Mormon Coffee

On November 7, 2006 LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks presented a devotional address to the students at BYU-Idaho. In his talk, entitled “Be Wise,” Mr. Oaks defined the principle of wisdom and demonstrated how wisdom may be applied in several different areas of life. Covering various subjects including prayer, dating, and self-characterization, Mr. Oaks spoke of another area in which wisdom must be exercised. He said,

My second subject of wisdom concerns looking beyond the mark. In the Book of Mormon the Prophet Jacob described a people who “despised the words of plainness,…and sought for things…they could not understand” (Jacob 4:14). He said this caused them to fall because when persons are “looking beyond the mark,” God takes away plainness and gives them what they sought — things they cannot understand.We see this today. For example, some persons write General Authorities asking when we will be returning to Missouri or how we should plan to build up the New Jerusalem. Others want to know details about the Celestial Kingdom, such as the position of a person who lives a good life but never ever marries.

I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. What I do know is that persons worrying about such things are probably neglecting to seek a firmer understanding and a better practice of the basic principles of the gospel that have been given to them with words of plainness by the scriptures and by the servants of the Lord[.]

It’s interesting that Mr. Oaks — as a prophet, seer and revelator who, by virtue of his position in the LDS Church, believes he has been divinely equipped to guide, counsel and instruct Latter-day Saints; who holds every gift, qualification and key necessary to lead people to into the Celestial kingdom; who has had bestowed upon him all the power of God that it is possible for a human being to hold on earth; who has been placed in the LDS Church for the express purpose of keeping the Saints from being carried away by false doctrine (see George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, Two volumes in one, 205-214) — it’s noteworthy that he does not know the answers to sincere gospel questions. Nor does he appear interested in seeking God to receive those answers.

Joseph Smith and other early LDS leaders had no qualms about asking God to grant them deeper understanding or revelations of clarification (for example, see Doctrine and Covenants section 7; Doctrine and Covenants section 132; Doctrine and Covenants — Declaration 2). Indeed, the introduction to Doctrine and Covenants section 33 says,

In recording this revelation the Prophet affirmed that “the Lord is ever ready to instruct such as diligently seek in faith.”

I can see that wondering about God’s specific timeline might be a question that “goes beyond the mark,” but if exaltation in the Celestial kingdom is the goal of every Latter-day Saint (as affirmed by LDS Apostle Jeffrey Holland, Ensign, October 2006, 11), surely, the eternal consequences for a person who never marries is a valid and important matter.

Rather than encourage or instruct a person bearing such a weighty concern, Mr. Oaks states he does not know the answer. But he does claim to know the heart of the seeker. Instead of considering that the questioner may be someone who is worried about a loved one who doesn’t seem to be living the LDS gospel essentials (like marriage), Mr. Oaks paints a picture of the person as someone who is most likely negligent in gospel study and righteous living.

Mr. Oaks concluded this section of his talk with this:

If we neglect the words of plainness and look beyond the mark, we are starting down a path that often leads to a loss of commitment and sometimes to a loss of faith. There is enough difficulty in following the words of plainness, without reaching out for things we have not been given and probably cannot understand.On our refrigerator at home Sister Oaks has posted these wise words of Sister Elisa Wirthlin: “Don’t complicate the simplicities of the gospel with questions that are not in harmony with simple truths.”

In what way are fundamental questions about one’s eternal fate “not in harmony with simple truths”? Isn’t a basic understanding of the three degrees of glory part of the “simplicities of the [LDS] gospel”? Isn’t it imperative that we understand the eternal ramifications of our actions in mortality?

In Christianity, a truly simple Gospel is found: Be reconciled to God and enjoy His presence forevermore; or remain an enemy of God and suffer the eternal and excruciating consequences of our sins. What happens to a good person who never marries? The same thing that happens to a bad person who never marries, or a good person who does marry. Whether a person is married makes no difference. Whether the world sees a person as good or bad makes no difference. It is the individual’s standing before God, based not on works or ordinances, but based on God’s mercy and grace that makes all the difference in the world (see Isaiah 59:2; Romans 6:23; Hebrews 9:27; 1 John 5:11-12; Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 3:21-26).

In Mormonism there are four possible eternal destinations for human beings, and in the highest destination there are various positions that might be achieved. Some become Gods; some, something less. Some have said the dead have an eternity to progress and move up to better kingdoms; some have said that can’t be done. Some claim baptism into the LDS Church guarantees a person will at least become a servant in the Celestial kingdom; some claim those who think so will be surprised to find they were wrong. In Mormonism there are no “simplicities of the gospel”; it’s a complicated system from start to finish. No wonder Mormons have questions for their General Authorities. It must be disheartening for a Latter-day Saint that nobody seems to be able to answer them; and undoubtedly devastating to be branded spiritually negligent just for asking.

There’s been lots in the news lately about Mormonism; mostly related to Mitt Romney’s suitability as a presidential candidate in 2008. But there are some other tidbits that have cropped up as well. If you’re interested, here’s a run down with follow-up links to recent stories.In early November BPNews.net (Baptist Press) published the results of a recent poll conducted by the denomination’s North American Mission Board. The goal of the research was to see how Americans view Southern Baptists, including how they are perceived in comparison to other religions in America. Southern Baptists were viewed favorably by 57 percent of the 1,210 American adults polled across the country. Furthermore, as illustrated by the above graphic,

The positive outlook toward Southern Baptists, United Methodists and the Catholic Church was about the same in the survey, while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and Muslims received less favorable ratings, 32 percent and 27 percent, respectively.

Another graph (available as part of a PowerPoint download from the North American Mission Board) presents greater detail of the respondent’s perceptions. According to this graph, the American adult impression of Mormons breaks down like this:

• Very favorable: 9%
• Somewhat favorable: 23%
• Somewhat unfavorable: 19%
• Very unfavorable: 13%
• Not familiar: 32%
• Not sure: 4%

********************

Another news item regarding Mormonism appeared in the United Kingdom’s Lancashire Evening Post last Saturday. The online story said:

The Mormon Church has suffered defeat in its legal campaign to stop rates bills being slapped on its massive temple in Chorley.Top judges ruled against the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, saying the temple did not qualify for a rates exemption — because it can only be used by selected Mormon believers and is not “a place of public religious worship.”

This decision came in answer to an appeal brought by the LDS Church regarding a previous ruling. Astutely assessing the situation, Lord Justice Neuberger dismissed the appeal stating,

“The activities carried out in the temple, far from ‘relating to the organisation of the conduct of public religious worship,’ are in reality ‘acts of ritual worship carried out in private’.”

********************

Finally, there have been some interesting items online regarding Mitt Romney and his potential run for U.S. President. On November 20th the Salt Lake Tribune reported the results of a new poll of 1,000 likely voters regarding whether or not they would vote for a Mormon for president. The poll showed that 43 percent of Americans wouldn’t even consider voting for a Mormon. The number is even higher among those who identified themselves as evangelicals, standing at 53 percent. The Salt Lake Tribune reported:

Rick Beltram, an evangelical and chairman of the South Carolina’s Spartanburg County Republican Party, says he believes the poll is probably accurate, but also noted that a generic poll does not indicate how people feel about Romney after hearing him talk about his religion.”That’s obviously his biggest obstacle,” Beltram says of Romney’s faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “But I’ve also found that the more time that he or someone with him explains his beliefs, that’s not the case.” If Romney can dissuade voters from believing his faith is a cult, as some evangelicals view it, his support is likely to grow, Beltram says.

“His job is going to be communicate, communicate and communicate,” Beltram says.

Yesterday TIME magazine posted “Can a Mormon be President?” by journalist Mike Allen, who raised an interesting point:

[LDS] church officials are wary of the impact Romney’s candidacy could have on them–and on the portrayal of their faith. Yes, his campaign will bring attention and credibility to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), as the Mormons are formally known, and give them a chance to demystify their theology and customs. But church officials also calculate that Romney’s bid to succeed George W. Bush could remind some mainstream Christians just how different Mormonism is from their faith…

I would be thrilled to hear Mitt Romney explain and communicate the doctrines of Mormonism. I myself campaign for the LDS Church to openly present its theology and customs to the world. It’s an exciting prospect; however, history and experience tell me this will not happen.

Consider the TIME article’s explanation of the concern Evangelicals have with Mormonism:

Evangelicals hold the view that Mormonism is not a Christian faith. Because Mormons acknowledge works of Scripture that are not in the Bible, believe that their prophets have received revelations directly from God and teach that God has a physical body, Evangelicals consider them heretics.

While all of this is basically true, the explanation is an extreme understatement of the facts as they are; it leaves readers with the mistaken impression that the theological concerns Christian faiths have with Mormonism are perhaps a bit trivial, and certainly not deserving of the majority of evangelicals saying they would not consider supporting the election of a Mormon for president.

I realize that the above statement was provided by TIME magazine, not the LDS Church or Mitt Romney. Yet there is even less reason to hope for a clear presentation of LDS theology from these sources. TIME magazine reported:

Calling himself “a religious person,” Romney in June used the Charlie Rose Show on PBS to test-drive an answer that keeps him from getting into the nitty-gritty of his religious heritage. “I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior,” he said. “But then as you get into the details of doctrines, I’d probably say, ‘Look, time out. Let’s focus on the values that we share.’”

Though the LDS Church and Governor Romney may avoid answering the tough questions, answers are available for those who seek them. From the National Review Online blog row, The Corner has recently published representative emails from a few people who recognize that the problems with Mormonism are more significant than the media lets on. You can read them here and here.

And, of course, factual information on Mormonism and how it compares with biblical Christianity is available 24/7 at Mormonism Research Ministry and many other fine web sites accessible through the MRM links page.

“Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.” –Acts 19:8

Some would say that making an overt apologia (”defense”) for the Christian faith is something that is ineffective and thus should be avoided. In this Postmodern culture, a Christian who insists on exclusive truth (i.e. “there is only one way to God”) can too often be written off as narrow-minded and possibly even bigoted.

Does anyone know the origin of such an idea? It can’t be the Bible since God’s Word clearly shows that we must use every means available whenever we share the Gospel. After all, didn’t Jesus himself say that we are supposed to be “wise as serpents but innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). This comes by the power of God, as Paul told the Corinthians that the way He went about sharing truth was not with overly wise philosophy but with the power of the Spirit.

He wrote, “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power” (1 Cor. 2:4). He added in verse 13 that “this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.”

Yet in Acts 19 Paul is caught in up the Spirit, “arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God,” at a Jewish synagogue. This was his typical MO during his missionary journeys, as he usually headed straight to the synagogue upon arrival at a new city. How often he was beaten up and almost killed for his unpopular tactics! In fact, he says in 2 Cor. 11:16ff that five times he received “forty lashes minus one”; he was thrice beaten with rods and stoned; and he ended up in prison frequently, often because he was willing to take a stand and not water down the truth. Wherever he found himself, whether in a public square in Athens with philosophers (Acts 17) or disagreeing with Peter about a principle involving doctrine (see Gal. 2:11ff), Paul was not afraid to made a public stand for the truth.

So what has happened in the 21st century? Why do some Christians say they don’t want to offend anyone and thus become shy when it comes to telling others about the truth of God’s Word? Except for those Christians who consider themselves Pluralists (Universalism, which is the belief that all people eventually make it to heaven) or Inclusivists (the idea that Jesus can be found in other religions and sincerity earns heaven), most evangelical Christians are Exclusivists, saying that anyone without a relationship with the Jesus of the Bible is headed toward an eternity of separation from God. If Exclusivism is true, then anyone who touts a don’t-rock-the-boat mentality and couches their words carefully so they don’t (God forbid!) offend someone is willing to hide words of eternal life.

But if the Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, and Mormon are headed to an eternity of complete separation from God, don’t we have a responsibility to tell them about the Gospel message?

I like Ray Comfort’s evangelistic tactic (see Way of the Master), as he uses the law of God to show how inadequate the sinner is before an all-holy God. Using a system he calls “WDJD,” he starts off by asking people, “Would you say you are a good person?” More often than not, they will say “yes.” Then comes the tough question: “Do you keep the 10 Commandments?” It is fascinating to see how people react, as most reply, “Of course I do,” since they’ve never murdered or committed adultery. They are, they think, good people, much better than the sinners who kill and cheat.

Comfort then follows up with these questions: “Have you ever hated anyone? Have you ever lusted? Have you ever stolen anything?” At this, the person realizes that he’s been caught and has fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23). Comfort has found that getting a person lost before providing him/her of the gospel message results in a better opportunity to get him/her found by the Master.

Is this tactic offensive? As long as we are patient and loving–no finger pointing or screaming is needed!–I believe people will understand the sincerity that motivates Christians like Comfort to unabashedly share their faith. One interviewer connected with Comfort’s organization asked a dozen different people who had just heard about this plan of salvation if they were offended. “Of course not!” the answer came back time and again. While they might not have agreed with the Christian’s reasoning or were not ready to become Christians, they understood that the main motivation of the person witnessing was to help them, not tear them down.

For those who could get offended (”How dare you say there’s only one way to God”), Galatians 4:16 puts it very clearly when Paul wrote, “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” We tell the truth because we care about people. To not tell a person in a burning house about the consequences of remaining in the house would be considered neglect.

So if anyone tells you that it’s not politically correct to give a clear gospel message to a lost world, just ask them for a biblical precedent where Jesus, Peter, or Paul didn’t make the most of the opportunities they were given. I doubt they’ll find anything that suggests we ought to neglect telling others the Gospel message lest we may cause them to become offended.

O my God,
Thou fairest, greatest, first of all objects,
      my heart admires, adores, loves Thee,
      for my little vessel is as full as it can be,
      and I would pour out all that fullness before Thee
                  in ceaseless flow.
When I think upon and converse with Thee
      ten thousand delightful thoughts spring up,
      ten thousand sources of pleasure are unsealed,
      ten thousand refreshing joys spread over my heart,
      crowding into every moment of happiness.
I bless Thee for the soul Thou hast created,
            for adorning it, sanctifying it,
                  though it is fixed in barren soil;
            for the body Thou hast given me,
            for preserving its strength and vigor,
            for providing senses to enjoy delights,
            for the ease and freedom of my limbs,
            for hands, eyes, ears that do Thy bidding;
            for Thy royal bounty providing my daily support,
            for a full table and overflowing cup,
            for appetite, taste, sweetness,
            for social joys of relatives and friends,
            for ability to serve others,
            for a heart that feels sorrows and necessities,
            for a mind to care for my fellow-men,
            for opportunities of spreading happiness around,
            for loved ones in the joys of heaven,
            for my own expectation of seeing Thee clearly.
I love Thee above the powers of language to express,
      for what Thou art to Thy creatures.

Increase my love, O my God, through time and eternity.

(From The Valley of Vision: A collection of Puritan prayers and devotions,
edited by Arthur Bennett, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1975)

Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle ran a lengthy article about Warren Jeffs and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In “A Prophet in Purgatory” journalist Don Lattin examines Mr. Jeffs’ history, leadership and behavior as the Prophet-leader of the FLDS Church. A significant question asked by Mr. Lattin is this: “Will throwing the book at polygamist Warren Jeffs bust up his sect or be a boon to it?” In exploring possibilities, Mr. Lattin writes:

Breeding LoyaltyWarren Jeffs’ battle to practice polygamy and lead his earthly domain as he sees fit is just the latest chapter in the 150-year-old saga of Mormon polygamy in the West.

His sect — which also has members in Canada, Mexico, Texas and elsewhere in the United States — sees itself as the true continuation of a religious tradition dating back to the spiritual revelations and sexual lifestyle of Joseph Smith, the 19th century founder of the Mormon faith. In 1890, the mainline Mormon Church officially suspended the practice of polygamy in a deal that allowed the Utah Territory to join the United States. Today, the 12.3-million strong Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints excommunicates members who openly practice plural marriage.

But that does not stop an estimated 37,000 Latter-day Saints who see the taking of multiple wives as one of the central tenets of the Mormon religion.

One of them is Marvin Wyler, who cites Mormon scripture to back up his belief that Latter-day Saints must practice polygamy to rise into the upper reaches of heaven, where Mormons believe man can “be like God.”

“In order to obtain the highest level in the celestial kingdom you have to live in plural marriage,” Wyler said. “They (the mainline Mormon Church) gave that up. It was too hard for them.”

According to historians, Joseph Smith had taken 33 wives by the time he was murdered by an angry mob in Carthage, Ill., in 1844. Among those women taken as wives by the founding prophet were the already-married wives of his top male lieutenants, a practice anthropologists say can actually breed loyalty among the tribe.

It comes as no surprise that pressure and duress often act to strengthen groups rather than weaken them. We’ve seen it in Jonestown and we’ve seen it in Waco. It was evident in the early LDS Church, too. Even today the Mormon Church leverages a myth of continuing persecution to strengthen and unite Latter-day Saints in an us-against-them worldview — the same worldview fostered by Warren Jeffs among his own Latter-day Saints.

Another article about the FLDS Church appeared in today’s Salt Lake Tribune. “Guiding principles all-important for Jeffs” also notes the presence of strong loyalty among the members of Mr. Jeffs’ church. The article’s sub-title reads, “FLDS followers remain devoted despite strict guidelines that often separate their families.” Journalist Brooke Adams reports:

For three decades, first as a school principal and later as a sect prophet, Warren S. Jeffs has acted with a singular purpose: To prepare a perfect people for God.Jeffs has pursued that goal through unyielding standards and swift repercussions for those who don’t measure up in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a polygamous sect of about 6,000…

Despite the seeming harshness of his faith, the majority of Jeffs’ followers remain devoted to him and his 19th-century version of Mormonism.

He is seen, according to sources, as a modern-day John Taylor, the third president of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who spent two years in hiding to avoid prosecution for polygamy.

In the spring of 1880, nearly five years before going into hiding, John Taylor said at the Church’s 1880 General Conference:

“Has God given us a law? Yes! Have they made a law to punish us for obeying His law? Yes. All right we will get along and do the best we can, but we won’t forsake out god[;] and all those who are willing to abide by the law of god signify it by raising the right hand” (Deseret News Weekly, 12 May 1880; quoted in Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 115).

Later, while hiding out from Federal authorities in 1886, President John Taylor received the following revelation in response to his query about the possibility of the LDS Church giving up polygamy:

“All commandments that I give must be obeyed unless they are revoked by me or by my authority and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with but they stand forever. I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so amen” (John Taylor Letter File, LDS Archives; quoted in Mormon Polygamy, 128).

There sure are a lot of similarities between early Mormonism and the FLDS Church. It’s just as King Solomon said: “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

The Journal Gazette Times-Courier out of east-central Illinois is in the middle of a pretty interesting online rant. It began on November 3rd when journalist Lee Thomson answered a couple questions about Mormonism in his (her?) “Journey of Faith” column. The questions:

Dear Lee: I’ve never gotten satisfactory answers to these questions: Why does the Mormon Church not have crosses in or on their buildings, and why do Mormons not wear cross jewelry?They say they’re Christians and believe in Jesus Christ, yet they won’t accept this universal symbol of His sacrifice for our sins.

– Puzzled Christian

Lee Thomson answered the questions — and then some. Being a distant relative of noted LDS “theologian” Hugh Nibley, Thomson has never been Mormon, but has close relatives who are members of the LDS Church. Therefore, he says, he has respect for his relatives’ faith and devotion.

The November 3rd column explained that, according to Thomson’s Mormon step-mother, Mormons don’t direct their worship toward symbols so, consequently, they do not have crosses in or on their churches. But Thomson went a bit further in the explanation. He wrote:

Mormons never use crosses anywhere, perhaps because Mormons believe Jesus’ death on the cross is insufficient to obtain eternal salvation.

Following this, Thomson briefly touched on several LDS doctrines:

• The requirement of perfection for salvation
• That God was once a man
• That many Gods exist
• That God progressed to Godhood by performing good works, and others may progress as well
• That God resides near the planet Kolob
• That Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother have bodies and use them to procreate spirits
• That these spirits wait until a human body is prepared for them by women on earth and then inhabit said bodies
• That by righteous living and faithful tithing a Mormon may obtain a temple recommend and marry “for time and eternity”
• That after death righteous Mormons obtain planets they populate with their spouses — “families are forever”
• That Mormons live healthfully without coffee, tobacco and alcohol
• That plural marriage is “God’s perfect plan” but Mormons accept legal restrictions against it

You can imagine what a furor this column has caused among LDS readers. The newspaper has received many dissenting comments from Mormons, mostly casting aspersions on Lee Thomson’s character and motives, as well as decrying the information the newspaper published as “inaccurate,” “nonsensical,” and “offensive.” One commenter, “kristie n,” wrote:

“What a load of crap! Where did you learn your LDS doctrine? I don’t believe any of that stuff you said, and have been LDS my whole life. “

Any Latter-day Saint who knows his doctrine must cringe when reading kristie n’s comment. Lee Thomson may have presented his information rather bluntly, but pretty much all of it has its source in the public teachings of LDS prophets and apostles. Is the Latter-day Saint who doesn’t “believe any of that stuff” really so unaware of the doctrines of her Church? Or is there another explanation for her comments?

There is one additional LDS doctrine or policy mentioned by Thomson in his column, and this one seems to have brought the loudest lambaste. It is:

When explaining LDS doctrine or practice might make the religion look odd to the general public, Mormons believe “giving milk before meat” is best. Giving simple explanations initially, and details later, is their belief. Another LDS method is “lying for the Lord,” or deceiving non-Mormons concerning potentially-misunderstood LDS beliefs.Many Mormons believe “lying for the Lord” appropriately keeps LDS matters sacred and unsullied by public criticism.

Remarkably, at last July’s LDS Sunstone Symposium, Ryan Wimmer discussed (in “Truth-Telling and Mormonism”) how “lying for the Lord” resembles the Shi’a Muslim concept, Al-Taqiyah — lying to “dodge the threat,” or save one’s life or faith.

It’s possible that kristie n is ignorant of the teachings of Mormonism. Or, it’s possible that she’s demonstrating Lee Thomson’s point, “lying for the Lord” or otherwise trying to keep doctrinal “meat” out of the hands of those she believes need “milk” instead. It looks to me like this is what most of the other Mormons commenting on Thomson’s column have endeavored to do.

If kristie n really doesn’t “believe any of that stuff,” she’s in the wrong religion. If, on the other hand, she does know and believe these Mormon doctrines…well, enough said.