Mormon Coffee

I came across an LDS online magazine for teen and young adult women *Jen*. A press release dated March 17th says:

Jen Magazine contains the same kind of articles you would find in the popular women’s magazines except that they match the values of the Latter-Day Saints (and most other Christian denominations). There are articles of a spiritual nature alongside reviews of popular movies, advice columns, beauty and fitness articles, and of course seasonal fashion picks including modest swimwear suggestions since spring is almost here.

As you might guess, the articles “of a spiritual nature” and “advice columns” most interest me. I made a quick tour around the magazine and lighted on the advice column, “Brandy’s Spare Change.”

Brandy is a 24-year old LDS convert (joined the Mormon Church at 21), was married to her second husband in the Oakland, California temple last summer, and is the mother of one little girl from her first marriage. One of the two questions Brandy addresses in her advice column is from a young non-member woman we’ll call Amy.

Amy was raised in a Christian home and calls herself Christian. She has been dating a Mormon boy for 2 years and now wants to join the LDS Church. Her mother is heartbroken and distraught over Amy’s desire to leave the Christian faith for a false religion. Amy needs her parents’ help to pay for college and to give her a place to live. Though her parents haven’t said they would disown Amy or stop paying for her education if she joined the Mormon Church against their wishes, Amy is afraid they might. She has prayed about this, but still doesn’t know what to do. Amy wants Brandy’s advice:

“…I don’t know who to turn to! You are the only adult mormon that i can talk to…you are the only person who might be able to help me.”

Brandy is only too happy to help. She was in a very similar situation when she joined the Mormon Church against her family’s wishes. Brandy writes:

“I was 21 years old at the time, so my family couldn’t stop me, …”

I see that neither of these young women seem to have a very high maturity level. Amy can’t think of anyone other than a Mormon advice columnist from whom to seek wise counsel. Brandy seems to flaunt the fact that because she was of legal age she was free to disregard her family’s concerns — and the joke is on them.

Maybe I’m reacting a little strongly to this. But I’m a Christian mom and so my perspective is a bit different than either Amy’s or Brandy’s.

Brandy’s advice to Amy boils down to this:

“The reality of it is that it really doesn’t matter what your parents or anyone else thinks about your decision. That may seem like a harsh statement, but I’ve learned that it is so true.”

Brandy suggests that Amy sit down with her mom and explain how important joining the Mormon Church is to her. She suggests that Amy allow her mom to ask questions and that Amy try to find answers for her. I agree with this advice; there is wisdom here. But Brandy’s conclusion is:

“Let her know you are doing this for YOU…Sometimes our parents need to be reminded that we are grown ups too and we are perfectly capable of making our own decisions.”

Given the fact that Amy considers Brandy her only hope for good advice, I question whether Amy is equipped to make sound, life-altering decisions at this point. Of course, it’s true that Amy can–and probably will–make decisions apart from consideration of her parents’ loving input and advice. However, to counsel her to do so is irresponsible and certainly not in keeping with the values of “most…Christian denominations” that recognize parents generally possess wisdom which God calls them to impart to their children (Ephesians 6:1-4; Deuteronomy 11:18-21; Proverbs 1:8, 19:18, 29:15).

Brandy also addresses Amy’s concern over her continuing education and support:

As far as the issue with going to college and the support there, try not to focus so much on what you might lose by joining the church…You will have so much love and support from other members of the church you won’t even know what to do with yourself!”

In other words, don’t worry about losing your family; the Mormon Church will be your new family and will take care of you.

As a Christian I understand the call of Christ to leave father and mother and sisters and brothers to follow Him (Matthew 10:34-39), yet Brandy never counsels Amy to work at reconciliation with her parents. In essence she advises, “Tell your mom that this is important to you and so you’re going to do it whether she likes it or not. You can answer her questions, but you won’t consider her concerns.”

Amy is young. She is under the care and protection of her parents. What if she were to wait; bide her time; recognize that she is still immature and might benefit in many ways from remaining under the loving care of her parents for a season? What if Amy were to talk to her parents and be willing to begin a Bible study with them so they would have an opportunity to explain their concerns about Mormonism from their biblical viewpoint? What if Amy asked her parents to also be willing to meet with LDS missionaries so they can gain an understanding of the LDS Church and ask the questions that weigh on their hearts? What if Amy and her parents researched Mormonism from all available sources and worked through their conclusions together?

Whatever decision Amy ended up making after a scenario like this, whether her parents agreed with the decision or not, it is highly unlikely that she would be forced to drop out of college and replace her family with LDS Church members. Seems that if she worked at reconciliation she might be able to remain on good terms with her parents after having shown them (rather than just announce to them) that she has grown up and is able to make thoughtful and reasoned decisions after considering the whole counsel of God.

Continuing with my defense against accusations leveled at me by “Trevor,” today I want to blog a bit about the LDS view of the Bible. In my previous two posts I have explained Trevor’s accusations and dealt with what I perceived to be one of them. For this background, please see Searching for Salvation: The Bible or TV Guide? and After All We Can Do.

Trevor said I repeated “deliberate distortions about what Mormons believe” when I posted a comment to a news web site. He did not elaborate on what these distortions might be, so for today I will suppose that he was upset over this part of my comment:

“Killer” Kane made yet another bad choice when he decided to jettison the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon…Seems that we humans are prone to dismiss or ignore what God has told us in His Word in favor of having our senses stimulated by something different, something new.”

I think Trevor would agree that the Book of Mormon is something different and new. Therefore, I’m guessing that the ideas he considers distortions are these : 1) Mormons “jettison the Bible” in order to embrace the Book of Mormon; and 2) The Book of Mormon is not God’s Word.

The second supposed distortion is the quickest to address. It is Trevor’s opinion (probably) that the Book of Mormon is the word of God; it is my opinion that it is not. Since it was my opinion that I was sharing in my comment, I could not have been distorting what Mormons believe. Today I’m not going to discuss my reasons for concluding that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God, but if you would like to explore this issue, I encourage you to watch the online videos The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon and DNA vs. The Book of Mormon.

I think Trevor’s main concern with my comment left at Willamette Week Online would be summed up in the above point number one. While this is also my opinion, it speaks more directly to the issue of what Mormons believe about the Bible and its place in the LDS canon of scripture.

My use of the word “jettison” was a bit of indulgent hyperbole, yet there is one definition of that word that fits; that definition is “reject.” While Mormons include the Bible in their four Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price) and even place it first in the Quad (all four volumes bound together in one), in practice the Bible holds an inferior position. This is because Mormonism claims the Bible has been corrupted over time while the other Standard Works have been miraculously translated and preserved in perfection, and have been specifically written for our present day.

Take a look at some authoritative LDS statements on the topic.

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.” (Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:461)

“…the Book of Mormon remains secure, unchanged and unchangeable, …But with the Bible it was not and is not so…it once was in the sole and exclusive care and custody of an abominable organization, founded by the devil himself, likened prophetically unto a great whore, whose great aim and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion. In these hands it ceased to be the book it once was.” (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, The Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, pages 12, 13)

“What shall we say then, concerning the Bible’s being a sufficient guide? Can we rely upon it in its present known corrupted state, as being a faithful record of God’s word? We all know that but a few of the inspired writings have descended to our times,…What few have come down to our day have been mutilated, changed, and corrupted, in such a shameful manner that no two manuscripts agree….Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original?” (Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, page 47)

“The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts. ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God’ (The Articles of Faith 1:8.) …the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.” (Letter from the LDS First Presidency: Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson; dated May 22, 1992, printed in Church News, 6/20/1992)

“The Old Testament is the word of God, and even though translations have dimmed some of its meaning, and many ‘plain and precious parts’ have been deleted, it still is an inspired and miraculous guide to all who will read it. When augmented by modern scripture…it can direct us into the paths of eternal salvation.” (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, quoted in Church News, 1/1/94, page 16)

“Guided by the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Spirit of the Lord, it is not difficult for one to discern the errors in the Bible.” (Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith [later the 10th President of the LDS Church], Doctrines of Salvation, 3:191)

“The Book of Mormon clears up the misconceptions about the gospel as presented in the Bible.” (Apostle L. Tom Perry, Church News, 11/8/2003, page 3)

“In my judgment there is no book on earth yet come to man as important as the book known as the Doctrine and Covenants, with all due respect to the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, and the Pearl of Great Price, which we say are our standards in doctrine. The book of Doctrine and Covenants to us stands in a peculiar position above them all.” (Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith [later the 10th President of the LDS Church], Doctrines of Salvation, 3:198)

“Not all truths are of equal value, nor are all scriptures of the same worth. What better way to nourish the spirit than to frequently feast from the book which the Prophet Joseph Smith said would get a man ‘nearer to God by abiding its precepts than by any other book’” (President Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, page 60)

“The older I get and the closer contact I have with the President of the Church, the more I realize that the greatest of all scripture which we have in the world today is current scripture. What the mouthpiece of God says to his children is scripture. It is his word and his will and his law made manifest through scripture, and I love it more than all other.” (Apostle Henry D. Moyle, First Counselor to President David O. McKay, as quoted in Ensign, July 1973, page 18)

“God bless us to use all the scriptures, but in particular the instrument He designed to bring us to Christ—the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion—along with its companion volume, the capstone, the Doctrine and Covenants, the instrument to bring us to Christ’s kingdom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (President Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, page 43)

So “Killer” Kane did not (as far as I know) physically “jettison” the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon (i.e., throw it away). However, if he believed his LDS leaders—and there’s no reason to think he didn’t—he rejected much of God’s truth by subjugating the Bible to the Book of Mormon, the other Standard Works, and the teachings of latter-day prophets.

I stand by my original statement. “Killer” Kane made a bad choice—as does anyone who rejects God’s steadfast Word:

“…for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God…The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the word of the Lord abides forever.” (1 Peter 1:23-24)

Last week I wrote about “Trevor,” a man who took issue with a comment I left at a news web site (see Searching for Salvation: The Bible or TV Guide? My comment set Ephesians 2:8-10 (”For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves…”) against a Book of Mormon passage, (2 Nephi 25:23: “…for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do”). Trevor accused me of deliberately distorting what Mormons believe.

I can only guess at what Mormon beliefs Trevor thought I was distorting, because he gave no particulars. So let’s assume for the sake of argument that he thought I distorted the meaning of the Book of Mormon passage.

My proposition was this: In the Bible God offers sinful people eternal life as a free gift through Jesus Christ; the Book of Mormon promises salvation only after all we can do. There is no dispute regarding the wording of the respective passages; one does say we are saved by grace through faith, the other that we are saved by grace after all we can do. The question, then, would be in the interpretation. Therefore, take a look at what some LDS authorities and authors have said about the 2 Nephi passage and the LDS doctrine of salvation:

“What is meant by ‘after all we can do’? ‘After all we can do’ includes extending our best effort. ‘After all we can do’ includes living His commandments. ‘After all we can do’ includes loving our fellowmen and praying for those who regard us as their adversary. ‘After all we can do’ means clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and giving ’succor [to] those who stand in need of [our] succor’ (Mosiah 4:15)—remembering that what we do unto one of the least of God’s children, we do unto Him. (See Matt. 25:34-40; D&C 42:38.) ‘After all we can do’ means leading chaste, clean, pure lives, being scrupulously honest in all our dealings and treating others the way we would want to be treated. (”After All We Can Do,” Christmas Devotional, Salt Lake City, Utah, Dec. 9, 1982; quoted in Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson.)” (”Savior accomplished atoning sacrifice through His grace,” LDS Church News, 02/03/96, page 14.)“President Harold B. Lee treated the topic of working out one’s salvation in one of his books, Stand Ye in Holy Places: ‘We hear much from some persons of limited understanding about the possibility of one’s being saved by grace alone. But it requires the explanation of another prophet to understand the true doctrine of grace as he explained in these meaningful words: “For,” said this prophet, “we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Ne. 25:23.) Truly we are redeemed by the atoning blood of the Savior of the world, but only after each has done all he can to work out his own salvation.’”(”Work out salvation with fear and trembling,” LDS Church News, 09/14/91, page 14.)

“As is the case with all gospel principles, the doctrine of individual accountability grows out of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Teaching these principles, Nephi testified that we are saved by grace, but only “after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23.) It is by the grace of Christ that we have granted to us the materials of life with which we can build, but God does not do the building for us. The responsibility of building with those materials is ours. The plan of salvation is in a large measure a do-it-yourself project” (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Seeking the Spirit, page 99.)

“In the plan of salvation God does for human beings only what they cannot do for themselves. Man must do all he can for himself. The doctrine is that we are saved by grace, ‘after all we can do’ (2 Ne. 25:23)” (Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible!, page 186.)

“To explain how much confidence we should have in God, were I using a term to suit myself, I should say implicit confidence. I have faith in my God, and that faith corresponds with the works I produce. I have no confidence in faith without works. My faith is, when we have done all we can, then the Lord is under obligation, and will not disappoint the faithful; he will perform the rest” (President Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, page 155.)

It’s clear from these teachings that the LDS doctrine on salvation is that it is given through grace only after all we can do—which is how I presented it in the Willamette Week comment. It’s pretty hard to see how that could be compatible with Ephesians 2:4-9:

“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

Since I did not “deliberately distort” this point of “what Mormons believe,” perhaps Trevor was referring to the comment that Arthur Kane “decided to jettison the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon.” I’ll blog about that later this week.

---

I have previously blogged about the LDS doctrinal claim which states Jesus makes up the difference between our innate or self-achieved righteousness and the righteousness God requires. To read about this take a look at Insurmountable Debt.

There’s an LDS film out called New York Doll. By all accounts the movie is a moving portrayal of the story of Arthur “Killer” Kane, the bass guitarist for the ’80s glam band, New York Dolls.

Mr. Kane led the stereotypical self-destructive life of a rock star. When he finally hit rock-bottom, he turned to religion and found deliverance through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He thereafter lived a quiet life as a Church employee, but always longed to be on stage again. His dream was realized when he was asked to do a reunion concert with the surviving members of the New York Dolls in 2004.

Reviewer Steve Kline described viewer’s emotions during the film:

Quietly resigned, even as one sits thinking, “Wow, [Kane] can do it. He can achieve stardom; he’s on his way. Wow, what a great come back. What a story!” And then [Kane] dutifully returns to Los Angeles, and within days he dies of leukemia–just two hours after his diagnosis! Sad? Yes. Fulfilling? Yes. His dream has come true. His life has been fulfilled. Up from the depths of hell on earth to paradise, his change from booze and nihilism to Mormonism is well, a great story. “It’s like LSD–a trip without drugs.” That’s how “Killer” described being LDS. Unfortunately, “Killer” never further questioned if LDS is similar to LSD–a trip that doesn’t fit with reality. (Review of New York Doll by Steve Klein)

Last week, while chasing down news stories connected to Mormonism, I came across another review of New York Doll on Willamette Week Online. I’ve read several reviews of this film, but something in the Willamette Week review caught my attention. As the reviewer describes the lowest point in the rock star’s life, she says that following a fight with his wife, Mr. Kane

“…leaps out the kitchen window and lands on his head. It takes him a year to walk again. One day, while convalescing, he finds himself with a Bible in one hand and a TV Guide in the other. In the TV Guide is an ad for a free copy of the Book of Mormon. He calls the number. So long, rock star. Hello, Latter Day Saint.”

The mental picture of Mr. Kane weighing the Bible against TV Guide was just too much for me. I had to leave a comment. I quoted a portion of the excerpt above and wrote:

“I find this to be a sad illustration of human nature. Given a choice between God’s Word and Hollywood, we go for the glitz. “Killer” Kane made yet another bad choice when he decided to jettison the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon, for it is in the Bible that God offers sinful people the free gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-10). Unlike the Bible, The Book of Mormon–”Killer’s” choice–promises salvation only “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). Seems that we humans are prone to dismiss or ignore what God has told us in His Word in favor of having our senses stimulated by something different, something new. Like “Killer” Kane, we prefer the glitz–and thereby reject our only hope.”

I admit that my observation was a bit provocative, but I was still surprised by some of the comments that followed — pretty much all directed at my post rather than at the story of Killer Kane or the review of New York Doll. One of them is so illustrative of a certain mindset that I want to share it with you here. This is what “Trevor” wrote:

“I was surprised to see his [Kane's] journey of faith being attacked by a latter-day pharisee. Rather than rejoice over the return of a lost sheep Sharon belittles his sincere attempt to grow closer to God by stooping to sectarian point scoring. In doing so she repeats deliberate distortions about what Mormons believe.

“Quite apart from not checking facts, Sharon has no right to speak on Kane’s behalf or on behalf of the Mormon church.
“To confirm for yourself what Mormons believe about the Bible and Jesus you can simply visit here: http://www.mormon.org/question. To see that the quoted verses are in harmony visit here to read them in context: http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/25 and here: http://scriptures.lds.org/eph/2

“To get an idea of the depths of Sharon’s delusion and personal problems, I dare you to start reading the Book of Mormon and come to a Mormon service and then ask yourself how much ‘glitz’ and ’stimulation of the senses’ is on offer.

“The truly sad illustration of human nature is the fact that after reading this inspirational story Sharon cannot feel happy for Kane - just because he found Jesus in a different church to hers. If bitterness toward others and an ability to spout proof texts for Calvinist dogma is all she gets from the Bible then it is clear that she understands very little about Jesus and his message. Maybe it’s time for Sharon and her fellow Bible-worshippers to set aside their prejudices and have a look at something new.”

I am baffled by Trevor’s comments. I don’t know what he’s talking about. I have several questions:

• What is a “latter-day pharisee” and what did I say to be labeled as one?
• What is the “sectarian point scoring” to which I stooped?
• How did I deliberately distort what Mormons believe?
• What facts did I get wrong because I didn’t check them?
• In what way did I speak on behalf of Mr. Kane and the Mormon Church?
• What did I say regarding “what Mormons believe about the Bible and Jesus”?
• What delusions and personal problems do I have, about which Trevor wants people enlightened?
• Where did I indicate that I did not, on any level, “feel happy” for Mr. Kane?
• How did I demonstrate “bitterness toward others”?
• Where did I “spout proof texts for Calvinist dogma”?
• What is the basis for the accusation that I am a “Bible-worshipper”?

Trevor seems to have drawn quite a few conclusions about me from a mere 130 word post.

So what made Trevor lash out at me, hurling accusations and shame about like he was searching for deals at a bargain basement sale? The comment I posted at Willamette Week included one Bible verse, one Book of Mormon verse, and a personal observation about human nature. But Trevor saw it as an attack; he said I attacked Mr. Kane’s faith journey, but I wonder if Trevor thought I had also attacked him.

The way I see it–or the way I meant it–my post was a type of Gospel message: human beings, left to their own devices, don’t want God. We want what we want and we’re perfectly happy not knowing what God says about it. In fact, we prefer it that way. Though we may couch our rebellion in religious terms, it is, nevertheless, rebellion to accept as truth that which is not truth, that which is opposed to God’s revealed Word. Yet God still “offers sinful people the free gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-10).”

The Bible says that the message of salvation is perceived by the world as foolishness and as a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 1:23). The apostle Peter wrote:

“Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone,’ and ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense’” (1 Peter 1:7-8).

Was Trevor offended by the message of the free gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ? I don’t know. Maybe. Or maybe his sharp response just came at the end of a very bad day. But isn’t it interesting that when all is said and done, Trevor’s solution to my “problem” is a validation of my post?

Trevor suggested I should “set aside [my] prejudices” (which in context I believe means my understanding of the Bible) and “have a look at something new” (i.e., the Book of Mormon). This, of course, is exactly what Mr. Kane did, and precisely what my post described as our sad but natural human proclivity. Trevor wants me to dismiss what God has said in the Bible and go for the “glitz” of something new and different.

There’s another aspect to Trevor’s post that I would like to discuss, and that is his accusation regarding my alleged distortion of “what Mormons believe.” Next week on Mormon Coffee I’ll look at 2 Nephi 25:23 to see how LDS leaders understand the Book of Mormon teaching that we are saved by grace “after all we can do.”

Back on November 1st, 2005 the Today Show ran a week-long series focusing on “Mysterious Faiths.” The first faith they examined was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I had not heard about this Today Show segment until today; even though it’s “old news,” I want to make one observation relative to the interview Matt Lauer did with Brent Belnap, the Manhattan Stake President for the LDS Church.

The six-plus minute interview was about what would be expected, with a skillful spin to make the LDS Church appealing to a non-Mormon audience. But in doing this, Mr. Belnap has come as close to crossing the line of dishonesty as a person can get. Some of you might think he did cross the line. Here is the portion I want to discuss, which I transcribed from a podcast that includes the interview:

Matt Lauer: When you’re in those developing nations preaching the message of the missionary chur–of, of the Mormon Church, are you saying that the church of Latter-day Saints is the only path to God and salvation? Or are you presenting it as an alternative?

Brent Belnap: You know, I think it’s more as an alternative. We give people the opportunity to choose just as any other religion should have the ability to go out and share its message and give people that same opportunity. We do say that, and do believe that everybody will resurrect because of Jesus Christ. There are those who will also be exalted in the hereafter if they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and repent of their mistakes. But, uh, that’s a choice that every individual should make.

Let’s paraphrase the specific question: Is the message of the LDS Church, as preached by missionaries, that Mormonism is the only path to God and salvation, or is the LDS path presented as merely an alternative?

Notice Mr. Belnap’s specific answer: It’s an alternative.

So how are we to understand Mr. Belnap’s remark? I see only four options:

1. The LDS Church has abandoned the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and many LDS prophets which all clearly teach that the Mormon Church is the only true Church and the only vehicle through which people can attain eternity in the presence of God (the common understanding of “salvation”).

2. While the LDS Church maintains that salvation is only available through the Mormon Church, they conceal that doctrine from prospective converts.

3. Mr. Belnap has assigned a specialized definition to the word “salvation” without enlightening his audience.

4. Mr. Belnap’s answer was not true.

Three of the four options above are reprehensible. The only honorable option isn’t really an option at all.

And Latter-day Saints wonder why people criticize their Church.

I was reading an article in the Deseret News on Saturday that discusses the history of “The Seven Deadly Sins.” At the end of the article the journalist mentions a fireside talk the late LDS Apostle Bruce R, McConkie gave back in 1980 titled “The Seven Deadly Heresies” I’m sure I’ve read that talk before, but out of curiosity I read it again today. There are many things of interest in Mr. McConkie’s talk, and I may address more of them in the future; but today I thought we could look at just two of the heresies Mr. McConkie was concerned had “crept in among us [Latter-day Saints].”

To set the stage, so to speak, and to put his address in authoritative context, Bruce McConkie began his talk this way:

“I have sought and do now seek that guidance and enlightenment which comes from the Holy Spirit of God. I desire to speak by the power Of the Holy Ghost so that my words will be true and wise and proper. When any of us speak by the power of the Spirit, we say what the Lord wants said, or, better, what he would say if he were here in person.”

Important for the context of what was to follow, Mr. McConkie said,

“I shall speak on some matters that some may consider to be controversial, though they ought not to be. They are things on which we ought to be united, and to the extent we are all guided and enlightened from on high we will be. If we are so united-and there will be no disagreement among those who believe and understand the revealed word-we will progress and advance and grow in the things of the Spirit; we will prepare ourselves for a life of peace and happiness and joy here and now, and for an eventual eternal reward in the kingdom of our Father.”

Please keep this in mind.

Mr. McConkie began with the first heresy on his list:

“Heresy #1: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

“This is false–utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression…

“I have been sorely tempted to say at this point that any who so suppose have the intellect of an ant, and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp. But, of course, I would never say a thing like that.” (Mr. McConkie meant this last statement as a joke and it was understood as such by his audience. I’ve included it here because, though said with a smile, it illustrates the idea that faithful Latter-day Saints would never believe such nonsense. Please note that most internet sources for Mr. McConkie’s speech have edited this portion out of the text.)

Though Mr. McConkie claims the doctrine that God is progressing in knowledge is heresy, the prophets that laid the foundation of the LDS Church in the early days taught it was true.

“Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful” (President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:286, 1867).

“God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us” (President Wilford Woodruff, Apostle, Journal of Discourses 6:120, 1857).

Mr. McConkie’s sixth heresy:

“Heresy #6: There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship…

“Anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, and who yet believes the ‘Adam-God Theory’ does not deserve to saved.”

This heresy was taught by Mormonism’s second Prophet for more than 20 years. For example, Brigham Young taught in 1852:

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken–HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do…”

“Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation” (President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:50-51. Italics and capitalization retained from the original.).

And in 1873:

“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth” (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873.).

If a Latter-day Saint believes Apostle Bruce McConkie, LDS Prophet Brigham Young had “the intellect of an ant, and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp [and] does not deserve to be saved.” But if a Latter-day Saint believes LDS Prophet Brigham Young and other early Mormon leaders, he is laboring under condemnation from one of his apostles.

I’m glad I’m not a Mormon. As a Christian I am bound by the Word of God found in the Bible, which does not change. I can believe it, or I can reject it and face the consequences, but there is no equivocation.

Mormons, on the other hand, must follow their prophets, seers, and revelators; a group to which both Brigham Young and Bruce McConkie belong. If they reject either man’s authoritative teachings they have, in effect, rejected the Lord. As Apostle Russell M. Nelson said during the April 1997 General Conference of the LDS Church:

“Loyalty to the Lord carries an obligation of loyalty to those called by the Lord to lead His Church. He has empowered that men be ordained to speak in His holy name. As they guide His unsinkable boat safely toward the shore of salvation, we would do well to stay on board with them” (Ensign, May 1997, page 72).

But what happens, as in this case, when the leaders aren’t on the same boat?