Mormon Coffee

by Sharon

Last week Jeannie Berg posted an article on Blue Oregon: “Gordon Smith on Iraq — Did the Elders Make Him Do It?” Ms. Berg questioned the recent about-face of Oregon Senator Gordon Smith regarding his position on the war in Iraq. In her article, Ms. Berg wondered if LDS Senator Smith’s “new found opposition to the war” was in some way related to indicators that his spiritual leader, LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, had recently changed his position on the war.

Ms. Berg’s hypothesis was interesting, and was made with supporting evidence. Though she left no doubt as to what conclusion she had reached based on the pertinent data, her article was primarily asking the question.

Beyond the basic idea of how much — or even if — Senator Smith’s political decisions are influenced by his Prophet, the ensuing comments from readers are more interesting still.

Many of the comments left by readers were reasoned responses to the issues raised in the article; but too many others were impulsive, emotional reactions from those who took offense. Consider a few:

• This post appears to be a thinly veiled attack upon Gordon Smith’s religious affiliation.

• Unbelievable! I thought you Democrats were the “party of tolerance” and yet here Jeannie is openly criticizing [sic] Senator Smith’s Mormon faith.

  Read her post, and where she says “Senator Smith” put in “Senator Wyden” and where she puts in “Mormon” put in “Jewish”. If a republican had written something like this, every one of you would be outraged and call the author a bigot.

  … I think you ought to ban Jeannie from ever posting an original article ever again.

• Ms. Berg… You are ignorant of the Church. You are also a bigot. You are disgusting.
• Come on Jeannie, use your head and get off the “I hate Mormons” bandwagon. I am amazed at just how many well educated generally sophisticated Americans give up all logic when they talk about Mormons.

If you read the article you’ll see that Ms. Berg did not attack Mormons or Mormonism. She did not make any bigoted statements. She did not criticize Mormonism in any way. She even praised Senator Smith’s deep commitment to his faith. Ms. Berg asked a valid question — and brought a firestorm down on her head.

Interestingly, it wasn’t so much that people were upset over the question of Senator Smith’s “new found opposition to the war”; they were upset that Ms. Berg dared to ask whether the LDS Church might have an influence on politics. These readers were offended by the question, and they reacted with resentful indignation.

Is this what we’ve come to? Have we become so uncouth that we can no longer entertain different points of view? Have we lost the ability to present reasoned arguments in an effort to defend or persuade?

Apparently, author Peter Wood thinks so, or he thinks something akin to it. Dr. Wood has recently written a book titled A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now. Stanley Kurtz reviewed the book for National Review Online earlier this month. According to the review, the gist of the book is an examination of what the author terms “New Anger,” which, in its definition, is juxtaposed against America’s former model of “Old Anger.”

Here’s an excerpt from the review:

Before we lionized all those angry anti-heroes — from Jack Nicholson in the movies, to John McEnroe on the tennis court — Americans admired the strong silent type: slow to boil, reluctant to fight unless sorely provoked, and disinclined to show anger even then. Gary Cooper in Sargent [sic] York comes to mind. Old Anger was held in check by ideals of self-mastery and reserve. As Wood puts it, “Dignity, manliness, and wisdom called for self-control and coolness of temper.” The angry man, Wood reminds us, was once thought a weak-minded zealot, bereft of good judgment and prey to false clarity.

…There was a time when Americans strove to train themselves away from actually being angry — a time when even the private, inner experience of rage felt shameful and was shunned. Yet in compensation for the inner sacrifice and discipline demanded by the art of self-mastery, Americans experienced a mature pride in “character” achieved. In what Wood calls that “now largely invisible culture” of Old Anger, refusal to be provoked was its own reward.

That was then. America’s New Anger exchanges the modest heroism of Gary Cooper’s Sargent [sic] York for something much closer to the Incredible Hulk. New Anger is everything that Old Anger was not: flamboyant, self-righteous, and proud… The Civil War, and America’s past political campaigns, may have witnessed plenty of anger, yet not until recently, says Wood, have Americans actually congratulated themselves for getting angry.

New Anger is nowhere more at home than in the blogosphere, where so far from being held in check, look-at-me performance anger is the path to quick success.

I think this hits the nail squarely on the head. The times, they are a-changin’. Unfortunately, rather than our culture becoming more refined, we’ve become a people who glory in behaviors which were once rebuked as childish.

The Bible has plenty to say about anger and offense. Most people are familiar with this Proverb:

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Proverbs 15:1)

Here’s another one we’d all do well to keep in mind:

A man’s wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense. (Proverbs 19:11)

Comments (1)

There’s almost nothing in the news these days about Mormonism that isn’t primarily about Mitt Romney. But usually buried somewhere in these articles is at least a short statement about the religion Mr. Romney embraces. This week an article appeared on AmericanThinker.com, “Mitt Romney: A Leader for America” by Amy D. Goldstein. Consider her mention of Mormonism:

As for those who seek to harm Romney’s candidacy, by sowing discomfort with his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day [sic] Saints, they should learn more about this religion with American roots. Portraying Mormonism as the religion of the 1800’s is like evaluating Christianity without the Reformation or Judaism without the Talmud.

My question: How so? Unfortunately, Ms. Goldstein doesn’t give her readers any clues as to what she’s referring.

Mormonism is based — then and now — upon the premise that God speaks through a living prophet. The prophet’s words, spoken in an official capacity, are binding on LDS Church members unless and until a revelation is received that changes what was previously revealed.

According to an LDS Student Manual:

“When any one except the President of the Church undertakes to proclaim that any doctrine of the Church has been modified, changed, or abrogated, we may know he is not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ unless he is acting under the direct authority and direction of the President.” (Teachings of the Living Prophets, 13-14)

This teaching on the official procedure and source for doctrinal changes was reiterated in 2005 in an article explaining the purpose and authority of priesthood quorums in the LDS Church. The article states that the LDS Prophet is the only person who

“…has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church.” (Apostle Boyd K. Packer, “The Twelve Apostles,” Ensign, 9/2005, 17)

The abrogation of doctrine has occurred a few times in Mormonism, as in the cessation of the practice of polygamy, and the removal of the ban against Blacks holding the LDS priesthood. These were nineteenth and twentieth century doctrines of Mormonism, respectively; to portray them as current doctrines would definitely be in error.

However, most of the unique doctrines which defined Mormonism in the nineteenth century have never been rescinded; the religion today remains primarily the religion as it was in the 1800s, doctrinally speaking. As current LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley has stated,

“Those who observe us say that we are moving into the mainstream of religion. We are not changing. The world’s perception of us is changing. We teach the same doctrine.” (”Living in the Fullness of Times,” Ensign (Conference Edition), 11/2001, 5).

The LDS Church has not changed its position on such things as:

• The nature of man
• The nature of God
• The nature of scripture
• Continuing revelation
• The authority of living prophets
• The power inherent in the LDS priesthood
• The nature of authority within the Church, etc.

Modern LDS prophets may not talk a lot about some of the revelations and teachings of past LDS leaders, but they have never officially denounced or revoked these doctrinal positions, which leaves them intact and relevant for twenty-first century Mormonism.

I’d like to know what, exactly, Ms. Goldstein thinks comprises an unfair portrayal of today’s Mormonism. How is twenty-first century Mormonism substantially different from that religion as it was in the 1800s (beyond the obvious issues of polygamy and the ban on Blacks)? It’s easy to make a bald assertion such as Ms. Goldstein has, but backing it up with examples may prove to be a bit more difficult. As for me, I’d like to see a list.

Comments (3)

Titus 2:15:

Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority.

An ambassador for Christ should deliver the word of God with authority. The impression should be given that what is being communicated in scripture¹ is ultimately God’s perspective, and that God seriously means what He says. An alternative is to speak in a way that tickles postmodern ears: “Well, this is my perspective.”

Yes, as Christians we rightfully believe that, having been given the Holy Spirit, God’s perspective has, in important ways, become our perspective. In other words, God has given us His word that we might share His perspective on reality. But if we continue to qualify our statements concerning Biblical truth as coming from “our perspective,” we are doing our audience a disfavor and are probably dishonoring the authoritative nature of God’s word. To our postmodern audience, this gives the impression that what we are saying is relative to our own minds and life-experiences. In other words, what we are communicating isn’t a clarion call heralded from the heavens, but a personal perspective that bears no authority.

Secondly, this is the type of impression that seems to imply that increased mutual “understanding,” “tolerance,” and “acceptance” is a higher goal than urgent persuasion, repentance, and conversion. “Now is the day of salvation!” (2 Corinthians 6:2) What better communicates the urgency of salvation: authoritative communication of God’s word which (at least implicitly) calls for a response of repentance? Or offering our own personal perspective on things?²

2 Timothy 2:23-26:

Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting His opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

I love Paul’s balance in this passage. In some ways, I feel like this is impossible, yet in other ways, I am encouraged by what seems realistic. What seems impossible is the tightrope we must walk of a Christ-like, perfect integration of love for people and passion for God’s truth. What is refreshingly realistic is Paul’s expectation that Christians continue to teach and correct, and that by using such an approach we will bring “evil” from our “opponents” which we must “endure.”

• We are not to be involved in “foolish, ignorant controversies” which distract us from focusing on things of primary importance. We should focus on the most important things: the nature of God and salvation.
• We are not to be given over to quarrelling. We should give people some breathing room, and not feel inclined to repudiate every false thing they say. This is especially the case in private one-on-one settings, where we have more of a context for patience.³
• We are to teach. This is different than simply “sharing our perspective.” We are to teach God’s perspective on things from His word. Christians have something to teach the world from God’s word, and no matter how arrogant this seems to the postmodern culture, it is the ministry we have been given.
• We are to patiently endure their evil response. Paul simply assumes “evil” in response to “teach[ing].” Paul goes on to write,
  

  “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” (2 Timothy 4:2)

  The sort of patience Paul calls for comes from having corrected, taught and reproved. You don’t need that kind of patience if you’re simply sharing your “evangelical, personal perspective,” because you won’t get the same sort of response.

• We are to be kind to everyone and correct them with gentleness. We are to make it as easy as possible for them to see that we want the best for them. Mingled with our correction should be recognizable tenderness. The challenge is to do this even with people (influenced by postmodernism) that interpret correction itself as unkind. We should give no person a real basis for, before God’s judgment throne, characterizing us as having been unkind. In one-on-one settings with strangers this might be as simple as giving another person a fair listen, shaking their hand and extending a warm greeting to them. In personal relationships kindness can be expressed by grieving with another person over their loss, doing small favors, or taking the time to be slow and careful in speech.
• We have theological opponents, and these are the people we are to correct. People who reject Jesus Christ for who He is and what He has freely promised are “enemies of God” (Romans 11:28). Jesus said that loving enemies was more radical than loving friends. Mormons may be our friends as neighbors and citizens and fellow parents, but they are not friends in Christ (cf. 3 John 1:15). If a Mormon feels as though he is no longer our theological enemy, then we have removed ourselves from the context in which Jesus wants His radical love to shine.
• The aim is the repentance of our opponent. This goes far beyond what seems to be the chief focus of contemporary interfaith, public dialog: “tolerance,” “acceptance,” and “mutual understanding.” Our aim is that the other person would be convicted and sorrowful over their idolatry and unbelief, and turn to the God of the Bible. We want Mormons to be like the Thessalonian Christians. Paul said of them:
  

  “[W]e know, brothers loved by God, that He has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction… For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5,9-10)⁴

• We are to view these opponents as in the “snare of the devil.” This should give us a sense of urgency, encourage us to pray for them, and cause us to be serious about the high stakes of their spiritual condition. Mormons who are not willing to embrace the Biblical portrait of Jesus Christ and clearly repudiate traditional Mormon doctrine on God have not yet been born again⁵. If they do not repent, they will go to hell with Satan and his angels. They are “following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2). Their works do not flow from the joy of having been freely accepted and justified by faith before a holy God. Like Paul testified of the zeal of the Jews, we can likewise testify of the zeal Mormons have for their church and for a significant kind of moral purity. But this does not lessen the tragedy of their condition, it rather intensifies it.
  

  “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:1-4)

2 Corinthians 4:1-2:

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

Paul assumes that we are going to be tempted to “lose heart” and “practice cunning and tamper with God’s word” as we give an “open statement of the truth.” But since we have this ministry “by the mercy of God,” and since God can shine a light in their hearts that causes conversion (vs. 3-6), we should stick to directly speaking to the conscience of the Mormon. We do this reminding ourselves that we are “in the sight of God,” because in the sight of man we are tempted to please man. It is mercy that we Christians even have the opportunity to be about the ministry of the gospel. Why then would we ever tamper with God’s precious word?

Notes:

1. Titus is specifically being told to use his leadership position to declare the apostolic admonition of Paul. Positions of leadership within the Christian church are themselves subordinate to the authority of the word of God, and in 2 Peter 3:16, Peter identifies Paul’s letters as scripture.

2. This is why I believe that public dialog with false teachers should probably take the form of civil but passionate debate.

3. Ross Anderson of Wasatch Evangelical Free Church in Roy, UT, notes the difference of nature between public and private dialog:

“[I]n a private dialog, if something I say is misunderstood, I can probe the level of understanding, and correct the misunderstanding, by further discussion with my friend. But if I say something in a public setting that is misunderstood…, then that misunderstanding is cast into the open and spreads like leaves in the wind. I cannot go back to each person who heard those remarks to assess the nature of their misunderstanding or to make clarifications… [P]rivate civility and public civility are not the same thing. I can challenge my wife (or a close friend) about an issue in private, with kindness and respect, in a way I would not do in a public setting. Regardless of how kind and polite I was being, I would not choose a busy restaurant or the lobby at church to tell my friend that he has a problem with body odor. I would not announce in a microphone that his zipper is down. In other words, it’s not appropriate to hold a friend accountable in public in the same way I would approach him in private. So [a public dialog with such a person] is not really a valid model of a civil discourse between real friends. Simply for the reason that it is public, there’s no way it can model the depth of confrontation true friends sometimes have.”

His comments seem appropriate for those who are not able or willing to engage in civil, public debate with someone. Such persons should keep their evangelistic relationships in a private, personal setting. Taking them public would be inappropriate, since, not willing or able to publicly debate or forthrightly correct, one is not able to hold the other publicly accountable for what is said.

4. We cannot be content or optimistic over Mormon neo-orthodoxy which lacks remorse over traditional Mormon idolatry and heresy. If Mormon neo-orthodox persons, who at least in their language seem to have adopted new doctrines, were truly cause for optimism, they would weep and cringe over the sorts of past statements LDS leaders made concerning God and grace and personal worthiness. As it is, they seem to have no shame over them.

5. This is in contrast with the view of Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, who sees a person like Mormon BYU professor Robert Millet as a fellow brother in Christ.

Comments (1)

by Sharon

The Jackson Hole [Wyoming] Star Tribune reported Sunday that non-Mormon students at Brigham Young University believe they are at a disadvantage when it comes to the required Book of Mormon courses. Ninety-eight percent of the school’s students are Mormon, but the other two percent represent twenty other faiths; all students are required to take two courses on the Book of Mormon as well as additional religion courses.

A Buddhist BYU student from Taiwan said,

“Salvation, celestial kingdom, I’m not familiar with these words like the other students.”

Therefore, she — and other non-Mormon students — would like to see the school resume offering a nonmember Book of Mormon class, as it did until the end of winter semester 2005. Paul Warner, who taught the nonmember class until his retirement, said,

“We just went through the book in a basic way so they could ask questions and not feel threatened by returned missionaries, seminary graduates or long-term members in class.”

Several non-Mormon students have asked why the school will not resume the class for nonmembers, but have not received satisfactory answers. Therefore, they wrote a letter to the editor of the BYU campus newspaper in which they requested “an explanation for the decision, separate tests for nonmembers in regular religion courses and teaching assistants or TAs specifically for nonmembers.”

Another student responded to these requests a couple of days later in the “opinion section” of the campus paper with his solution to the problem:

“TAs are here. They are called missionaries.”

I’m not quite sure what this student meant. Was he saying that LDS missionaries are available to tutor nonmember students so they get good grades on their Book of Mormon course tests? Or that LDS missionaries are not only called to proselytize but also to serve as teaching assistants to BYU professors? Or was he suggesting that the way to breeze through the Book of Mormon classes is to convert to Mormonism? Is that the way to get better grades at BYU?

Whatever the problem-solving student meant, the non-Mormon students weren’t too crazy about the idea. A student from Singapore said,

“We don’t want missionaries persuading us. We have our own religion. It’s not that we don’t want to learn about Mormons, we just don’t want to be graded on the same curve.”

Comments (1)

The January 15, 2007 issue of The New Republic includes an article by Damon Linker: “Taking Mormonism Seriously. The Big Test” (subscription only). I don’t subscribe to The New Republic and so have not read Dr. Linker’s article. However, it appears that Dr. Linker has struck a nerve in some people.TNR Online is hosting a debate on this issue. On January 3rd LDS author and emeritus professor Richard L. Bushman weighed in. Dr. Bushman’s response is accessible to registered users (free registration) and interesting to read. In a nutshell, he believes Dr. Linker has mischaracterized Mormonism. In my opinion, Dr. Bushman makes some good points; and some of his points are deserving of critical response. But I’ll leave that to someone else.

The part of Dr. Bushman’s response that I want to look at has nothing to do with Mitt Romney and today’s politics, but rather with LDS history. Dr. Bushman wrote:

Joseph Smith ran up against the fear of fanaticism almost from the beginning. It was the chief underlying cause of the recurrent expulsions the Mormons suffered. When non-Mormons could find no specific infractions to warrant prosecution in the courts, they resorted to vigilante action to drive the Mormons out. The Mormon presence was unbearable because they were so obviously fanatics. Quite typically, the fear of fanaticism led democrats into undemocratic extremes. Mormons were deprived of their property and the right to live and vote in a supposedly open society. In 1846, after a decade and a half of recurring attacks in Missouri and Illinois, a body of armed citizens forced out the pitiful remains of the Mormon population in Nauvoo by training six cannons on the town.

Dr. Bushman makes it sound as if the early Latter-day Saints were mistreated only because people were afraid the Mormons might do something alarming. In fact, the Mormons did alarm their non-Mormon neighbors by engaging in very alarming behavior.

Consider this portion of a speech made by LDS leader Sidney Rigdon, on the 4th of July, 1838:

We take God and all the holy angels to witness this day, that we warn all men in the name of Jesus Christ, to come on us no more forever, for from this hour, we will bear it no more, our rights shall no more be trampled on with impunity. The man or the set of men, who attempts it, does it at the expense of their lives. And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seal of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed.

If it’s ever reasonable to fear fanaticism, the citizens of Missouri had good reason to fear after hearing that speech. This was not just empty talk by a rogue LDS member. Sidney Rigdon was a very close associate of the Prophet Joseph Smith and impressed the Prophet so deeply with his July 4th oration that Joseph Smith had the speech printed up in pamphlet form and distributed across the Mormon counties of the state.

According to LDS historian Richard Van Wagoner, on October 18th, just a few months after Sidney Rigdon’s threats,

Mormon raiders were able to ride out. Apostle David W. Patten, known by his Danite tide “Captain Fearnought,” descended on Gallatin [Missouri] with a large contingent of men and, after plundering the small village, burned most of it to the ground. Then the marauders pillaged the Daviess County countryside, depositing their spoils, which they termed “consecrated property,” in the bishop’s storehouse at Diahman” (Sidney Rigdon, Portrait of Religious Excess, 234).

LDS History of the Church records that six days after this Mormon marauding and plundering in western Missouri, Thomas Marsh, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, swore out an affidavit in which he exposed a Mormon vigilante group called the Danites — who had taken an oath to “support the heads of the Church in all things that they say or do, whether right or wrong” (History of the Church 3:167. Italics retained from the original). Furthermore, according to Mr. Marsh’s affidavit,

The Prophet inculcates the notion, and it is believed by every true Mormon, that Smith’s prophecies are superior to the laws of the land. I have heard the Prophet say that he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, “the Alcoran or the Sword.” So should it be eventually with us, “Joseph Smith or the Sword.” These last statements were made during the last summer. The number of armed men at Adam-ondi-Ahman was between three and four hundred. (ibid.)

The day after Mr. Marsh swore out this affidavit, on October 25th, 1838, a Mormon militia attacked Missouri state troops on the banks of the Crooked River (see Stephen C. LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, 137ff). The conflict between the Mormons and non-Mormons continued to escalate but came to a screeching halt five days later when 200 Missouri troops attacked the Mormon settlement of Haun’s Mill, killing 18 Mormon men and boys. Joseph Smith soon surrendered.

A similar history attends the Mormon problems in Illinois.

It wasn’t fear of fanaticism that caused the “recurrent expulsions” of the Mormons from their homes; fanatical behavior by the Mormons brought on the predictable consequence of determined resistance from the non-Mormons, which led eventually to aggression and hostilities all around. I’m not making a judgment call on who was right or wrong; the whole affair is far too complicated to sort out here. But I am saying history clearly reveals that the Mormons were not blameless victims of violence brought on by the “fear of fanaticism.” Dr. Bushman, a history professor and author of numerous LDS historical books, knows this. I find it a bit ironic that Dr. Bushman would scold Dr. Linker with these words:

Your essay chooses not to look at the historical record, because specific facts are irrelevant in explicating fanaticism. …There is no effort to give a balanced picture. Certain key facts or incidents are made archetypal. In unguarded moments or exceptional instances the true nature of the fanatic mind reveals itself.

Comments (8)

Even though Christmas is behind us, I’m not yet ready to let it go. Christmas brings such a wonderful, tender atmosphere. The warmth of family, the sparkle of lights, the renewed joy of the birth of my Savior. I love the Christmas carols and the candlelight worship service, all bringing Christ into focus — where He always ought to be.My favorite Christmas tradition in my home is the lighting of the “Christ candle.” First thing on Christmas morning I read these scriptures:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. …In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-5)Arise, shine; for your light has come! And the glory of the LORD is risen upon you. (Isaiah 60:1)

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” (John 8:12)

But the LORD will be to you an everlasting light, and your God your glory. (Isaiah 60:19b)

Then I light a pillar candle that burns throughout Christmas Day. The pillar represents Christ as my strength and essential support. The color of the candle, which changes each year, represents Christ’s holiness and purity (white), Christ’s sacrificial death for me (red), or Christ’s steadfast promise of eternal life (green). The flame represents the everlasting light that is Jesus, given to the world at His birth. This burning candle reminds me and my family, during all the festivities and other traditions of Christmas Day, that God is with us — Immanuel has come.

It was amidst this Christmas backdrop that I read an article in the LDS Church News titled “Christmas Gift.”

On Saturday evening, Dec. 2, Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve told Salt Lake Big Cottonwood Stake President Ellis Ivory that his stake “might receive the biggest Christmas present ever.”The next morning, President Ivory realized what Elder Ballard was talking about: President Gordon B. Hinckley made a surprise visit to the stake conference.

“It was a real gift to us,” President Ivory said. “The members couldn’t believe that he was there. Many were so emotional that they couldn’t sing. It was by far the most tearful conference that has ever been in the history of our stake.” (Church News 12/9/06, 5)

As reported in Church News, President Hinckley spoke to the LDS stake members about Church membership. He said:

• “…whenever you lead someone into the Church, you confer upon him or her blessings that can be had in no other way in all of this world.”
• “There is nothing you can do that would bless the life of anybody that is more important than leading to membership in this Church.”
• “…nothing will reel in greater happiness or bring more permanent and wonderful blessings, than leading someone into this Church.”

According to the Church News report, President Hinckley concluded his remarks by speaking of the atonement of Christ as the “most important facet of all the facets of the gospel.” As far as I can tell by reading Church News, this was the first time in his address that president Hinckley mentioned Jesus, and was but a very small part of the message.

Following President Hinckley, LDS Apostle Ballard told the congregation that it was a great blessing to be “schooled by the president of the Church and a prophet of the Lord,” and that it is a privilege to “learn the great lessons” taught by President Hinckley.

Maybe because of it being Christmastime I’m more sensitive to this, but it struck me as strange that the focus and adoration of the LDS congregation were directed to the man Gordon B. Hinckley, rather than to Immanuel — God with us.

It struck me as strange that a man claiming to be God’s mouthpiece on earth used this opportunity to address the people by speaking primarily of the Church, rather than speaking first and foremost of Immanuel — God with us.

It struck me as strange that a man hailed by millions as a true prophet of God taught that the greatest happiness and blessing available to mankind is LDS Church membership, rather than the incredible and unsurpassable blessing of Immanuel — God with us.

In the early Christian church, just after teaching that “the Word was God” and “in Him was life, and the life was the light of men,” the Apostle John wrote,

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. …the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him… (John 1:6-14)

A true prophet of God, sent to bear witness of Christ. Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest prophet of all (Matthew 11:11). While Gordon B. Hinckley bears witness of the LDS Church and the attendant blessings of membership, John bore witness of the true Light Who became flesh and dwelt among us.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! …I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.” (John 1:29, 34)

What an incredible message! What an incomparable blessing! Immanuel has come; God is with us.

Comments (3)