Mormon Coffee

During my tour of Temple Square in Salt Lake City last week I visited the LDS North Visitors Center. A friend pointed out a large painting (reproduction) on the wall at the stairway landing. It was a painting of Jesus as a boy teaching in the temple. I found it interesting so I took a picture of it thinking you might like to see it, too (please forgive the poor quality).

After I returned home I called the North Visitors Center to get some information about the painting. I learned the artist was David Lindsley; I emailed his studio with some questions. All of my questions weren’t answered (e.g., Is he an LDS artist?), but I was told,

The painting you saw is based on a painting by [Heinrich] Hofmann, only much larger and with a few minor changes. It was commissioned by the [LDS] church several years ago.

Indeed, there is a resemblance to Hofmann’s painting (below) in many respects:

But my friend and I noticed that the way Mr. Lindsley painted the portrait of Jesus was quite different from the Hofmann depiction. Mr. Lindsley’s Jesus resembled another artistic rendering altogether. Take a look at the cover of a children’s book published in 1975 by the LDS Church:

In particular, compare these close-ups of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ as they are depicted, by or for the LDS Church, at 14 years of age and at 12 years of age respectively:

I suppose a family resemblance should be expected if the book by LDS author Vern Swanson is correct. Deseret News reports that “Dynasty of the Holy Grail — Mormonism’s Sacred Bloodline,” slated for release in September,

postulates that Mary Magdalene was an Ephraimite, while Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, and that Lucy Mack Smith, LDS founder Joseph Smith’s mother, was a direct descendant of the supposed wife of Jesus on the maternal side. Joseph Smith Sr., on the other hand, descended directly from Jesus on the paternal side, making Joseph Smith Jr. a direct descendant of Christ from both sides, one of the reasons he was chosen to restore the Church of Jesus Christ.

Comments (1)

I’m back from a quick trip to Utah. While there I toured Temple Square, Brigham Young’s Beehive House, and the cemetery where Mr. Young and several of his wives now lay. I went to Zion’s Bookstore (which now has a nice coffee bar, by the way) and to Deseret Book. I went to the Church Administration Building and spent some time at the Church Library and Archives. Then I went to Manti, a couple of hours south of Salt Lake City, to participate in a Christian outreach at the Mormon Miracle Pageant.

The outreach continues through the end of this week, but I had to return home. The three evenings I spent on the streets of Manti were the purpose of my trip; a few dozen Christians gathered together to bring the good news of freedom in Christ to the Mormon people.

Many Mormons did not want to talk, but many others did. And each night there were little knots of Mormons dotting the streets gathered around Christians who had their Bibles open. There were Christians on the street assembled in prayer. There were Christians on the street singing and praising God. This Christian outreach truly honored and proclaimed Christ our King.

Some of the Christians carried signs announcing web site addresses (see photos). I wore a shirt with the Mormon Coffee address on front and back. Some signs quoted Bible passages. The signs were for the benefit of Mormons who did not care to engage in conversation, but perhaps wanted to know where to find information later.

Apparently, the signs struck a nerve. One evening a young man followed a Christian sign-carrier around with his own sign that said something like, “This man is a liar.com.” When asked if his web address went to a real web site, the LDS youth admitted it did not. “So,” he was asked, “who is the liar?”

On Saturday evening a group of LDS kids from Cedar City gathered together on one street corner. They were sporting several signs directed at the “protestors” (see photos). While the views expressed on the signs may seem harsh, the kids were really just having some fun. The Christians welcomed them, took pictures, and spent time throughout the evening talking with them.

Of course, the funny thing is that the Christians were not carrying protest signs; they carried informational signs. A protestor is one who takes action expressing disapproval or objection to something. While all the Christians at the Manti outreach do disapprove of certain LDS doctrines, their signs do not express that disapproval. The only ones actually protesting on the streets of Manti were the LDS kids. Which means the sentiments on their signs were really directed at themselves.

I want to go on record right now: I strongly disagree with the protest signs at the Manti Pageant. I don’t want these kids hated or sent to hell. Instead, I support the mission of the Christians who have sacrificed much to be in Manti during the pageant: Love ‘em and give ‘em Heaven.

Comments (1)

During the summer, faithful Mormons put on musicals (or pageants) as a way of illustrating their religious history, as well has encouraging the seeker to convert to their uniquely American faith. The early Latter-Day Saints were among the pioneers who trekked into the American West, carving out a place for themselves within the mountains of Utah and in the surrounding territories. Their sacrifice, bravery and perseverance are part of their heritage, and one they are justifiably proud of. Yet there is an incovenient truth about their faith which dims the glory of this often told story, which is this: when the pioneers moved into the western territories, they were leaving a democracy for a theocratic kingdom, which quickly became the greatest anti-democratic force of that era - with polygamy the most visible manifestation of that force. How the United States government broke that power is discussed in a recent Weekly Standard article by Stanley Kurtz. After outlining the complete economic and social control that the Church wielded, he goes on to note:

The 12-year federal drive to enforce Reynolds was far more than a quest to root out polygamy. In effect, the fight against polygamy was a slow, frustrating, expensive, ultimately successful campaign to democratize Utah. (The parallels to the war on terror are eerie.) As federal agents descended on Utah, the Mormon leadership went underground, sleeping in hay ricks, hiding under floorboards, dispersing to remote mountain valleys, communicating in code, and depending on early warnings from a sympathetic populace.

Given the demonstration effect of the Civil War, polygamists knew that armed resistance was futile. Yet by evading capture and withholding the evidence needed for conviction, the Mormon leadership hoped to win a legal war of attrition. Still, Mormon resistance was limited by the fear of provoking a full-fledged military occupation, and by the thirst for statehood.

For the better part of a decade, polygamist resistance seemed unbreakable. The railroads were supposed to bring civilization (a nineteenth-century version of globalization and the Internet). Instead they brought more Mormon converts. Elections and the female franchise were supposed to sweep polygamy aside. Instead, pious women and unlettered men voted to solidify the church’s power. Then the outlines of a demographic nightmare emerged. With a fertility boom fueled by four decades of polygamy, Utah’s population was spilling into Idaho, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. Mormons bragged that, with the admission of the territories, they would hold the balance of power in a politically divided America.

Back East, these threats provoked a tougher line. Attending to the social and economic foundations of Mormon power, Congress set out to break polygamist rule. By 1833, the disestablishment of churches in the American states was complete, and it had been accomplished partly by state legislatures’ setting limits to the churches’ business and property holdings. Congress now applied these standards to the Utah Territory, modeling its legislation on the original “mortmain” laws that had curbed church power in England. In this way, church control of Utah’s economy was dissolved, and erstwhile church property was used to fund public education, with a curriculum designed around democratic values.

The result was capitulation. With the economic and social foundations of theocracy destroyed, a shooting war unwinnable, and the quest for statehood hanging in the balance, the Mormons renounced polygamy and set themselves on the path to democracy.

It’s to the LDS Church’s credit that once that power was broken, it became an enthusiatic defender of American democracy, but that doesn’t negate the unpleasant reality of its early ambitions. It should trouble Mormons (and seekers) that an analogy can successfully be made between our government’s current fight to democratize the Middle East and its effort to democratize Mormon dominated territories - and that the early LDS church embodied everything that is in opposition to what they today believe to be a divinely inspired document, the United States Constitution. This unfortunate history calls into question the spirit which motivated and controlled early Church leadership, and reduces its glorious story of pioneer faith to a pious fantasy.

Comments (2)

I’ve got a busy season of travel ahead of me this summer. When I’m away my friend Stacey will be filling in for me here on Mormon Coffee. Look for Stacey’s contributions starting this week and continuing off and on over the summer.

Thanks, Stacey!

At last April’s General Conference, President James E. Faust (Second Counselor in the First Presidency) talked a bit about ministering angels (see “A Royal Priesthood”).

To understand President Faust’s comments, it’s important to first recognize that the LDS view of angels is different from the historic Christian understanding. According to the Bible, angels are created by God as angels–a specific created creature (see Psalm 148). Mormonism, on the other hand, teaches that angels are the spirits of human beings. Generally speaking, according to Mormonism, the angels who interact with people on earth are the spirits of human beings who have died and now reside in the Spirit World (see LDS Bible Dictionary, “Angels”). For example, in Mormonism the angel Michael is Adam, and the angel Gabriel is Noah.

With that background, let’s look at President Faust’s General Conference talk. He spoke about ministering angels (deceased human beings) and how they have appeared in both ancient and modern times to give “instruction, warnings, and directions, which benefited the people they visited.” President Faust continued by quoting sixth Prophet of the LDS Church, Joseph F. Smith:

“In like manner our fathers and mothers, brothers, sisters and friends who have passed away from this earth, having been faithful, and worthy to enjoy these rights and privileges, may have a mission given them to visit their relatives and friends upon the earth again, bringing from the Divine Presence messages of love, of warning, or reproof and instruction, to those whom they had learned to love in the flesh.”

President Faust then commented to his LDS congregation, “Many of us feel that we have had this experience.”

Indeed, there are many stories within Mormon circles that relate appearances of the dead to the LDS living. Many of these experiences take place in Mormon temples; Latter-day Saints consider each one sacred.

Christians have long been concerned over the way Mormons welcome and treasure communication with their deceased friends and loved ones, for God makes it abundantly clear that we are to have absolutely nothing to do with communing with the dead. He calls this behavior–and anyone who practices it–an “abomination” (see Deuteronomy 18:9-14). He says that by engaging in this forbidden pursuit people “prostitute” themselves, become “defiled,” and cause God to set His face against them (see Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6).

So the Mormon belief that it is a good thing to communicate with the dead raises red flags for Christians. But wait; there’s more.

As expressed above by President Smith, Mormons are taught that the dead who appear to them are sent by God, to complete a God-given mission; to bring them messages from the Divine Presence, messages of warning and instruction. Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19ff) casts doubt on God’s willingness to allow visits between the dead and the living. The parable says, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” Nevertheless, Mormon doctrine continues to encourage communication between the living and the dead.

But wait; there’s still more.

In his conference talk, President Faust went a bit further. He said,

“Many of us feel that we have had this experience [communicating with dead loved ones]. Their ministry has been and is an important part of the gospel.”

For Bible-believing Christians, this raises the question: What “gospel” is this?

How can something so emphatically denounced and forbidden by God in His Word be promoted as “an important part of the gospel”?

A bit further in the sermon quoted by President Faust (but not included in his conference talk), President Smith said,

“These are correct principles. There is no question about that in my mind. It is according to the Scriptures; it is according to the revelation of God to the Prophet Joseph Smith;…” (Gospel Doctrine, page 437)

The Scriptures say,

And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:19-20)

So is communing with the dead an “important part of the gospel”? Is it a correct principle according to the Scriptures? You be the judge.

Comments (2)

Last April I blogged about the recent temple wedding of LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson (see Wedding Bells for LDS Apostle). I made note of the fact that Mr. Nelson, whose first wife died in 2005, was on his second temple marriage (for time and all eternity) and asked,

So the question is, according to LDS beliefs, doesn’t this mean Mr. Nelson will be a polygamist in heaven?

Furthermore, isn’t he a polygamist now though he is currently only living with one of his two wives?

Therefore, I was struck by yesterday’s news report from KUTV out of Salt Lake City: “Petitioner Angry Over ‘Celestial’ Polygamy.”

Apparently, there is now an online petition calling for the elimination of Apostle Nelson’s name from the Letter from America’s Religious Leaders in Defense of Marriage produced by the Religious Coalition for Marriage (see Mormon Church Joins Coalition in Defending Marriage).

The basis for the protest is this:

The petition is posted on a web site started by a gay, ex-Mormon activist, whose objection is based on a section of church doctrine that says Mormon men can have multiple wives in heaven. According to the web site, Russell M. Nelson – a widower who recently remarried – believes in religious polygamy and therefore has no business promoting monogamy…

“It is deceptive of Elder Nelson to sign a petition that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman when he practices a theology that extends the name ‘marriage’ to a union between a man and multiple women,” [Connell] O’Donovan’s petition states.

After giving a brief history of polygamy within the LDS Church, the KUTV report included comments from an excommunicated LDS historian:

As a religious doctrine,…the principle remains unequivocally in place, said Mormon historian and author D. Michael Quinn, who has written extensively about polygamy.

“All of (Mormon church leaders) affirm that sealings that are between righteous men and women and where there has been a death, that those sealings triumph over death,” said Quinn. “There is no retreating from that position. That is an essential doctrine.”

Responding to the story, several people left interesting comments at topix.net. Under the name of Logic please someone who appears to be a Mormon wrote,

Except for the fact that two concurrent marriages while both wives are still alive is currently not allowed in the LDS church. The protester seems to have forgotten this issue. Nelson and the coalition are attempting to define marriage “in this life” and “in this country” not for the eternities, which is in the realm of an altogether different government.

Keith Walker from Evidence Ministries responded to Logic please:

Logic, please look up an informal logical fallacy called, “missing the point.” You just committed it. It is hypocritical for a man who believes he is married to two women *at the same time* to sign a petition to define marriage as something between ONE man and ONE woman. It matters not that one of those women is dead. Elder Nelson believes he is married to both of them now.

That is the point.

The LDS Church had no comment.

Comments (1)