Mormon Coffee

I have been naive. I thought the disdain of the LDS Church toward the HBO series Big Love was due to concern for the image of the Church (see last Friday’s blog, Fundamentalist Mormons and Big Love). But The Guardian Unlimited, published in the UK, has a different perspective.

According to an article published today, “The march of the Mormons”,

“The Latter-day Saints are on the rise in the US, and a Republican named Mitt Romney has hopes of becoming the first Mormon president. But the church has one serious image problem: polygamy. Which is why HBO’s new drama, about a man with three wives, is stirring up controversy.”

Journalist Julian Borger has written a very interesting article. You can read a few excerpts below, but I encourage you to take a look at the whole story at The Guardian Unlimited web site.

• “Polygamy is a constant embarrassment to the church in its quest for mainstream acceptance and top-level political influence.”
• “The truth is that the Mormon church has managed to live down the Osmonds, but it is still struggling to live down polygamy 116 years after banning the practice. Polygamy survives like a batty old aunt in the attic, sounding off at the most embarrassing moments.”All this is not entirely the church’s fault. The fundamentalist sects in Utah and beyond who still use the Mormon label generate a disproportionate number of news stories, mostly about horribly abused women and children. Yet some critics say the church leadership, in its multi-spired temple in downtown Salt Lake City, must shoulder some of the blame. It has sent mixed signals on plural marriages, turned a blind eye to polygamists in its own ranks decades after the ban, and done little to help victims of abuse. Although the church’s 1890 ‘manifesto’ against polygamy prohibits it here on earth, the scriptures retain it as a celestial ideal for believers who find their way to the kingdom of heaven.

  “Such criticisms have long been an irritant to the Mormon hierarchy, but of late they have become excruciating. Now more than ever, the Mormon apostles do not want dirty old laundry to be aired on prime-time television, just as the Latter-day Saints seem poised to fulfil their founder’s prophecy and scale the supreme heights of US government.”

• “Hardly anyone batted an eyelid when Harry Reid emerged as the Senate minority leader in 2004. In fact the Democrats, convinced they had lost that year’s elections on ‘moral values,’ were proud of Reid’s Mormon credentials.”The church is a byword for conservatism (95% of American Mormons voted for Bush in 2004) and Reid is anti-abortion, opposed to gay marriage and gun control and defends capital punishment.

  “But he is liberal on bread-and-butter issues such as health and education, and that is good enough for the Democrats in this time of exile. Reid at least offers potential crossover appeal in conservative ‘red’ states.

  “Reid’s Mormonism is unthreatening. America does not fear excessive religious zeal in its Democrats, as it tends not to worry about weakness on security from its Republicans. It would be counterintuitive. In any case, the job of Senate minority leader is a backroom task for a political engineer. It does not hold sway over the Union.

  “But a Mormon running as a Republican for the presidency is another matter. Americans want their presidents not just to represent them, but also to embody them somehow as a nation.

  “Would a Mormon be permitted to do that?

  “The precedents are not favourable. Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Latter-day Saints church, declared his presidential candidacy in 1844, at a time when his followers were a community of outcasts in Illinois. In July [June] that year, he was shot dead by an anti-Mormon at the age of 38, before his campaign even got going. His successor, Brigham Young, fled west to Utah with the remaining Saints (including Miles Park Romney, Mitt Romney’s great-great-grandfather).

  “They took with them Smith’s prophecy that one day a Mormon would come to America’s rescue.

  “Mormons would be ‘the staff upon which the nation shall lean,’ the prophet predicted, when the constitution ‘is on the brink of ruin.’”

• “The legacy [of polygamy] endured for nearly half a century after Smith’s death, and the church only surrendered it as a compromise, in return for Utah statehood. Polygamy has dogged Mormonism ever since, and it will dog Mitt Romney’s bid to become the Latter-day Saints’ first president.”The fact is that polygamy makes lousy politics - for all the same reasons it will no doubt make great television.”

---

I think it’s also interesting to note Mitt Romney’s comment in a Fox News Sunday interview with the show’s host, Chris Wallace.

WALLACE: I want to ask you about another area of possible controversy and it involves something very personal, your religion. You are a Mormon. As you well know, a number of evangelicals say that could be a problem for you in Republican primaries because they say Mormonism is a cult. Your response.
ROMNEY: Well, I think people in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their governor, as their senator, as their president. I don’t think most people care what brand of faith they have.

I certainly hope Governor Romney is mistaken about this. If Americans only care that a person has faith, but we don’t care what that faith entails, our nation is in deep trouble. This is like saying we want a president who cares about economics, but we don’t care what his position on economics might be.

Governor Romney’s religion asserts, for instance, that Mormons and Mormonism will rescue the Constitution of the United States of America from ruin. Does this not have some sort of significance in his bid for the U.S. presidency? Wouldn’t American’s think so?

The issue of Governor Romney’s Mormonism is one every U.S. citizen is likely to have to consider as the 2008 elections draw near. But right now, regardless of his chosen religion, I find Governor Romney’s implication regarding the shallowness of the American public to be highly offensive.

The LDS Church is upset over the new HBO series, Big Love. The TV show, which premiers March 12th, is about a polygamous family living in suburban Salt Lake City. Bill Paxton plays Bill Hendrickson, the husband of three wives; the family is depicted as members of an LDS offshoot group.

The Mormon Church has arranged for “a carefully worded disclaimer at the start of each hour, stressing that plural marriage is strictly outlawed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Nevertheless, the Church is unhappy about the possible confusion the HBO series may cause among its viewers. As the Denver Post notes,

“The last thing the LDS hierarchy needs is a primetime series featuring a polygamist who considers himself a follower of church founder Joseph Smith.”

But I have to hand it to the show’s producers. The so-called Mormon fundamentalist groups (polygamists) do follow the teachings of Joseph Smith. I applaud the producers’ commitment to tell it like it is in the face of what must be tremendous pressure from the LDS Church.

What I find really interesting about this whole “Mormons are not polygamists” thing is the irony of it.

“The church has rigorously distanced itself from these sects, stressing that these groups are not Mormons, that there is no such thing as ‘Fundamentalist Mormonism,’ that polygamy merits excommunication from the mainstream church… Even calling them offshoots is misleading, [Church spokesman Mike] Otterson says.”

The Denver Post further notes:

“The divide between mainstream Mormons and those who consider themselves fundamentalists is considerable. Although the [LDS] church shuns the ‘fundamentalist’ term, many remaining polygamists, living in secrecy in ultrareligious sects in the West, describe themselves that way.

“The fundamentalists, [series co-creator Mark] Olsen has said, ‘look at The Church of Latter-Day Saints as sellouts and apostates.’”

Does this ring a bell for anyone? Try on this rewritten statement for size:

The divide between Christianity and those who consider themselves LDS Christians is considerable. Although Christianity shuns the ‘LDS Christian’ term, many Mormons, living in the West, describe themselves that way.

The ‘LDS Christians’ look at modern day non-LDS Christians as sellouts and apostates.

Hmmm…

Another interesting thing is this. Speaking of the fundamentalists Mike Otterson said:

“They are illegal polygamist groups…”

As were the Mormons when they practiced polygamy in Illinois and the Utah Territory.

“…several [are] under investigation for child abuse…”

Let’s not forget that Joseph Smith married a 14-year-old girl, Brigham Young a 15-year-old, and John D. Lee a 12- or 14-year-old girl that he later divorced so she could marry his son.

But I think we can settle the issue of whether fundamentalists are Mormons by an appeal to a criterion deemed valid by Latter-day Saints everywhere, including LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley. Using their reasoning, of course polygamous fundamentalist are Mormons—many of them have “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” right in the name of their church!

Who can argue with that?

Today’s online Deseret News reports the discovery last week of a “suspicious package” left on the steps of the St. George Temple. The small white box included a message on the outside that said, “Happy Birthday to Jesus, from the Bailey’s.”

Deseret News reports that a bomb squad was called in, along with police, firefighters, and paramedics. Thankfully, upon x-raying the box they found it contained nothing but strips of paper with “little messages” written on them.

It has not been reported why the box was left at the St. George Temple, who the Bailey’s are, or why they would leave Jesus birthday wishes in February. Maybe the box was part of a Bailey’s Family Home Evening activity.

Whatever the background of the package, it’s easy to understand the alarm of St. George authorities. Not only do we live in a world where unmarked boxes could easily be bombs left by terrorists, but the St. George Temple has a history of being a magnet for crazy things.

Just last January 29th the police were forced to use a taser to subdue and arrest a man at the St. George Temple Visitors Center who claimed to be God.

Back in August of 2001 a naked man broke through the locked glass doors of the St. George Temple Visitors Center and bled all over the Christus statue before being taken into custody by police.

In 1996 a man broke in to the St. George Temple by chopping a hole in the temple door.

No wonder the police were concerned about the birthday box for Jesus.

I don’t know why the St. George Temple has more than its share of undesirable incidents, but there is an especially dark spiritual side to that particular temple.

In June of 2004 a friend of mine visited the St. George Temple Visitors Center and learned from a senior missionary that “this temple has probably been visited by the dead more than any other temple.” The missionary proudly showed my friend a photo album which contained a typed list of spirits that had visited the St. George Temple along with newspaper clippings describing some of these appearances.

According to the fourth prophet of the LDS Church, Wilford Woodruff, in August of 1877 the deceased signers of the Declaration of Independence appeared to him demanding to know why temple work had not yet been done for them. President Woodruff promptly went to the baptismal font and was baptized for these men (save 2) and 50 others.

After this experience, President Woodruff said, “The dead will be after you, they will seek after you as they have after us in St. George.” (Journal of Discourses 19:229)

Creepy.

And displeasing to God as well, for the Bible clearly tells us we are not to have any contact with the dead (Leviticus 19:31; 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:10-12; 1 Samuel 28:3-20; 2 Kings 21:6; 23:24; Isaiah 8:19).

News-Record.com from Greensboro, North Carolina yesterday reported on the 11th annual youth Interfaith tour, Operation Understanding. Sponsored by The National Conference for Community and Justice of the Piedmont Triad, Sunday’s tour took 400 middle and high school students along with adult volunteers to a Quaker meeting, a Jewish synagogue, and a Mormon church. At each stop the kids were given an overview of the religion they were visiting, and then were allowed to ask questions.

The sponsor, The National Conference for Community and Justice, was founded in 1927 for the purpose of fighting “bias, bigotry, and racism in America.” Formerly known as The National Conference of Christians and Jews, it became well-known among Christian apologists in 1984 when its Virginia chapter released a statement denouncing The Godmakers video as filled with “half-truths, faulty generalizations, erroneous interpretations, and sensationalism.” Though citing no examples, the NCCJ insisted the film’s portrayal of Mormonism was “a basically unfair and untruthful presentation of what Mormons really believe and practice.” The Godmakers has its faults, but the NCCJ did not do its homework. It therefore became guilty itself of “a basically unfair and untruthful” judgment against the film.

With that background enhancing our understanding of today’s NCCJ, this is what the organization says about their annual Interfaith tour:

“The goal of the Interfaith tour is not to attempt to convert people to other religions. We simply hope this experience will help students understand, appreciate and respect some of the differences in religions and styles of worship throughout our community.”

While this sounds like a worthy goal, the News-Record report seems to indicate an opposite outcome:

“NCCJ program specialist Betsy Harrington said the tours reminded her again that people are more alike than they are different. ‘There are just different nuances to how we practice (our faiths),’ she said.”

So is the purpose of the tour to help students understand the differences between the religions they visit? Or to convince them that there really aren’t any significant differences at all?

I’m all for people gaining a better understanding of our world. Understanding each other gives us the opportunity for meaningful dialog and deeper relationships. However, minimizing our differences does not lead to better understanding; it obscures understanding.

I like an illustration used by Greg Koukl (from Stand to Reason) when people suggest that all religions are basically the same. He draws two small circles and asks, “Are these two things basically the same?” The answer, of course, is yes. Then he labels the circles; one is labeled “aspirin,” and the other is labeled “cyanide.” He asks, “Now are they basically the same?”

The point is that differences matter. They are important. And in many cases an understanding of differences is essential.

The NCCJ program specialist came away from the Interfaith tour having learned that people and their religions are pretty much the same. Though Jews, Quakers and Mormons have fundamental differences in what they believe—to the very bedrock of who they worship—this adult concluded that it all boils down to a mere “different nuance” in the way they practice their faith.

If an adult was convinced of such nonsense by the Interfaith tour, how much confusion and vulnerability has it instilled in those middle and senior high school students?

What a shame.

Today’s online Washington Times includes an article titled, Teachings guide us to healing. The article is comprised of excerpts from a sermon delivered Sunday by Bishop Alvin B. Jackson, Jr. at the Kensington Ward of the LDS Church. This article is found in the newspaper’s Culture section, but it is unclear to me why it is included in The Washington Times at all. In fact, it is unclear to me what the teachings even mean.

Maybe it’s because we only have excerpts from the sermon. Without the entire text it is impossible to figure out the context of the Mr. Jackson’s statements. He covers a lot of doctrinal ground, touching on:

• The Articles of Faith
• Book of Mormon
• Adam’s Fall
• Essential Ordinances
• The Atonement
• Repentance
• Pre-existence
• Eternal Families
• Joseph Smith
• Living Prophets
• Faith

For an article only 745 words long, that’s a lotta topics. It’s no wonder the article doesn’t make much cohesive sense.

Take, for instance, the paragraph on Adam’s Fall:

“The Book of Mormon teaches Adam’s fall was a necessary and important step in our earthly progression. Jesus Christ’s atonement is the necessary component in making Adam’s prophecy a reality. Having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized by proper priesthood authority, receiving the purifying gift of the Holy Ghost and accepting all other essential ordinances are the steps that lead us back to our Father.”

Nowhere else in the article is “Adam’s prophecy” mentioned. What is that? Likewise, there’s no other information on priesthood authority, the Holy Ghost, or other “essential ordinances.”

Mr. Jackson does talk about the atonement a bit more. He says,

“Much of our early knowledge on the subject involved what happened on the cross and the Savior’s glorious Resurrection. What is missing for some is a firm understanding of Christ’s atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane. What does that word “atonement” mean? The literal meaning of the word is the act of unifying or bringing together what has been separated and estranged.”

A firm understanding of the LDS doctrine of Christ’s atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane is still missing for the readers of The Washington Times, and perhaps for Mr. Jackson’s congregation as well.

The article finally winds up with the topic mentioned in the title: Healing. Mr. Jackson is quoted,

“As you began to grow small seeds of faith through prayer, Scripture study, church attendance, your understanding will increase. Our testimony is that He lives and He can do what He says He can do. He can heal you.”

So the topic of healing is used as a set of bookends: the word is found in the title and in the last sentence, and nowhere in between.

I don’t know how this article came to The Washington Times; there is no by-line attached to it. I don’t know why it came to The Washington Times; there is no sense to it.

It is a curiosity.

Newspapers around the country are picking up the story reported yesterday in the LA Times (see yesterday’s blog, DNA and Mormonism). I thought it might be a good idea to provide a few resources for people wanting to learn more about the whole controversy.

For a really good article on the DNA issues and the “unofficial” LDS response see DNA and the Book of Mormon Record.

Another article that goes into great depth: Lamanites No More: DNA and Lost Ties to Father Lehi

View the online video from Living Hope Ministries, DNA vs. The Book of Mormon.

Here is an article by Simon G. Southerton, whose book, Loosing a Lost Tribe, is at the center of the DNA controversy. In Answers to Apologetic Claims about DNA and the Book of Mormon Dr. Southerton addresses “the most frequently advanced arguments” from Mormon apologists.