Mormon Coffee

by Sharon

Over the weekend (April 14) Deseret Morning News reported that a group of interested people will be gathering in Arkansas on April 21st for a conference looking at the life and ministry of LDS Apostle Parley Pratt. I don’t know what the conference will be like, but if the report in Deseret News is any indication, it may be a frustrating event for those who prefer accurate history above revisionist history.

Deseret News explained,

An early apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Pratt was killed near Van Buren, Ark., in May 1857, by a small Arkansas band antagonistic toward his teachings.

In truth, Parley Pratt was murdered by an outraged husband and father by the name of Hector McLean, with the misguided support of McLean’s friends. Pratt was not killed so much because these men were “antagonistic” toward his teachings, but because Pratt was living those teachings with McLean’s legal wife.

McLean’s wife, Eleanor, had abandoned her family to become Pratt’s 12th plural wife. Soon thereafter, in 1857, McLean learned that Eleanor and Pratt were intending to abduct the McLean children and spirit them away to Utah. After finding no help in this situation from the legal system, McLean and his friends took matters into their own hands — tracking, attacking, and brutally killing Parley Pratt, the Mormon Apostle.

Many Mormons consider Parley Pratt a martyr for his faith. Was he really killed because a few men in Arkansas opposed Mormon teachings?

Pratt was murdered not only because he practiced polygamy according to the teachings of the LDS religion, but because he engaged in “spiritual wifery” with another man’s wife, and sought to steal McLean’s children as well.

Was Pratt’s murder wrong? Of course; no doubt about it. But where is the virtue in reporting, as LDS Church-owned Deseret News has done, that Pratt was killed by some men who just didn’t like Mormonism? There is none.

On 17 April 2007 Deseret News published a correction regarding their erroneous reporting on the motive for the murder of Parley P. Pratt. You can read the correction here or here.

Comments (2)

Following the distribution of the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith DVD last month, there have been many conversations and opinions published online regarding the Christian outreach effort. One exchange took place on the Salt Lake Tribune’s public forum.

A Catholic woman, who believes in “love and charity to all” wrote to express her dismay over the DVD distribution, ending her letter with a kind hope that Latter-day Saints had been able to enjoy their Church’s General Conference despite the “sport” engaged in by “anti-Mormons.” Perhaps this was not the most charitable and loving letter “to all” in consideration of the nature of her concerns.

At any rate, this letter brought a thankful response from a Latter-day Saint who wrote:

As an active Latter-day Saint and a returned missionary, I have gotten in more than my share of arguments with the so-called “Christians” who feel a compulsion to build their own insecure beliefs (and yes, often they were insecure) by tearing others’ beliefs down. So when I read S.J. Moormeister’s kind comments (”Anti-LDS DVDs,” Forum, April 3) I was reminded why I always liked Catholics so much during my mission.Two years and I never once had a Catholic tell me I was going to hell for my beliefs; rather, they were always kind and generous to us. Ms. Moormeister does a service to herself and to the parish that she attends. Thank you so much for not participating in the bigotry that is so common these days. I did enjoy conference very much. Thank you again.

Matthew Call
Ephraim

Mr. Call’s experience with Catholic folk was perhaps more magnanimous than he realizes, given the historic position towards Catholicism expressed by LDS leaders through the years. Consider these public declarations offered without apology (then or now):

LDS Apostle Orson Pratt:

Q. Is the Roman Catholic Church the Church of Christ?
A. No: for she has no inspired priesthood or officers…Q. How long since the Roman Catholic Church lost the authority and ceased to be the Church of Christ?
A. She never had authority and never was the Church of Christ…

Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?
A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates… (The Seer, 1854, 205)

LDS Apostle Daniel H. Wells:

I would rather preach the Gospel to a people who have not got any religion than I would to a people who have got a great deal of religion. You take the Catholic world. What impression can the truths of the Gospel make upon them as a people? Scarcely any impression at all. Why? Because they are satisfied with what they have got, which we know is an error, and which is not calculated to stem the tide of wickedness and corruption which floods the world. It never will convert the world to God or His Kingdom, or convey a knowledge of God unto the children of men, and it is life eternal to know Him, the living and true God. (Journal of Discourses 24:320, 1883)

LDS Apostle Hyrum M. Smith:

Christianity, as it is known in the world today, has fallen far short of the accomplishment of what might have been expected of it. It has failed in establishing those principles which Christ taught among the children of men. The great Catholic division of the Christian world, the Catholic church, is a national liability to any country. It wields a great power over the minds and the hearts of the children of men, but it is a power for evil rather than for good. It brings countless thousands regularly to confession; it rarely brings a single man to repentance and the abandonment of his sins. (Conference Report, October 1916, 42)

LDS President David O. McKay:

At one time it grieved me to know that this Church was not numbered among Protestant churches. But now I realize that the Church of Christ is more than a protest against the errors and evils of Catholicism.” (Conference Report, April 1927, 105)

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this “church which is most abominable above all other churches” in vision. He “saw the devil that he was the foundation of it” and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (Mormon Doctrine, 1958 edition, 130)

Apparently, sometime around 1960 LDS leadership decided they ought not to say these sorts of things in public if they want to make friends in the world. If Orson Pratt and David O. McKay, et. al., publicly expressed their religious convictions today, would we find the Anti-Defamation League releasing a statement condemning their remarks as “nothing more than [Catholic]-bashing… hate directed at all of us”? And would Mr. Call agree with that? I wonder if he would rebuke his Church leaders for “build[ing] their own insecure beliefs” by “tearing others’ beliefs down.”

Comments (4)

by Sharon

The LDS Church has had a rough month. It started with the March 25th outreach effort of Christians across the nation distributing thousands of DVDs on doorsteps which compared Mormonism with the Bible. Soon after that, the Church released a statement of their concern over the content of an upcoming PBS series titled “The Mormons” due to air on April 30th and May 1st. Now, in Logan, Utah, a new billboard has gone up which advertises a web site in support of disaffected Mormons.

The Associated Press reports:

A billboard aimed at uniting former Mormons has gone up on Main Street in a city that once had the image of a local temple on its public seal…

“It’s a milestone for the group. …We’re helping people validate their choice to leave. We’re not trying to drag people out of the church,” [Former Mormon Jeff] Ricks said…

Ricks, who left the church in 1993, said Post-Mormon Community serves as a social network. The goal is to erase the stigma that sometimes comes with leaving the faith.

According to the PostMormon.org web site, there are 13 Post-Mormon chapters around the world,

…members of a rapidly growing community of families and individuals who have voluntarily left Mormonism. We choose to no longer base our lives, and the lives of our children, on so-called truths dictated by others. We believe that truth is freely available to any honest, diligent seeker regardless of creed, age, race or sexual orientation.

We have felt the butterfly’s metamorphosis. Forces that well up from within have compelled us to grow beyond the limits of Mormonism. And so we have become a loosely knit community of friends and support groups, and endeavor to help those like us who also feel the need to explore meaning, purpose and life beyond Mormonism…What we once perceived as the “strait and narrow way” has broadened to include all ways that promote individual and collective well-being.

We are not anti-Mormon; it is not our intent to belittle others. In fact, we want to keep all the good that came into our lives through Mormonism, but we will be open about its misrepresentations and the way in which its dogmatism and authoritarianism have proven detrimental to many individuals, families and communities.

From a Christian perspective, there’s a definite down side to PostMormon.org. The group does not endorse any religion or belief system, though members are welcome to “continue their spiritual journey through more traditional means.” The web site states,

We do not advocate another form of Mormonism or any other religion and believe that loving one’s neighbor begins with giving up the claim to have special access to truth. We feel that arrogance attends the illusion of “knowing the truth” and that such arrogance leads to a narrow-minded tribalism that impedes personal growth and fosters a divided community.

It’s unfortunate that PostMormon.org, dedicated to helping people find joy in life after leaving a religion whose “dogmatism” was “detrimental,” would embrace such an idea. If a member of the Post-Mormon Community continues his spiritual journey and eventually comes to believe he knows the truth, will he be labeled “arrogant” and be thought to be on the road to “narrow-minded tribalism that impedes personal growth”? How is this an improvement over Mormon “authoritarianism”?

I love the idea of available support for people struggling with the problems they encounter in questioning or leaving Mormonism, but PostMormon.org seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Truth is freely available to all; yet the ability to know the truth is not an illusion. By embracing this ideology PostMormon.org is merely replacing one deception with another.

Jesus, who claimed to know the truth, said, “the truth will set you free.” I believe Him. The only hope for Mormons, Post-Mormons and non-Mormons is the Truth: Jesus, the way, the truth, and the life.

Comments (6)

Today’s (9 April) New York Times carries an op-ed piece by Kenneth Woodward about Mitt Romney and Mormonism. A large portion of the article is dedicated to understanding why Americans are uncomfortable with Mr. Romney’s religion. Mr. Woodward writes:

Among the reasons Americans distrust the Mormon church is Mormon clannishness. Because every worthy Mormon male is expected to be a lay priest in voluntary service to the church, the demands on his time often leave little opportunity to cultivate close friendships with non-Mormon neighbors. A good Mormon is a busy Mormon…To many Americans, Mormonism is a church with the soul of a corporation. Successful Mormon males can expect to be called, at some time in their lives, to assume full-time duties in the church’s missions, in its vast administrative offices in Salt Lake City or in one of many church-owned businesses…

Moreover, Mormons are perceived to be unusually secretive. Temple ceremonies — even weddings — are closed to non-Mormons, and church members are told not to disclose what goes on inside them.

I think Mr. Woodward has been quite perceptive in his identification of some specific Mormon behaviors that may concern non-Mormon Americans.

Furthermore, Mr. Woodward suggests that Mr. Romney use his many public-appearance opportunities afforded him as a presidential candidate to explain Mormonism to the American public. Mr. Woodward writes:

But Mr. Romney must be sure to express himself in a way that will be properly understood. Any journalist who has covered the church knows that Mormons speak one way among themselves, another among outsiders. This is not duplicity but a consequence of the very different meanings Mormon doctrine attaches to words it shares with historic Christianity.For example, Mormons speak of God, but they refer to a being who was once a man of “flesh and bone,” like us. They speak of salvation, but to them that means admittance to a “celestial kingdom” where a worthy couple can eventually become “gods” themselves. The Heavenly Father of whom they speak is married to a Heavenly Mother. And when they emphasize the importance of the family, they may be referring to their belief that marriage in a Mormon temple binds families together for all eternity.

Thus, when Mr. Romney told South Carolina Republicans a few months ago that Jesus was his “personal savior,” he used Southern Baptist language to affirm a relationship to Christ that is quite different in Mormon belief. (For Southern Baptists, “personal savior” implies a specific born-again experience that is not required or expected of Mormons.) This is not a winning strategy for Mr. Romney…[he] should avoid using language that blurs fundamental differences among religious traditions.

I’ll hop on this bandwagon; it’s good advice. I’d like to see Mitt Romney heed it, but I’d also like to see every Mormon who speaks publicly about the teachings of their Church express themselves “in a way that will be properly understood” by non-Mormons, avoiding the use of “language that blurs fundamental differences among religious traditions.”

Wouldn’t that be great?

Comments (5)

based on a Medieval Latin poem ascribed to Bernard of Clairvaux

O sacred Head, now wounded,
      with grief and shame
      weighed down,
Now scornfully surrounded,
      with thorns Thine only crown;
How pale Thou art with anguish,
      with sore abuse and scorn,
How does that visage languish,
      which once was bright as morn!

What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered, was all for sinners’ gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior; ‘Tis I deserve Thy place;
Look on me with Thy favor, assist me with Thy grace.

My burden in Thy Passion, Lord, Thou hast borne for me,
For it was my transgression which brought this woe on Thee.
I cast me down before Thee, wrath were my rightful lot;
Have mercy, I implore Thee; Redeemer, spurn me not!

What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
For this, Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever, and should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never outlive my love to Thee.

Amen.

Comments (2)

by Bill

Television producer Helen Whitney has been working on a documentary covering Mormonism for several years, and on April 30 & May 1, “The Mormons” will finally air on PBS stations throughout the country. The official web site of the LDS Church has already concluded that it is likely to cause debate.

Whitney says “The Mormons” is a “complex film, a respectful film, but not an uncritical film.” If that last part is true, I think Ms. Whitney is going to learn a big lesson. When it comes to the Mormon Church, respectful and critical are not normally two words they recognize in the same sentence. You either praise them or you risk being accused of ignorance and/or bigotry.

I wonder if the LDS Church will send the Anti-Defamation League hounds after Whitney if they find the content to be unappreciated. Will the ADL denounce PBS as a hate group like they did thousands of Christians who delivered the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith DVD? It remains to be seen whether or not Helen Whitney really did her homework.

Comments (31)