Catholic Church has read and taken to heart God’s Word where it teaches that cooperation is sometimes equal to participation (2 John 1:10-11; 1 Timothy 5:22)? Perhaps the Catholic Church finds these words appropriate in the current situation:

“…the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore, do not become partners with them… Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness…” (Ephesians 5:6-11).

What if that’s the motivation behind this directive after all?

—

Of related interest:
Mormons Should Try Walking in Jewish Shoes
Will Pope Benedict become a Mormon after he dies?

Comments (54)

In March I posted “Least Influential Mormons” here on Mormon Coffee. I wrote,

“If we were making a list, I think we might include the names of at least the first five LDS prophets as those whose doctrines are often considered irrelevant in Mormonism today. A number of their significant teachings have fallen by the wayside.”

I provided examples of some of these teachings, including Lorenzo Snow’s couplet on the nature of God (“As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”) A Latter-day Saint reader responded:

“Haha. I can only laugh at this posting. The thought came to me: Who better to tell ME (a proactive and faithful member of the LDS Church) what teachings are ignored or taught in the Church, than Sharon? It’s hilarious.

“The Lorenzo Snow couplet is one of the LEAST ignored teachings in the Church. I hear it, at least, twice a month…. Which is a lot, considering.

“…So, you made me laugh, Sharon. You say that Lorenzo Snow’s couplet is an ignored teaching, when I hear it ALL THE TIME, in the Church. It really hurts your credibility.” (Excerpted from lengthier quote)

Sometime later I came across Krista Tippett’s January 2008 interview of LDS scholar Robert Millet (Speaking of Faith on American Public Media). In this interview, Ms. Tippett asked Dr. Millet about the LDS godhead. She expressed her understanding that the Mormon idea of God is that He is a product of something like spiritual evolution: “God who was once a man, and moved into this very different kind of being.”

Dr. Millet acknowledged the fact that Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets taught that God was once a man. He continued,

“but you know, it’s talked about so little, so infrequently; I hear much, much more of that teaching from those who are outside the LDS faith than I do from people within.”

How could the church experiences of our Mormon reader and Robert Millet be so different? One hears the doctrine “all the time” in the Church, and the other hears it “so little, so infrequently.”

In March I suggested that this could be a case of public Mormonism vs. private (members only) Mormonism. This idea seems to be borne out in a Church News report of the 61st annual Joseph Smith Memorial Lecture. Speaking to a Utah audience, Joe J. Christensen, then of the Presidency of the Seventy, told this story during the Memorial Lecture, related here by Church News:

“He [Christensen] told of speaking to a university class in the Southwest on the Church during a Religion in Life Conference. After the class, the professor approached him [Christensen] and asked him if he believed the statement, ‘As man is God once was, and as God is man may become.’

“‘I had purposely not used that statement during my remarks to the class because I felt that I could raise more dust with that one than I would be able to settle in one class period,’ he recalled. ‘After circumlocuting around and around the question, I finally said, ‘”Yes, we believe that.”‘” (Church News, 2/4/1995, 4; emphasis retained from the original)

Mr. Christiansen admitted the truth of the doctrine in the end. During the Tippett interview Robert Millet also admitted believing that God was once a man, for he thinks it’s “part of the faith.” Dr. Millet added,

“but it’s rather theologically tangential in the sense that we believe He’s a man; what went on before He was God we just have no idea.”

Dr. Millet referenced Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse earlier in the interview when he acknowledged prophets had taught God was once a man. It seems that if Dr. Millet is willing to believe Joseph’s teaching on that point, then Joseph’s statement on the pre-godhood of God should inform Dr. Millet on that as well. Joseph Smith said,

“…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-347)

So, according to the Prophet, what went on before God became God was this:

• He was learning how to be a God;
• He was learning how to be a king and a priest to His God;
• He was going from one small degree to another;
• He was going from a small capacity to a great one; etc.

This seems pretty clear to me; and it’s pretty important as well. Those who believe the Bible can in no way consider the doctrine of God “theologically tangential.” Knowing God as He is–and worshiping Him alone–is theologically essential.

“‘…let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows Me,…’” *

* Jeremiah 9:24. In addition, please consider Jeremiah 10:10; Exodus 34:14; John 17:3

Comments (120)

Mormon apologists have tried to tone down Mormonism’s godhood theology by insisting that exalted Mormons merely become “like God,” as if this means there is a distinct difference between what the Mormon God is now, and what Mormons hope to become. Is this an accurate appraisal?

Read new article »

Comments (12)

The LDS Church is adamant about distancing itself from modern polygamists, but can it really distance itself entirely from the doctrine of plural marriage?

Read new article » (link fixed)

Comments (13)