Mormon Coffee

A Latter-day Saint student at BYU sent a letter to the BYU NewsNet Readers Forum this week. He wrote:

I grew up considering myself both a Christian and a Latter-day Saint. I heard of people claiming we aren’t Christians, but I still felt comfortable in identifying with both titles. I never felt any wrong in doing this until I arrived at BYU and now suddenly, I’m wondering if I really am a “Christian” and I’ve been left confused. A year ago my old BYU Bishop compared some of our beliefs with those of “Christians.” Just last week, my New Testament professor said that “Christians” believe the sacrament is the literal body and blood of Christ. Another professor mentioned how “Christians” believe that Christ was born on Dec. 24, but as Latter-day Saints we know otherwise. I’ve heard lots of my peers talk about our Christian friends and how they are so different as well. This has all led me to believe that as a Latter-day Saint, I am not Christian. That’s good to know; now I won’t knock up any fuss the next time a “Christian” tells me I’m not one of them. Thanks, BYU, for ending my confusion.Alan Peters
Oak Lawn, Ill.

Well, Mr. Peters’ BYU professors haven’t really got a handle on what Christians actually believe, but the point is well made. Latter-day Saints want to be known as Christians, but the Mormon belief system doesn’t fit the Christian model. And because of that, Mormons can’t consistently live the idea that they are “Christians.”

There is a distinction between what Mormonism is and what Christianity is; that there is a distinction comes out naturally in conversation and teaching. For example, the LDS Church made a big deal in March about the 50th anniversary of “the beginning of the preaching of the gospel in Taiwan,” but the Christian gospel has been preached in Taiwan for over 300 years (see Mormon Coffee “Preaching Mormonism in Taiwan”). Obviously, there is a recognized difference between the LDS gospel and the Christian Gospel.

Perhaps Latter-day Saints could eliminate some of the confusion if they were to follow the examples set by earlier Mormon Church leaders. Instead of talking about what “Christians” believe, make the distinction as Brigham Young and others were fond of doing: speak of the “so-called Christians”:

Brigham Young: “When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness” (Journal of Discourses 5:73). Daniel H. Wells: “…but the so-called system of Christianity is not only an error and a snare, but is a monstrous iniquity fastened upon the children of men throughout the earth” (Journal of Discourses 24:320).

George Q. Cannon: “…no thinking man can admit that Christianity so-called — I call it a false Christianity, untrue to its name — satisfies the wants of humanity at the present time” (Journal of Discourses 24:185).

Bruce McConkie: “Christianity is the religion of the Christians. Hence, true and acceptable Christianity is found among the saints who have the fullness of the gospel, and a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom” (Mormon Doctrine, 132).

Wouldn’t this kind of explicit language clear up a lot of confusion for both Latter-day Saints and non-Mormons alike? Perhaps this procedure should be written into the Associated Press Stylebook right next to the section on the proper use of the term “Mormon.”

Comments (7)

There’s a new video produced by JesusNotJoseph.com available for online viewing: “Mitt Romney and Mormonism.” The introduction states,

[Mitt] Romney is a Mormon Republican who’d like to be the next president. People are asking the question: Will his religion affect whether or not evangelicals vote for him? That’s a good question. But to many of us evangelical Christians in Utah who witness to Mormons, we think there are more important questions. Will this be an opportunity for the public to learn about what Mormonism really teaches? Will the doctrines of Mormonism be accurately portrayed? Will people understand the differences between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity?This video is more about Mormonism than it is about Mitt Romney.

What follows is 32 minutes of insightful information about the official teachings of the LDS Church. Springboarding from an interview Mitt Romney did on the Charlie Rose show on 5 June 2006, the video discusses six specific issues related to Mormonism.

When Judy Woodruff interviewed Governor Romney for the Charlie Rose show, she remarked,

There are some aspects of Mormonism that many Americans might not understand; the belief that Jesus Christ will appear again in the state of Missouri, or that God has a material body, that He was fathered by another God…

Governor Romney replied that Ms. Woodruff didn’t have those LDS doctrines right, and that the “most unusual” thing about Mormonism is the story of Noah and the Flood. Therefore, “Mitt Romney and Mormonism” takes a look at these questions:

• Will Christ Appear Again in Missouri?
• Does God the Father have a Material Body?
• Does God the Father have a Father?
• Is the Great Flood the Most Unusual Belief in Mormonism?

Presented in the form of interview clips, noted Christians involved in ministry to Mormons draw on documented LDS sources to answer these questions clearly and definitively; all according to official LDS teachings.

The section on the most unusual belief in Mormonism is a fast-moving enumeration of unique LDS doctrines including such things as baptism for the dead, the endowment ceremony, the idea of the existence of many worlds governed by various Gods, and the individual doctrines contained within the LDS teaching on Eternal Progression. After watching this, the viewer is inclined to agree with Timothy Oliver who, at the beginning of the segment, said he thinks it is “disingenuous for Mr. Romney to suggest that belief in the Flood is the most unusual thing about Mormonism.”

The next section of the video is titled Ambiguity, Transition, and Diversity in Mormonism. Here is discussed the observation (based on the experience and research of the interviewees) that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to receive straight-forward answers from Mormons about the doctrines Mormonism advocates. Indeed, though there is a big difference between “folk doctrine” and official LDS doctrine, many Mormons seem to be unaware of that fact.

A very interesting interview in this segment is with a returned Mormon missionary who remains active in his faith. Jason Larson states that Mormonism and Christianity are two religions for a good reason: they have “pivotal differences.” Mr. Larson admits that the only real similarities between Mormonism and Christianity are some “common names and terms” used by members of both religions; but, he says, the definitions of these terms “at the core are completely different.”

Finally, the video winds up with a look at the question “Should Christians Vote for a Mormon?” Cogent information and perspectives are set before the audience, which gives viewers some tools and thought-provoking ideas to consider as they evaluate and answer that question for themselves.

“Mitt Romney and Mormonism” is critical of the LDS belief system as it deviates from the Christianity embraced by the producers, but the information it imparts is accurate. It brings significant issues to light and thus is a valuable tool for those seeking answers to the “more important questions” we all should be asking.

Comments (1)

A warning cry that some theologians and apologists have made for more than a decade involves what has been called “Postmodernism.” Theologian Norman Geisler points to the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 as the end of Modernism (which he says began with Nietzsche’s “Death of God” movement at the turn of the 20th century) and the beginning of the “Death of Truth.” For many, especially in America, there is no such thing as “absolute truth.” Rather, there’s “your” truth and “my” truth, and the two can both be “true” depending on one’s perspective.This week I saw Postmodernism in all its glory as I served on a U.S. District Court case that involved a U.S. Border Patrol agent who shot an illegal alien accused of throwing a water bottle-sized rock at the agent. After listening to four days of testimony, a group of 12 of us were ushered into a side room to begin deliberations. Nobody wanted to be the jury foreman, so I volunteered because I believed I could help keep the jury organized and on target.

It took us about two hours to make a decision on four of the five counts, which seemed to be pretty clear-cut for most of us. Now we were down to the last felony count, assault on a federal officer. According to the testimony, the defendant and three other aliens were caught in the heavily-polluted Tijuana River by five Border Patrol agents as they were attempting to make their way into the U.S.

At first vote, it was six for guilty, five for not guilty, and one undecided. We pored over the evidence, which included:

• three officers saw the defendant pull a rock out of the thigh-deep water and lift it up to throw it at the officer, who then shot the alien in the arm with his service revolver;
• four people–including one of the aliens–had testified that the defendant put his hands in the water, which he denied ever doing;
• the integrity of the defendant was doubtful, as he lied many times before in previous arrests and contradicted himself more than once on the witness stand.

After a full day of deliberations, we voted again: eight for guilty, three for not guilty, and one undecided. But I knew we were in trouble in ever reaching a unanimous verdict when I had the following exchange with one of the “not guilty” female jurors (Juror 5):

Me: Why are you saying that the defendant is not guilty?Juror 5: Because, from my perspective, he never had the rock.

Me: But three officers saw the rock. The defendant’s hands were definitely in the water, which the alien behind him in the river even admitted. His testimony on the stand showed that he was lying about other facts, and his own lawyer testified in his closing statement that his client had a checkered history and was not a ‘model citizen.’

Juror 5: From your perspective and the perspective of the officers, the defendant had a rock. But from his perspective as well as mine, he did not. The evidence differs depending on your perspective.

Me: Are you even suggesting that truth differs depending on perspective? Is it even possible for the defendant to have a rock and not have a rock at the same moment of time? Wouldn’t this violate the ‘law of non-contradiction’?

Juror 5: As far as I am concerned, your truth is your truth, and my truth is mine.

Immediately, I knew that this first count was history and would have to be thrown out of court (which it eventually was by the judge). There was just no changing this juror’s mind about her perspective on truth, as she even admitted to us that all the evidence in the world wouldn’t change her mind about her feelings.

This scenario reminds me a lot of Mormons who insist that their feelings can be trusted, even if they contradict the facts. More than once I have been in conversation with a Mormon who has admitted, in one way or another, that the information I presented showing Mormonism as contradictory to the Bible sounded true. However, the mantra more than once goes like this: “I’ve prayed about the Book of Mormon and know it’s true.” This is in total disregard of the information that was just presented.

When truth becomes relative in a jury deliberation, it appears that a defendant could both commit a crime and not commit a crime at the same time. In the world of religion, one’s feelings can supersede the known facts. The evidence becomes secondary to the feelings and personal opinions that a person might have. What a scary world this has become!

Comments (12)

I’ve been reading in the Book of Revelation. I’ve been quite affected by the imagery of God as recorded by the Apostle John. We find God seated on a throne covered in radiant color and glory, surrounded by myriads of myriads of angels and elders and other living creatures, falling before Him in worship. They tell us He is holy, holy, holy. They cast their crowns down before Him. They sing His praises night and day. This is a picture many of us hold closely in our hearts. But there’s more.

Revelation also gives us this:

From the throne came flashes of lightening, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire… (4:5)

The creatures in heaven speak with voices like trumpets and thunder. By God’s command they call out horses and riders who bring judgment to the earth: war, famine and death. They kill with sword, pestilence and wild beasts. They bring earthquakes and gales; every mountain is moved and the sky is rolled up like a scroll. By God’s will the trumpets are blown and the earth is showered with hail and fire mixed with blood. Stars fall from heaven like blazing torches; an eagle flies overhead calling, “Woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth…”

Another angel flies overhead proclaiming “an eternal gospel.” He says,

Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water. (14:6-7)

Yet another angel warns that those who don’t fear God and give Him glory (i.e., those who align themselves with the enemy of God),

…will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of His anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night…” (14:11)

What rich and frightening imagery. Picture this scene and realize that God, in the midst of it all, is not dwarfed or obscured by these magnificent creatures and mighty events. He remains the overpowering Presence and focus of both heaven and earth.

I think most of us like to think about God in a far less fearsome way. We cling to His tenderness, His mercy, His image as Abba, Father. We say, “God is love; God is forgiving.” This is true, of course. But we tend to emphasize these attributes of God and ignore His awesome power and His inherent wrath.

If we truly recognized God in His fulness, if we understood not only His love but also His judgment, we might understand what it means to fear God. If we truly feared God, who would dare to speak lightly or carelessly about Him?

Consider this from an LDS man who occasionally emails me:

The real reason that faithful Latter-day Saints cannot accept Evangelical-Protestant beliefs is simple, because your god is a LOSER…. For you, the choice is heaven or hell and either choice you make is made from fear and ignorance. Ultimately, this means that your god is a SADDEST and a LOSER.Obviously, faithful Latter-day Saints do not share your same dismal view of deity. I think it’s truly a shame that you don’t have a more clearer description of your Creator and the Plan Of Salvation.

As for Latter-day Saints, our LOVING God came to seek and save that which is LOST. For us, this just happens to include EVERYONE.

This man seems to cling to certain attributes of God while neglecting others. If we truly feared God, who would dare to mock Him?

Consider these words spoken by Joseph Smith about the biblical God worshiped by Christians:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow — three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. …All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God — he would be a giant or a monster. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 372)

Or this:

I combat the errors of the ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the Gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth — diamond truth; and God is my ‘right hand man.’ (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:78, emphasis retained from the original)

I tremble to think of “the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of His anger.”

A poem by Stephen Crane comes to mind:

A Spirit SpedA spirit sped
Through spaces of night;
And as he sped, he called,
“God! God!”
He went through valleys
Of black death-slime,
Ever calling,
“God! God!”
Their echoes
From crevice and cavern
Mocked him:
“God! God! God!”
Fleetly into the plains of space
He went, ever calling,
“God! God!”
Eventually, then, he screamed,
Mad in denial,
“Ah, there is no God!”
A swift hand,
A sword from the sky,
Smote him,
And he was dead.

The Book of Revelation reveals our fearsome God, a hater of sin and idolatry, a dispenser of fierce and righteous judgment. Yet at the same time He is our Rescuer and Redeemer who says,

Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (21:3-4)

As John ended his recording of the Revelation, he cried out in joyful anticipation, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus!” I’m ready for that day. Are you?

Comments (4)

In the recently released movie titled, The Nativity Story, viewers are given a glimpse at what life was probably like for Mary and Joseph after it was learned that the espoused Mary is pregnant. Though I’ve heard pastors and theologians discuss the social ramifications of such a predicament, I can’t recall any film that does so. Since the Christmas story is recounted in only a minimal amount of New Testament paragraphs, some artistic license naturally comes into play; but the film does utilize quite a bit of scripture and there is no doubt that the Christ-child is “God made into flesh.”Peggy Fletcher Stack offers some interesting insight on the LDS view of the mother of Jesus in her recent piece in the Salt Lake Tribune titled “Something about Mary.” She notes that,

“Mormons will drag Mary out of the shadows of their faith again this season and plop her into the annual Nativity scene,”

but for most of the year, she says,

“Mary is largely tucked away — respected for her submissiveness, admired for her faithfulness, but largely invisible.”

Stack goes on to explain,

They do, however, believe she was a virgin when she conceived Jesus in her womb. The Book of Mormon, which Latter-day Saints believe was written some 600 years before Jesus’ birth, predicts the Messiah will be born in Jerusalem of a “precious and chosen vessel.” She would be “the most beautiful and fair above all other virgins,” the LDS scripture says.

Most Mormons choose to stop there. However, Stack goes on to say,

But Mormons also believe that God has a body and that Jesus was his literal son. Early LDS leaders including Brigham Young speculated that Jesus was created in much the same way as every other child — in the marriage bed. But only one partner was human.

There is no denying that several LDS leaders taught that God the Father physically impregnated Mary. In an official LDS Church manual, sixth Mormon President Joseph F. Smith taught:

Now, we are told that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death: but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven. (Family Home Evening Manual, 1972, 125)

The same manual carried the above illustration showing the figure of a man, woman, and child. On page 126 LDS parents are told they should use this to explain to their children “how Jesus was the only begotten Son of God.” Daddy plus Mommy equals you; Heavenly Father plus Mary equals Jesus.

The above comments raise an interesting question, “How can a Mormon reconcile the notion that Mary “was a virgin when she conceived in her womb,” and also believe LDS leaders who taught that Jesus “was created in much the same way as every other child — in the marriage bed.” Certainly these statements are mutually exclusive.

Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie obviously felt he had the solution when he wrote:

For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being. (The Promised Messiah, 466)

Traditionally, the definition of a virgin is a person who has never had sexual intercourse, and this is the definition historically held by Christians when it comes to Mary’s conception. However, in order to defend the teachings of LDS leaders, McConkie is compelled to redefine this term. I find such an explanation to be very disturbing. I can only hope that Mormons are equally disturbed.

Comments (30)

by Sharon

A friend sent me a link to the web site of a Latter-day Saint couple. Comprised of the couples’ “Epistles and Handouts,” the web site says,

It is our hope that these materials will be of value to you and your family in helping you be better missionaries and stronger more faithful Later-day [sic] Saints in the same way that we hope it will be a strength to my own children, extended family and friends.

An item listed in the Handouts section is a set Testimony Charts, each one depicting the testimonies of people in different stages of their spiritual journeys. Three of the charts are these:

• Proposed Typical Latter-day Saint Testimony
• Less Active Latter-day Saint Testimony
• LDS Apostate Testimony

About these charts the web site says,

These charts are printed in the Book Getting The Water To The End Of The Row. They were intended to help us see that it is not true that we either have a testimony or we don’t. We have a testimony in different degrees of different things.

Because of my Christian background, I would normally understand a “testimony” to be the story of an individual’s salvation experience — changed from sinner to saint by the grace of God. It was apparent that the LDS testimony charts would have to be depictions of something far different. I was intrigued, so I took a look.

The charts contain a list of 38 items. These range from “Know that Jesus is the Christ” to “Believe it is wrong to do bear hug dancing.” A person’s “testimony” of each belief or behavior is then rated on a scale from one (”You believe that the principle is false to the degree that you fight against it in total rebellion”) to ten (”You have received a ‘PERFECT KNOWLEDGE IN THAT THING’”). At the bottom of each list are the words, “This list could go on and on…”

Of the 38 items listed, only one has anything to do with Christ. There are three items each on the topics of temples, meeting attendance, prayer, and ecclesiastical leadership. There are two each on scripture and giving. There is one topic that has more line-item entries than any other: Sunday behavior. In addition to “keeping the Sabbath day holy,” the list includes:

• Believe it is wrong to shop on Sunday
• Believe it is wrong to see movies on Sunday
• Believe it is wrong to watch TV on Sunday
• Believe in not working on Sunday

I think this demonstrates the importance Mormons place on the necessity of keeping this Old Testament command. One of the “requirements for exaltation” listed in the LDS book Gospel Principles is “Keep the Sabbath day holy” (304). The same book includes a teaching on the history of the Sabbath:

…some Jewish leaders made many unnecessary rules about the Sabbath. They decided how far a person could walk, what kind of knot he could tie, and so forth. (160)

Doesn’t this read a lot like the list from the testimony charts?

The Apostle Paul taught, “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day.” (Colossians 2:16)

I recognize that the web site promoting the testimony charts (and the book the charts are taken from) is not an official, authoritative LDS source for doctrine. Nevertheless, I think it fairly represents how Mormons understand the teachings of their Church regarding what is required of them in order to please God.

A few weeks ago MRM received an email from a Christian woman. She related an incident she had just experienced as she enjoyed a Sunday dinner with her family and a Mormon guest. Following the meal, the LDS guest graciously thanked her hostess for the nice meal. Making conversation, the Christian woman explained that she had found it necessary to go to the grocery store that morning before church in order to have the ingredients needed to prepare the dinner. “Well, you would have thought I killed someone….” the Christian woman wrote. “[My guest] let me know of her disapproval by telling me I should be ashamed of myself.” The hostess explained to her guest that there is freedom in Christ; we can go to the store on Sunday if need be.

The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry web site puts the biblical teaching on the Sabbath into perspective:

The O.T. system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God’s requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to “remain” in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished (Ezekiel 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num. 35:31; Lev. 20:2, etc.).

But with Jesus’ atonement, and justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), we no longer are required to keep the Law and hence the Sabbath which was only a shadow of things to come (Col. 2:16-17). We are not under Law, but grace (Rom. 6:14-15). The Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus because in Him we have rest (Matt. 11:28). We are not under obligation to keep the Law and this goes for the Sabbath as well.

While I look forward to Sundays — I love being in church, worshiping the Lord, and receiving the preaching of His Word — I’m very thankful for the undeniable truth of Jesus’ assurance, “Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.” (John 8:36)

Comments (12)