Mormon Coffee

It started in 1995. Jewish leaders met with LDS Church representatives in an effort to find a solution to the concern Jews had over posthumous proxy Mormon baptisms of Jewish Holocaust victims. The two groups signed an agreement aimed at preventing the names of Holocaust victims from being added to the Church’s genealogical index and limiting any Jewish names in the index to those who were direct ancestors of living LDS Church members. The Church also agreed to remove any existing Jewish names in the index of which they were made aware.

In 2002 Jewish and LDS Church leaders reaffirmed the agreement reached in 1995.

In December 2003 concerned Jews told the press that the LDS Church was not honoring the 1995 agreement while Mormon officials claimed they remained in full compliance with the agreement.

The following April (2004) concerned Jewish leaders asked Senator Hilary Clinton to intervene in order to get the LDS Church to abide by the previous agreement. She met with LDS Senator Orin Hatch but Senator Clinton declined to comment on what was discussed at the private meeting. The LDS Church had no comment regarding the renewed accusations.

One year later, April 2005, Jewish leaders again met with LDS Church representatives. Saying the Church had broken its 10-year-old agreement to refrain from performing proxy baptisms of Jewish Holocaust victims, Jewish representatives again asked the Church to honor its 1995 agreement. The Church said it had always kept its part of the agreement; nevertheless, the two groups reaffirmed the existing pact.

Fast-forward another year to May 2006. The Jerusalem Post reports:

Jewish leaders in a dispute with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints over the practice of posthumous baptisms say there is new evidence that names of Jewish Holocaust victims continue to show up in the church’s vast genealogical database.

“We’ve been dealing with it for 11 years, since 1995, and we continue to deal with it,” said Ernest Michel, a Holocaust survivor and founding member of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors.

…A cross-referencing of more than 1,500 Dutch Jews whose names should have been deleted from the church’s International Genealogical Index remain in the database, Michel said.

Over the past three months, the entries were matched by Salt Lake City researcher Helen Radkey against a 1995 list of deleted names provided by church leaders to Michel’s organization.

This is a complicated issue, to be sure. The LDS Church maintains 400,000,000 names in their International Genealogical Index, a list continually growing, added to by millions of LDS members. A few thousand inappropriate Jewish names must seem insignificant to the Mormon Church. Yet is it right for the Church to sign an agreement that they cannot or will not honor?

Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley told the Associated Press that baptism for the dead is only an offer of LDS Church membership–which deceased individuals are free to reject. “So there’s no injury done to anybody,” President Hinckley said.

This lack of sensitivity amazes me. I understand that baptism for the dead is viewed by Mormons as an act of love, done in order to provide everyone with a chance to attain a better level of glory in the afterlife. This is why I say it’s a complicated issue. But setting aside whether or not Mormons should continue to baptize Holocaust victims despite objections from the Jewish community, the statement that there is “no injury done to anybody” seems a rather cold defense.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, 2003 associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said,

“As far as Judaism is concerned, [baptism of the dead] is theologically irrelevant, but emotionally it is quite distressful because it is viewed by many of us as a sign of disrespect.”

A year later, the new dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi Marvin Hier, said,

“It’s ridiculous for people to pretend they have the key to heaven. And even if they say they want to do somebody a favor … it’s not a symbol of love. It’s a symbol of arrogance.”

I’m sure Mormons would disagree with the Jewish position expressed by these men; yet it would be a good thing for Mormons to try to understand the issue from the Jewish perspective.

Perhaps Mormons could consider this scenario. A powerful and influential group has begun collecting the names of Mormon pioneers and martyrs. They are compiling them into a database which is accessible to researchers worldwide and will likely continue to be accessible for hundreds of years. This database includes records for each Mormon who has given his or her life, or sacrificed in another significant way, in consequence of their determination to remain faithful to the Mormon Gospel. Attached to each name is a letter of resignation from LDS Church membership, sent by proxy to Church headquarters in Salt Lake City.

Though the letters are written and sent only to provide these departed ones the opportunity to leave Mormonism and join another church if they so wish, do LDS descendants of these Mormon pioneers merely shrug off their ancestors’ proxy resignations without another thought? Are Mormons not concerned about what future researchers may find and mistakenly believe about these LDS heroes?

I suspect Latter-day Saints would be very upset over Mormon pioneer proxy resignations from the LDS Church. They may even believe it to be an injustice to the memories of their loved-ones which, of course, is a devastating injury to everybody concerned.

To all who have served my nation, who serve now, who love and support those in America’s military, to you I say thank you.

Your sacrifices have protected my right to freely express what I think in a public forum.

Your sacrifices have preserved my right to worship and serve my God.

Your sacrifices have maintained my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

May God honor your willingness to serve and sacrifice for others. May He bless you and yours, and may He, in His mercy, continue to bless the United States of America.

Comments (2)

The Logan, Utah Herald Journal ran a story yesterday about the recent publication of the diaries of Mormon pioneer Charles Ora Card. Mr. Card, great-great grandfather of sci-fi author Orson Scott Card, made detailed daily entries for much of his life. The published diaries are from the years 1871-1886, when Mr. Card lived in northeastern Utah, in Cache Valley.

The book, “The Diaries of Charles Ora Card: The Utah Years, 1871-1886,” is a tribute to Mr. Card compiled by his great-grandson Donald Godfrey. But according to historian Kenneth Godfrey (no relation), the book is also an invaluable historical resource.

Something that particularly struck Kenneth Godfrey as he studied Card’s detailed daily entries was the sheer ordinariness of Mormon life at the time.

“I told one historian that a major contribution of his diaries (is that they show) that Mormons in the 1870s and ’80s were pretty solid, conservative, good people,” he said. “The sermons are about not drinking, not using tobacco, planting trees, beautifying your yard, partaking of the sacrament worthily and taking care of your children. There are no smoking guns, no unusual doctrines being espoused or preached. Mormons were pretty average Americans.”

I have no trouble believing the Mormons were pretty solid, conservative, good people, then as now. But I’m having some doubts regarding the statement that in the 1870s and ’80s there were “no unusual doctrines being espoused or preached.”

On June 18th, 1873 Deseret News published a sermon by LDS Prophet Brigham Young in which he said,

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me–namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve,…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 whoever will come upon the earth… Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. “Well,” says one, “Why was Adam called Adam?” He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He, with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, “I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state, I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or dwelling place as mine has, and where is the mystery?” (See a scan of the newspaper)

The teaching that Adam was God the Father falls into the category of “unusual doctrines,” at least for “average Americans.” It may not have been unusual for Mormons in 1873, however, as by that time Brigham Young had been publicly preaching it for more than 20 years.

Comments (1)

As Gladys Knight performed last weekend, she shared the story of her conversion nine years ago from Baptist to Mormon.

Knight led her 100-member [Mormon] choir, Saints Unified Voices, and preached to 3,000 people during two services over the weekend at the Suitland Stake Center, headquarters for 12 Mormon congregations in the District and Southern Maryland.

The weekend events were LDS “firesides,” intended to reach out to the community. An African American man in attendance, Bryan Powell, was interviewed by the Washington Post. He converted to Mormonism 12 years ago from a Pentecostal church.

Powell said he paid a price to become a Mormon. “People were saying, how could you join that white man’s church? I corrected them to say that it wasn’t the white man’s church, but the Lord’s church. This is why the [Gladys Knight] event was so important because it showed that the church is open to all races, creeds and colors.”

I’m having trouble understanding Mr. Powell’s comment. What can he mean that the LDS Church is “open to all…creeds”? The whole purpose of the Restoration, the formation of the Mormon Church, was to do away with the creeds of Christendom which God allegedly told Joseph Smith were an abomination to Him.

During General Conference in October 1972 LDS Apostle LeGrand Richards spoke on the “Strange Creeds of Christendom.” He said,

I would like to say a few words this morning about the statement the Savior made that “their creeds are an abomination in my sight.” When Satan was cast out of heaven, the cry went out: “Woe to the inhabiters of the earth … for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” (Rev. 12:12.) “And thus he goeth … seeking to destroy the souls of men.” (D&C 10:27.) And how does he try to destroy people? By taking a little truth and mixing it with a lot of error to deceive the hearts of the people.

That is what Isaiah meant when he said: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! … For thou has said in thine heart, … I will exalt my throne above the stars of God … I will be like the most High.” (Isa. 14:12–14.) For he is the man who made the earth to tremble, who did shake kingdoms, and thus deceived the nations. (See Isa. 14:16.) That is what Jesus came to tell us, that “their creeds were an abomination in his sight” because Satan has deceived the nations. (Ensign, January 1973)

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie also supported the idea that the creeds are the work of the devil. He wrote,

Actually, the spirit which imposed [the creeds] on people in the early days was from beneath. (Mormon Doctrine, “Creeds,” page 171)

More recently, LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said in General Conference,

“We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (A of F 1:1). This first article of faith epitomizes our doctrine. We do not accept the Athanasian Creed. We do not accept the Nicene Creed, nor any other creed based on tradition and the conclusions of men. (Ensign, November 1998)

So what does it mean to say the LDS Church is open to all creeds? It doesn’t accept any creeds; it thinks the creeds originated with Satan; and it proclaims that God calls all creeds an abomination. But the LDS Church is nevertheless open to these creeds?

I don’t get it.

Comments (2)

Deseret News reports on a collaborative enterprise that has just been completed:

Any way you look at it, the story of the Mormon pioneers is one of the great epics of the American West. Over the years it has been looked at in many ways: Words have been written, songs have been sung, dances have been danced.A new project sponsored by the Sons and Daughters of Utah Pioneers brings all these elements together in one heartfelt package featuring music by Robert Cundick, poetry by Edward L. Hart and dance choreographed by Virginia Tanner and Christine Ollerton.

One of the contributors to the finished product, The Mormon Pioneer Saga, is LDS musicologist Roger L. Miller. Dr. Miller was interviewed for the Deseret News article. He has an interesting perspective on history:

Looking at the pioneer story through artistic eyes is a good way to understand what it means to people — both the participants and those who share its legacy, says Miller.”The experience of any individual or group is so small compared to the overall experience. Some were burdened with all kinds of difficulties; some found an adventure, a lark.”

To try to give a picture of the pioneer experience, he says, artists often take a kind of mythic approach. “In the overall, myth is often more true than history. History can never tell the whole truth. Music, dance, poetry can say what plain words can not say.”

Dr. Miller explained that music can add “emotional depth” to words, a statement with which I heartily agree. However, I do not understand how myth can actually be “more true” than history.

Excluding stories involving the exploits of gods, the Oxford American Dictionary definition for “myth” is:

1. A traditional story;
2. A widely held but false belief or idea;
3. A misrepresentation of the truth;
4. A fictitious or imaginary person or thing;
5. An exaggerated or idealize conception of a person or thing.

In these five meanings for the word “myth,” the idea of truth is negative in four of them, and neutral in one. None of them express the idea that myth is or can be “more true” than history.

However, myth can become more true than history in the minds of the public, as is demonstrated by the legends or romanticism of the Wild West. In one myth, for instance, Billy the Kid becomes a hero rather than the pathological killer he actually was.

Another example can be found in the LDS film Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration. This film turns Joseph Smith into a larger-than-life demigod while leaving out every historical incident in Joseph’s life that portrays his imperfections. The myth of this film is definitely not more true than history, no matter how much Latter-day Saints wish it was so.

Because the LDS Church is built on the alleged historical appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith, and LDS faith is sustained by the historical legacy of the Mormon pioneers, it’s imperative to the Church that myths be presented instead of true history. If the myths were done away there would be nothing left worthy of the members’ devotion. Perhaps then Latter-day Saints might be persuaded to shift that love and devotion to One who is worthy of it: He who is the way, the truth, and the life.

Today The Da Vinci Code opens in U.S. theatres. There’s a lot of buzzing going on, including some from the LDS Church. Wednesday’s online Deseret News ran a short article titled “LDS do not endorse claims in ‘Da Vinci’” quoted here in part:

LDS doctrine does not endorse claims made in a popular book and movie that Jesus Christ was married…

Dale Bills, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement released Tuesday:

“The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine.”

I don’t know quite how to take Mr. Bills’ claim. Two weeks ago here on Mormon Coffee I included a quote from Salt Lake Tribune journalist Pat Bagley:

Growing up in the church in California, I dutifully got up every morning during high school at 5:30 a.m. to attend seminary. It was there I first learned that the marriage attended by Jesus in Cana, where he famously turned water into grape juice, was probably his own.

If it’s taught in LDS seminary, isn’t it taught by the LDS Church? I suppose it might be an issue of where the seminary instructor got the idea in the first place. Was it just his or her speculation? If so, that teacher should have been replaced, but quick.

We don’t know where the teacher got his information, but quite possibly it could have come from LDS authorities. Consider this teaching from LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

We will turn over to the account of the marriage in Cana of Galilee…

Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do.

Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell me who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified. (Journal of Discourses 2:82. “A lecture by President Orson Hyde, delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.”)

As a side note, I’m not able to tell President Hyde who was married at the wedding of Cana, but I can tell him who wasn’t; John 2:2 says that both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. Grooms are not invited to their own weddings, they actually do the inviting. Jesus was not married at this wedding in Cana.

At any rate, if the President of the Twelve Apostles, speaking at General Conference, in his official capacity as an Apostle, said Jesus was married–and was never reprimanded for it–wouldn’t that indicate that the Church both taught and sanctioned the doctrine?

There was some fallout for Mr. Hyde, but not from the Church. In a sermon delivered five months later Mr. Hyde said,

I discovered that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this–they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough “to fulfil all righteousness;” not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law “to multiply and replenish the earth.” Startle not at this! (Journal of Discourses 2:210. “A sermon by President Orson Hyde, delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, March 18, 1855.” Spelling retained.)

Mr. Hyde was still teaching this doctrine in 1857 (see Journal of Discourses 4:260). He was not the only LDS leader to teach that Jesus was married. LDS Apostle Orson Pratt taught:

One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus–such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene;…now it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives. (The Seer, Washington D.C. edition, October 1853, page 159)

We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many honorable Wives were to be married. We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time; ..And then it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, Jesus and his honorable wives. all eating occasionally at the same table… (The Seer, Washington D.C. edition, November 1853, page 172)

The index of the Journal of Discourses says the marriage of Jesus was implied by Jedediah M. Grant. Eight months before being made an apostle Mr. Grant said:

…and what does [ancient philosopher Celsus] say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, “The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him.”

A belief in the doctrine of the plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were “Mormons.” (Journal of Discourses 1:345-346. “A discourse by Elder Jedediah M. Grant, delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, Aug. 7, 1853.”)

There’s a more modern source for this teaching that may have been used by the seminary instructor who taught Mr. Bagley. LDS Seventy Milton R. Hunter wrote The Gospel Through the Ages in 1945. The preface states,

This book is designed primarily for a course of study in the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums of the Church. It is to be used by all high priests’, seventies’, and elders’ classes in their weekly meetings, beginning January 1, 1946….The volume has been written and published under the direction of the General Authorities.

As an authoritative course of study published under the direction of the General Authorities of the Church it seems that there should be no disputing that what it teaches is “official” and “sanctioned” by the Church. The book says,

“Operating in addition to and as part of natural laws are the Gospel ordinances. They were instituted by God the Eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ before man was placed on this earth, for the purpose of assisting in bringing the sons and daughters of God back into Their presence. Such ordinances as baptism, confirmation, temple ordinances, priesthood ordinations, marriage, and others, are all part of the Gospel plan of salvation. All of these principles and ordinances of the Gospel are eternal. They were instituted before man was placed on the earth and are applicable to all human beings that live here…

Jesus Christ, the only perfect man who has lived on this earth, was perfect because He obeyed all the principles and ordinances of the Gospel in order that He “might fulfill all righteousness.” He thereby set a pattern of life for all mortals to follow. If they obey all the principles and ordinances of the Gospel, as did the Master, their growth will continue until they attain eternal life in the Kingdom of God. (pages 18-19. Emphasis mine.)

So I really don’t understand Mr. Bills and his statement on behalf of the LDS Church. Clearly, he is spinning the truth.

Comments (3)