Mormon Coffee

Sunday’s online New York Times contains an article by John Anderson titled With Only God Left as a Witness. The article begins:

AS the new year dawned, Jon Krakauer’s “Under the Banner of Heaven” - about a “divinely ordered” double murder in 1984 by two members of a breakaway Mormon sect - was fresh off the best-seller list. Warren Jeffs, the polygamist prophet of this splinter group, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, was on F.B.I. wanted lists. And the world’s first-ever “Mormonsploitation Retrospective” (”Passion! Polygamy! Pamphlets!”) of vintage fear-mongering anti-Mormon movies had just finished at the fringy Pioneer Theater in the East Village in Manhattan.In public relations terms, this is not the easiest time to have the words “Latter,” “Day” and “Saints” anywhere close together in your name. And the going may get rougher after the filmmaker Christopher Cain finishes his new movie about one of the darkest moments in Mormon history, the Mountain Meadows massacre of 1857, in which 137 pioneers from Arkansas were killed in Utah by a raiding party whose ties to the Mormon church are still in dispute.

The film, “September Dawn,” stars Jon Voight, Lolita Davidovich and Terence Stamp (Dean Cain, the director’s son, makes a cameo appearance). Two newcomers, Trent Ford and Tamara Hope, play a frontier Romeo and Juliet in a romance played out against a drama of a mass murder that continues to engender controversy almost 150 years after the fact. Financed independently by September Dawn and Voice Pictures, it is currently being screened for distributors.

The entire New York Times article, though lengthy, is well worth reading.

Mr. Cain said he and his co-writer were helped as they worked on the script by one of Brigham Young’s great-granddaughters who has left the LDS Church and become a born-again Christian.

Apparently none of Brigham Young’s dialog in the film is fiction; it all came from the depositions Mr. Young gave after the massacre. “I sat here watching this a couple of weeks ago,” Mr. Cain said, “and I was thinking: ‘Maybe I made that up. I don’t think he would have said that.’ And I went back and pulled it up and, man, he did.”

September Dawn promises to be a very interesting movie.

On Tuesday (17 January 2006) the FBI offered a $50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a Mormon Fundamentalist denomination. Mr. Jeffs has been on the Fugitives Wanted By The FBI list since August 2005. He is wanted for sexual conduct with a minor. The FLDS group believes the early doctrines of the LDS Church—which recognized the practice of polygamy as a binding commandment—are still in force today.

On Saturday (14 January 2006) Deseret News reported that HBO will debut a new series on Utah polygamists in March. Big Love will star Bill Paxton, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Ginnifer Goodwin and Chloe Sevigny as a non-Mormon independent polygamous family consisting of a man, his three wives, and their seven children. Set in Sandy, Utah, the producers say there will be many familiar landmarks filmed in the series, including the Salt Lake Temple. The LDS Church is concerned that viewers will be confused and associate today’s polygamy with Mormonism; therefore, “a disclaimer will run at the end of each episode stating that the LDS Church does not condone polygamy.”

Last Friday (13 January 2006) the Toronto Star reported on a study in Canada which calls for the legalization of polygamy. The article noted that “polygamy is openly practised [sic] in the religious community of Bountiful, near Creston, B.C., by a breakaway group of Mormons calling themselves the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” The study suggests “Canadian laws should be changed to better accommodate the problems of women in polygamous marriages, providing them clearer spousal support and inheritance rights.” Reports of the study also appeared in US newspapers, including the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The Spectrum, southern Utah’s newspaper located in St. George, included a short editorial, Canada going too far on polygamy, apparently prompted by the Canadian study. This editorial in turn prompted a letter to the editor that I found really…interesting.

On 18 January 2006 The Spectrum published this letter:

Concubines aren’t a covenant marriage

By using and following the principle and doctrine of God’s laws, you shall know all things. Let’s take the law that “no marriages are given in heaven.” Concubines aren’t a covenant marriage, it’s a principle. Many wives is a doctrine law.

All things weren’t told in Genesis on a day-for-day basis. Just things in general are all you needed to know at that time. We are to understand one, Eve. Doctrine claims that God has many wives. Adam indeed was a God who was chosen and set apart to be Adam. It took the fall of three Eves or more before Adam decided to follow Eve. This action gave Adam three wives or more to fulfill the doctrine law of many wives. Repentance and baptism, period.

Many generations passed until the Gods saw it fit and proper to give Adam his principle of the law - his “concubines.” That made Adam’s godhood bound on earth. This principle and doctrine had to be given to Adam in order for it to be handed down to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven? Are we bound on earth?

If we practice not this principle and doctrine, we enter not in heaven! No short cuts, no excuses for not upholding freedom for God’s church and for God’s law that was agreeable to the laws of this land until you, we, and us didn’t do our job to elect just men. Please Lord, bring down Zion. To do the job that we have no guts or righteous desires to do so.

John Robb
St. George

Hmmm…

Comments (1)

Reading the December 31, 2005 issue of Church News I came across this:

“As Latter-day Saints we no more worship Joseph Smith than we do Peter or any of the other ancient apostles. Peter, in fact, is an apt comparison. Both Joseph and Peter fearlessly obeyed the Master in conveying His gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. Both men dedicated their lives to the work of the Kingdom, ultimately suffering a martyr’s death in the cause of Christ. To both men we give our honor, respect, reverence and love—but not our worship.” (p. 16)

This topic of whether or not Latter-day Saints worship Joseph Smith interests me. I’ve tried to figure out why people think Mormons worship Joseph. The fact that many do is evidenced by the constant denials coming from Mormons and the LDS Church. I suppose it could be rumor, but rumors usually die out in the face of reality. Mormonism gets plenty of good press which should put a stop to unfounded rumors. That leaves me thinking that perhaps the rumors won’t die because there is something within Mormonism that keeps them alive.

So I asked the question on my web site, “In practical terms, how does LDS reverence for the Prophet Joseph Smith differ from LDS worship of Jesus Christ?” I had hoped to get some definitive answers from Latter-day Saints pointing out something unique in their worship of Christ that is not found in their behavior and feelings toward Joseph; for I am not aware of any differences.

By that I mean that Mormons sing songs about both Joseph and Jesus. They celebrate the births of both. They commemorate the deaths of both. They display statues of both. They testify of both, etc. So how is the general public to know the difference between how Mormons honor Joseph but worship Jesus?

My web question didn’t generate any responses of substance. Several non-Mormons and ex-Mormons wrote that Latter-day Saints do indeed worship Joseph Smith. The Mormons who responded to the question merely asserted that they don’t.

The comment from Church News caught my attention because of the comparison between Joseph and the Apostle Peter. If, as is implied, Latter-day Saints reverence both Joseph and Peter in the same way, then I would expect to find LDS songs, statues and celebrations in Peter’s honor just as I find in honor of Joseph.

But they are not there.

In fact, I’ve visited many LDS sites and I can’t remember seeing even one statue or monument depicting a biblical prophet or apostle—unless it also included Joseph Smith.

Of course, the mere fact of the display of a statue or monument does not indicate worship given. Consider how many LDS monuments there are to the Mormon pioneers, yet no one (or hardly anyone) accuses Mormons of worshiping these people. Consider the extensive statuary of the Catholic Church… Well, maybe that’s not such a good example.

At any rate, I think the rumor that Mormons worship Joseph Smith persists because there is fuel for the fire. LDS veneration of Joseph may be misunderstood (as Mormons say), but surely the mistake is an honest one and wholly understandable.

I’m not sure which side of the debate I come down on. Perhaps the truth of the matter lies in the way Latter-day Saints define the word “worship.” Or, as one Mormon responder to my web question implied, the difference lies in the one to whom the honor is given: If it’s given to man, it is reverence; if given to deity, it’s worship. Whatever the case, as Latter-day Saints continue to interact with non-Mormons in sharing their feelings about Joseph Smith—to borrow the words of Ricky Ricardo—”They got a lotta ’splainin’ to do.”

Comments (1)

I received a call this morning from a Christian woman; we’ll call her Bea.

I am so impressed by Bea, her obedience and her faith. She has struggled a long time now with cancer, and in November was told that she had but weeks to live. Through God’s grace the doctors were able to find a medication that seems to be helping her and she is gaining a little strength back. Though Bea has been given an extension, she has not long to live in this world.

I try to imagine what I would do if I knew the rest of my life could be counted in days rather than the expected decades. I don’t know how I would spend those precious moments, but Bea is an inspiration.

The LDS Church is building a new chapel in Bea’s neighborhood and she’s concerned for the spiritual welfare of her neighbors. As she told me, “I’m not concerned that the LDS building is going up. I love America and I love that people in our country have the freedom to worship according to their conscience. What concerns me is that my community does not understand how Mormonism differs from the Bible.”

So Bea is busy preparing information for her neighbors. She has purchased the tract Is Mormonism Christian? and plans to begin going door to door this week. She has 200 tracts that she has labeled with her name and phone number; she plans to leave one with every person she meets. And if the Lord allows her to remain, she’ll get more.

Bea isn’t comfortable with her outreach. She’s a little afraid to approach people’s homes and doesn’t know what sort of things she may encounter. She said, “I could easily use my disease as an excuse to stay home, but I’m convinced this is what the Lord wants me to do.” So out she goes, to serve the Lord in this uncomfortable task as long as He gives her strength.

Bea makes me think of a scene from the movie The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. As his army prepares for the great conflict, Peter looks across the battlefield, viewing the immense force assembled against them. Just before the charge he raises his sword and cries, “For Narnia and for Aslan!”

I see Bea looking over the battlefield. All personal concerns aside, she has work to do. “For the kingdom and for Christ!” she cries, and charges ahead with her eyes set firmly on her King.

Comments (1)

After my post yesterday about the frozen swamp I heard from two engineers and one scientist. Two common threads ran through all three responses: 1. There is not enough information in the story to reach a definitive conclusion; and 2. Even so, the veracity of the story is highly dubious.

One engineer said the missing information which needs to be considered includes the air temperature during the previous week, the temperature of the rocks and how long it took them to sink when they were thrown into the swamp, the temperature of the water before the 30 degree drop, the temperature of the surrounding soil, and the number and size of the wheels on the wagon carrying the monument.

The scientist said that we need to consider the mud/water/vegetation ratios in the swamp.

The other engineer, in agreement with the above considerations, nevertheless suggested that conservative assumptions could be made on many of these issues and a calculation could be applied. His opinion is that whether the “frozen solid” assertion in the story refers to water or to muddy muck, the rate for freezing for either substance is similar enough to determine times and temperatures “within the ballpark.”

He sent a link to an equation from the Encyclopedia Britannica that models the rate of freezing of ice on water. Applying this equation, he provided the following information using the Fahrenheit scale:

If the temperature started out at 33 degrees (so the swamp was not yet frozen) and dropped to zero degrees, after 12 hours at zero degrees there would be 1.66 inches of ice on the swamp.

If the temperature was zero degrees and we needed to have 8 inches of ice on the swamp (a reasonable depth to hide the rocks that were thrown in) it would take 93 hours (almost 4 days) to freeze to that depth.

If we only had 12 hours for 8 inches of ice to form, to accomplish that the temperature would have to be 215 degrees below zero.

Furthermore, regarding ice and the load it can bear, this engineer reported that according to the State of Minnesota, a medium-sized pick-up truck needs 12 to 15 inches of ice to bear its weight safely, so the 1.66 inches that could reasonably be expected to form on the swamp overnight at zero degrees would certainly not be enough to hold 40 tons and 22 horses as they “passed over the swamp without difficulty.”

Well, here’s something that’s neither here nor there, but I’m curious about it.

On December 23rd 2005 LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley spoke at the commemoration of Joseph Smith’s 200th birthday. In the course of his remarks, President Hinckley told the story of the 100-year-old monument which today graces the spot in Vermont where Joseph was born.

The monument is a 40-ton polished granite obelisk that measures 38 and a half feet tall. It was brought from the mill where it was cut and polished, to its final resting place, in November of 1805.

My curiosity is in the story of the monument’s trip across country. President Hinckley stated the following (as reported in Deseret News):

A special steel-tired wagon was used to move the stone

The wagon was pulled by 22 horses

A bridge over the White River had to be strengthened to sustain the load

It was necessary to take the wagon and its load through a swamp

Rocks were dumped into the swamp, but they sank out of site

Hardwood planking over the swamp was useless

The weather had been relatively warm for that time of year

Overnight, the temperature dropped 30 degrees

In the morning, the swamp was frozen solid

Twenty-two horses pulling the steel-tired wagon carrying a load of 40 tons of granite passed over the swamp without difficulty

I’m not the scientific type, but I am from Minnesota. As a kid I wasn’t allowed to go ice skating on the swamp near my home until well into December—the ice wasn’t safe before that, though we always had plenty of very cold weather.

So I don’t know. This story of the monument’s trip across the swamp…can it be true? Can a swamp deep enough to swallow a load of rocks really freeze solid overnight? Could that new ice really support 40 tons of granite and 22 horses clomping across it? Or is this just folklore similar to “the miracle of the seagulls”?

It doesn’t really matter; I’m just curious. Does anybody know?