Mormon Coffee

Deseret News reported today on the first session of a two-day conference held at Utah Valley State College, “Mormonism and the Christian Tradition.” According to the report,

“Participants in a panel discussion representing various perspectives shared their thoughts on a host of doctrines that mainstream Christian faiths and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have widely divergent opinions on.”

The short news report does not identify the number of participants on the panel, but it does name and quote one Mormon professor from Brigham Young University, Robert Millet.

Dr. Millet spoke about the LDS doctrine of Eternal Progression. Though the article defined Eternal Progression as “the notion that mortals can become like God in the afterlife,” a better and fuller definition of the doctrine is found in a famous (among Latter-day Saints) couplet written by Lorenzo Snow, who became the 5th LDS Prophet in 1898:

“As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become.”
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism 4:1474)

Mr. Snow claimed this doctrinal teaching came to him via revelation in 1840. Later, Joseph Smith told him it was a “true gospel doctrine’ revealed “from God to you.” (LeRoi C. Snow, “Devotion to a Divine Inspiration,” Improvement Era, June 1919, page 656)

According to Deseret News, Dr. Millet said doctrines like Eternal Progression are not as frequently discussed now as they were 30 years ago “because we’ve begun to talk about other things more.” In the 1970s,

“…[LDS] church members ‘began to become much more literate in the scriptures,’ which led to a greater emphasis on redemptive theology through Jesus Christ. The result ‘has caused us to focus more on some things and less on other things,’ Millet said.”

Dr. Millet’s comments make it seem as if the doctrine of Eternal Progression is not really an important part of Mormon theology. He doesn’t deny or repudiate the teaching, but he shifts attention away from it and points his audience instead to an LDS belief in Christ. However, sitting on my desk I have four issues of Ensign magazine that teach the concept of Eternal Progression as a true and current doctrine of the LDS Church:

• August 1995: “…our Heavenly Father proposed that all of his spirit children who lived with him in heaven might obtain the same blessings and privileges of Deity he enjoys. The process includes our gradually obtaining a clear understanding of the eternal principles that prepared and placed him in his current exalted condition.” (”Learning to Live for Eternal Life,” Seventy Carlos H. Amado, page 38)

• July 1996: “Knowing what we know concerning God our Father–that he is a personal being; that he has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as our own; that he is an exalted and glorified being; that he was once a man and dwelt on an earth…” (”The Eternal Gospel,” Robert L. Millet, page 53)
• February 2002: “God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. …even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.” (”The Origin of Man,” First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, reprint of November 1909 statement, page 30)
• January 2006: “…if we are faithful and true to the commandments of the Lord, to become sons and daughters of God, joint heirs with Jesus Christ; and in His presence to go on to a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever, and perhaps through our faithfulness to have the opportunity of building worlds and peopling them.” (”Adam’s Role in Bringing Us Mortality,” President Joseph Fielding Smith, reprint of October 1967 General Conference address, page 52)

Furthermore, though my copies of Ensign don’t go back this far, consider one more incidence of the teaching Eternal Progression since the 1970s:

• July 1982: “It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.” (”I have a question,” Gerald Lund, page 38)

In the end it doesn’t really matter how often Eternal Progression is discussed in the LDS Church. What matters is that it is a central point of doctrine. This doctrine defines the God that Mormonism calls people to worship; this doctrine constitutes the eternal hope of Latter-day Saints to one day become Gods.

I would say without a doubt that Deseret News got it right. The conference panel absolutely discussed doctrines “that mainstream Christian faiths and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have widely divergent opinions on.” To Mormons, Eternal Progression is truth; to Christians, incontrovertible heresy.

Comments (2)

The March 24th Molokai Island Times carried a story about a journalist’s first visit to an LDS Sunday service. Following are a few quotes from the article.

• “First there is a Sacrament Service, where everyone meets together and takes communion, remembering the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. However, in the LDS tradition, water is used instead of wine or grape juice. [My Mormon friend] Aunty Jeanette said they use water instead because the same type of wine that was used in the days of Jesus is no longer available.”

• “‘We come to know Christ through the prophet Joseph Smith,’ explained a young saint who was asked to speak. Strongly emphasized in the practice of LDS faith is the role of the prophet Joseph Smith, who is said to have, as a young American in the mid-19th Century, experienced visions of Christ.”
• “‘This is the only true and Holy Church,’ said church member Rosie Davis, who was asked to speak last Sunday.”
• “In recognition of Smith’s gift, Mormons sing songs that praise Smith’s role in revealing the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
• “Meyer gave an instruction [during Sunday school], comparing the lives of Joseph of Egypt, Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ - all of whom began their ministry at the age of 30.”
• “‘If we went to the temple everyday, there is so much to take out of the temple through the spirit,’ [LDS member and former High Priest Rod Felt] said.’ But we’re counseled not to share what we learn…if we share it, it will fall on deaf ears.’”
  

The journalist seems to have recognized the LDS worship service’s heavy emphasis on Joseph Smith. I’m glad he included that in his article. I think it’s interesting, too, that he chose to quote the last remark: Latter-day Saints are counseled against sharing the deeply spiritual teachings of the temple with non-Mormons. Wouldn’t any non-Mormon be puzzled by this? Mormons should not share what they learn?

It’s evident in this Molokai Island Times report that, while the name of Jesus crops up here and there, He is not the focus of a typical Sunday morning at the Mormon Church.

Comments (2)

Last Friday I went to the LDS Church sanctioned Joseph Smith web site. The site has a section titled “On This Day…,” reporting daily events from the life of Joseph Smith. On Friday it said,

March 24, 1832
Hiram, Ohio. A mob violently tarred and feathered Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon.

This is interesting to me because on my web site, Questioning Mormonism, I have a similar feature that lists daily events in the history of the LDS Church. And for March 24th both the Joseph Smith site and the Questioning Mormonism site list the same bit of history. But the QM site has a little more detail:

“1832 - Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were tarred and feathered by a mob in Ohio due to rumors of Smith’s intimacy with Nancy Marinda Johnson. Nancy’s brother, Eli, was said to have led the mob.”

Interesting how a few additional facts can change the whole tenor of a historic event. Here’s the more complete story.

On September 2, 1831 Joseph and Emma Smith, along with their 5 month old twins, moved into the John Johnson home in Hiram, Ohio. The Johnson’s had four grown sons and a 16-year-old daughter, Nancy Marinda. LDS author Fawn Brodie wrote,

“Fortified by a barrel of whiskey, [the mob] smashed their way into the Johnson home on the night of March 24, 1832 and dragged Joseph from the trundle bed where he had fallen asleep while watching one of the twins. They stripped him, scratched and beat him with savage pleasure, and smeared his bleeding body with tar from head to foot. Ripping a pillow into shreds, they plastered him with feathers. It is said that Eli Johnson demanded that the prophet be castrated, for he suspected Joseph of being too intimate with his sister, Nancy Marinda. But the doctor who had been persuaded to join the mob declined the responsibility at the last moment…” (No Man Knows My History, page119).

Joseph survived the ordeal with injuries that healed over time. But one of Joseph and Emma’s twins, who had been suffering from measles and was that night exposed to cold, damp air, died five days later.
LDS author Todd Compton wrote,

“The motivation for this mobbing has been debated. Clark Braden…alleged…that Marinda’s brother Eli led a mob against Smith because the prophet had been too intimate with Marinda. This tradition suggests that Smith may have married Marinda at this early time, and some circumstantial factors support such a possibility. The castration attempt might be taken as evidence that the mob felt that Joseph had committed a sexual impropriety; since the attempt is reported by [Marinda's brother who became LDS apostle] Luke Johnson, there is no good reason to doubt it. Also, they had planned the operation in advance, as they brought along a doctor to perform it. The first revelations had been received in 1831, by historian Danel Bachman’s dating. Also, Joseph did tend to marry women who had stayed at his house or in whose house he had stayed” (In Sacred Loneliness, page 231).

Thinking that the circumstantial evidence may be lacking in some respects, Mr. Compton suggested the possibility of a different motivation for the mobbing, one of an economic nature rather than a sexual nature. Whatever provided the impetus for the tarring and feathering of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon that night in 1832, the event didn’t happen in a vacuum.

A postscript to the Joseph and Nancy allegations: In 1834 Nancy married LDS Church member Orson Hyde. Six years later, in the spring of 1840, Church authorities sent Orson on a three-year mission to Jerusalem. Two years into the mission, while he was away, Joseph Smith was sealed to Orson Hyde’s wife, Nancy Marinda. Nancy thus became Joseph’s 10th plural wife, though she remained married to Orson as well. In 1870 Nancy divorced Orson after 34 years of marriage, leaving him to his five remaining plural wives.

The March 11, 2006 issue of LDS Church News reports there will be a “worldwide” commemoration and celebration later this month. Several planned events will mark a “historic milestone”–namely, “The 50th anniversary of the beginning of the preaching of the gospel in Taiwan.”

I was surprised to see the claim that the gospel had only been in Taiwan since 1956. This couldn’t be right, could it? What of all the stories of missionaries in the Orient during the 19th century? Indeed, Hudson Taylor arrived in China with the gospel in 1854, and he was not the first missionary in that nation. So I did a little research on Christian missionaries in Taiwan. This is what I learned:

“Christianity was first brought to Taiwan by Dutch Protestants and Spanish Roman Catholics in the 17th century…

“In 1860, two British missionaries, the Reverend Carstairs Douglas and Reverend H. L. Mackenzie, arrived in Danshuei and Bangka (present-day Wanhua in Taipei) to preach the gospel. In 1864, Dr. James L. Maxwell was sent to Taiwan by the English Presbyterian Mission to preach Christianity. With Tainan as his base, he concentrated his efforts in southern Taiwan. In 1872, the Canadian Presbyterian Church dispatched Rev. Dr. George L. MacKay to northern Taiwan to do missionary work, choosing Danshuei as his center.

“Prior to the Japanese occupation of Taiwan in 1895, there were 97 Protestant churches, 4,854 believers, and 13 foreign missionaries in Taiwan. …When the Japanese left in 1945, Taiwan had 238 Protestant churches and 60,000 believers.” (From the Yearbook of the Republic of China)

Furthermore, the Bible was translated and published in Chinese (Mandarin) back in 1919.

So what’s up with this March 30th commemoration of 50 years of the gospel in Taiwan? For Latter-day Saints, the preaching of the historic gospel for three centuries before Mormon missionaries arrived in 1956…well, it just doesn’t count.

I love the above statement from the Church News because it tips the LDS hand. No matter how often it is asserted that Mormonism is Christianity, no matter how often the claim is made that the divide between Mormonism and Christianity is narrow, the truth is there for all to see: Mormonism and Christianity proclaim different gospels. What’s more, the LDS Church recognizes this fact.

Paul chastened and warned the early Christian church against another gospel. Those words bear repeating:

“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,…if we, or an angel from heaven. preach any other gospel to you that what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9)

By time the Mormons arrived in Taiwan there were already 40 Christian denominations there, holding church services and “preaching the gospel.” There was a Christian missionary broadcasting the gospel via radio. As mentioned earlier, the Bible had been available in the formal language of the nation for 37 years. And there were hospitals dotting the country which had been founded by Christian missionaries in the 19th century.

So 2006 may mark the 50th anniversary of Mormonism in Taiwan, but it certainly doesn’t mark “the beginning of the preaching of the gospel” there. That is something God’s people have been faithfully doing for at least 300 years.

Comments (2)

I read a press release today about a relatively new book which claims it is “Changing the World’s Concept Concerning the People of African Lineage and the Mormon Priesthood.” Son of Ham Under the Covenant is written by Latter-day Saint Luckner Huggins. According to the press release,

“Perhaps for the first time in the Church’s entire history, Luckner Huggins offers a positive response, based on scriptural evidences as to the real reasons the people of African lineage waited so long for Priesthood inclusion. Presented as a novel, this first book [in the series] explores the roots of voodoo in Haiti, the author’s birthplace. During his exploration he found the connection between voodoo and the exclusion of his African ancestors in Church’s Priesthood.”

Mr. Huggins states in the “Note to the Reader” at the opening of his book,

“…this book does not claim a prophetic revelation, in addition to what God has given in the Holy Scriptures or will provide in the future through His designated latter-day Prophets. Neither is it authorized to do so. I have not been coached by any churches’ ecclesiastical leaders…”

In a section of the book titled “Historical Background On Why This Book Was Written” Mr. Huggins writes,

“Is the question of black people in the Priesthood doomed to eternal speculations, or are there answers waiting to be discovered, like the hidden treasures of a precious mine? Do the Holy Scriptures have answers, and can [the fictional main character] Luke’s story in this book bring them out in the open?…

“In essence, all the civilizations of time have fallen because of wickedness. Why do the critics exclude the people of African lineage from the category of those who have fallen because of wickedness? …Rather than following the pattern of the critics, this book will unfold its own version of who the descendants of Ham really were after Noah’s Flood subsided, and why they became slaves during the dark-ages; as well as the reasons why they waited until 1978 to inherit the Priesthood that God entrusted into Noah’s hands for them…

“…this book will talk about a specific dark image that was hidden among the forefathers of the African lineage. It will unveil what really might have caused their offspring to be withheld from the Priesthood until 1978.”

It will unveil what “really might have” caused the curse? Despite Mr. Huggins’ disdain of speculation, it appears that he has freely engaged in it himself.

I have not read this book, so perhaps there’s something in it that would clear up my question; but I’m left wondering why Mr. Huggins has not considered the pronouncements of previous latter-day Prophets and Apostles regarding this issue. Consider these authoritative LDS teachings:

• “And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God” (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 22:304).

• “Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin…The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 527, 1966 edition).
• “That the negro race, for instance, have been placed under the restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, page 43).
• “There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).

It’s clear that whatever caused the withholding of the Priesthood from people of African lineage, these LDS prophets and apostles taught that it happened in the pre-existence. Mr. Huggins apparently thinks otherwise if he’s suggesting a connection between his ancestors’ practice of voodoo and the curse against those with black skin. I wonder why Mr. Huggins is willing to leave room for God’s revelation through future LDS prophets but dismisses the declarations of past LDS prophets.

Buckley Jeppson, lifelong member of the LDS Church, has been all over the news this past week. Buckley’s ‘claim to fame’ is his 2004 Toronto wedding to partner Mike Kessler. The Deseret News reports:

“A gay man who is a lifetime member of the LDS Church could be facing disciplinary action and excommunication after legally marrying his partner in Canada.

“Buckley Jeppson, 57, said he’s been informed verbally that his life is incompatible with the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that a disciplinary council will address the matter.”

Mr. Jeppson says his Stake President has encouraged him to resign his Church membership to avoid disciplinary action. But Mr. Jeppson is not willing to “deny [his] heritage and his faith.” According to Deseret News,

“It is believed that if Jeppson is excommunicated, it would be the first time a Latter-day Saint in a legal same-sex marriage would be punished by the church, said Olin Thomas, executive director of Affirmation, an advocacy and education group for gay Latter-day Saints.”

The LDS Church does not currently recognize any marriage other than those between one man and one woman; legality has nothing to do with it, according to LDS Church spokesperson Kim Farah.

I would agree, of course, because the biblical model for marriage is monogamous and heterosexual. I support the LDS Church in their commitment to this definition of marriage and uphold their right and duty to withdraw Mr. Jeppson’s Church membership. What I find really interesting about this affair is found in a comment from the LDS Church.

“Baptized church members promise to live the principles of the gospel, Farah said.

“‘If the person later decides to reject these core principles, they have the right and freedom to do so,’ she said. ‘However, they cannot reasonably expect to reject the most fundamental teachings of the church and still wrap themselves in the cloak of church membership.’”

But Consider this. The LDS Church rejects “the most fundamental teachings” and “core principles” of the historic Christian faith; yet it still insists on “wrapping [itself] inside the cloak” of Christianity.

Seems to me that if fundamental teachings and core principles are understood as essential in defining what is or is not a Latter-day Saint, there should be no problem using the same sort of criteria to define what is or is not Christianity.

Mormons who object to a doctrinal assessment of their Church, resulting in its classification as non-Christian, don’t have a leg to stand on.

Comments (1)