Mormon Coffee

On May 31st Christianity Today online posted an article which addresses the issue of Mitt Romney and Mormonism, asking, “Can conservative Protestants vote for a member of what they consider a cult?” The article is co-written by Mormon professor Robert Millet and Christian author Gerald McDermott.Of particular interest in this article is where it addresses the concerns evangelicals have regarding Mormonism’s non-Christian doctrines. The authors write,

But evangelicals are reluctant to vote for a Mormon. Historically, evangelicals and Mormons have demonized each other. Evangelicals consider the Church of Latter-day Saints to be a cult and typically think Mormons are not real Christians.Evangelicals accuse Mormons of adding new revelation (the Book of Mormon) to the Bible. They think Mormons teach that humans are saved by good works rather than by Jesus Christ, and that humans are of the same species as Jesus and can someday attain his status. In addition, evangelicals say, Mormons reject key Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and creatio ex nihilo (God creating the world out of nothing)…

Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think. Unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For Latter-Day Saints, Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists agreed that Jesus was “without sin,” Mormons were among the “most likely” to say that Jesus was sinless.

Most evangelicals would also be surprised to learn that the Book of Mormon contains passages that teach salvation by the merits and grace of Christ ( “There is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah” 2 Nephi 2:8) and others that require personal trust in Christ for salvation, such as 1 Nephi 10:4-6: “All mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer.”

Note the way the authors have presented the concerns of Christians: evangelicals demonize Mormons; evangelicals accuse Mormons; evangelicals think Mormons teach non-Christian doctrines about salvation and Christ; evangelicals say Mormons reject the Trinity, etc.; but evangelicals are wrong: “Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think.”

Take a look at just one doctrinal issue raised by the authors: salvation. Speaking of evangelicals collectively, the authors write, “They think Mormons teach that humans are saved by good works rather than by Jesus Christ.” The authors dance around this significant doctrinal concern. They set it up in terms which give the impression that evangelicals deeply misunderstand LDS soteriology and state that Mormon beliefs are not really so different after all. Millet and McDermott quote LDS scriptures which talk about Christ, mercy and grace, and apparently hope that will be enough to convince the uninformed reader that the Mormon view of salvation is compatible with evangelical (biblical) teaching. But of course it’s not.

Mormonism rejects the idea that human beings are saved by good works without the aid of Christ; Millet and McDermott are correct to suggest that those who think otherwise misunderstand Mormon doctrine. But this is not to say that Mormonism embraces the biblical teaching of salvation by grace through faith alone based on the merits and atonement of Christ. The Book of Mormon says,

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25:23)

This is not salvation by faith alone, but salvation by grace coupled with works (please see Paul’s letter to the Galatians for an understanding of what the Bible says about this idea). The Mormon teaching on salvation is incompatible with the evangelical understanding of this doctrine — the doctrine which is at the very heart of the Gospel and is treasured deeply in the heart of every evangelical Christian.

Millet and McDermott don’t mention this disparity in their article. Furthermore, they don’t tell Christianity Today readers what twelfth LDS President Spencer W. Kimball said about the Christian doctrine of salvation:

One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. (The Miracle of Forgiveness, 206)

I wonder; is this is what Millet and McDermott are referring to when they say Mormons have historically demonized evangelicals?

At any rate, Millet and McDermott have misled their readers about the compatibility of Mormonism and evangelical Christianity. They have obscured significant doctrinal differences with verbal slight-of-hand. But at the same time it seems they have taken care to keep from going too far. They write,

Of course there is still doctrinal distance between Mormons and evangelicals.

Yes, really an unbridgeable chasm. But Millet and McDermott make no effort to inform their readers of any specifics. If you’re interested, some of the doctrines responsible for the vast spiritual distance between Mormons and evangelicals are documented here.

Comments (18)

Sunday’s Deseret News (27 May) published the results of an email survey conducted by the LDS Department of Family and Church History. “LDS in survey call for unvarnished history” reports that active Latter-day Saints

want their church to provide a “frank and honest” presentation of church history, unvarnished by attempts to sugar-coat the past in order to make it more palatable…Church history representative Rebecca Olpin told participants at the annual Mormon History Association meetings on Saturday that Latter-day Saints surveyed “want to be leveled with” when the church presents information about its past…

When questioned about what officials with the church’s correlation department — which edits all church materials — think about those findings, Olpin said the request for honesty “is part of what members are asking for. We have a responsibility to share that in a way that correlation will agree with, so we understand that we have limits.

While I think this is a hopeful development within the LDS Church, it’s interesting that Latter-day Saints need to request an honest portrayal of history from their church. Also interesting is the admission that some compromise will be required to keep both the members who are calling for honesty, and the Church editors, happy.

This Deseret News article reminded me of a conversation I had with some senior LDS missionaries who were serving in Nauvoo, Illinois. I asked, given the heavy emphasis the Nauvoo historic site missionary guides place on the sacrifices of early Church members, why was there no mention of the extreme sacrifices made by the women who were required to live The Principle (polygamy)? The missionary couple were very candid with me and spent the following hour confessing that “Salt Lake” wouldn’t allow them to talk about the polygamy that was practiced in Nauvoo; that part of Mormon history was absent from every mandatory script supplied to missionary guides. This LDS couple expressed frustration over inaccuracies and mistakes in the history that was presented to visitors at the Mormon sites, but had found no relief by making requests of those in authority to make corrections. In the end, they told me “Salt Lake” was taking direction from God, and the missionary guides in Nauvoo were taking direction from “Salt Lake,” so presenting inaccurate history to visitors must be the right thing to do — though they could not understand it.

Time will tell how “Salt Lake” responds to the LDS member requests for unvarnished Church history. Honesty doesn’t really seem like too much to ask.

Comments (6)

The March 17th issue of Church News included an article about the LDS Church in Yonkers, New York. The article highlighted the work of a senior missionary couple that sparked “needed growth” of the Church in that area.According to the article, Yonkers, the fourth largest city in New York, is “just a few miles north of Manhattan” and home to 200,000 people. Even so, the Church struggles there to have enough active members to keep an English-speaking branch going.

Five years ago, the small Yonkers branch was merged into the Westchester 1st Ward “due to insufficient priesthood leadership.” The article explains what happened next:

Since then, some faithful members in Yonkers simply could not attend Sunday meetings at the Scarsdale meetinghouse…due to transportation issues.”The number of cars among the members is limited. Public transportation is inefficient; with no direct routes, it could take members several hours to reach the meeting house on a Sunday morning,” said President Taylor.

Missionaries stopped actively proselytizing in Yonkers because most investigators simply had no way to get to Church meetings.

I’m puzzled by this. Mormon magazines are always filled with stories of Latter-day Saints who must walk for miles to get to Church every Sunday, or members who travel for hours each way. LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley has stated that the reason the Church is so successful in membership growth is because it is demanding and “expects great things” from its members. But because there is no convenient way for the people in Yonkers to get to an LDS meetinghouse a few miles away the missionaries stop preaching the gospel to them?

To me, this speaks volumes. The LDS missionary’s primary message is not “come unto Christ,” but rather “come unto the LDS Church.” The idea that there is no use teaching people about Jesus and His substitutionary atonement unless they can easily get to a meetinghouse is entirely foreign to Christian missions and the Great Commission Jesus gave to His people. “Go into all the world,” He said, “and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Later, the Apostle Paul said, “I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ,…preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season…do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:1-2, 5).

This illustrates the difference between the LDS missionary system (proselytizing) and the biblical missionary system (evangelizing). One is focused on church growth; the other is focused on sharing the Good News of the Gospel — that Jesus died to set sinners free.

Comments (9)

I apologize. I really was hoping to move on from this soapbox, but I could not pass up commenting on a recent article that appeared in the Deseret News titled “Romney campaign has LDS in spotlight.” Here, Frank Pignanelli starts off the piece by saying:

Pignanelli; “A person extremely intolerant of creeds, beliefs, etc., other than his/her own.” Such is the standard dictionary definition of a bigot. Unfortunately, this describes too many Americans, because of their personal view toward Mormons.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. According to Mr. Pignanelli’s dictionary we now have proof that every Mormon who believes in Joseph Smith’s First Vision account (at least the one that the Mormon Church considers to be “official”) can now be classified as a bigot. According to Joseph Smith, when he asked God which of all the churches were true, he was allegedly told:

“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof’” (Joseph Smith–History 1:19).

Gee, doesn’t this sound rather “bigoted” towards the creeds and beliefs that I and millions of other Christians hold? Doesn’t this tend to belittle the doctrinal beliefs of millions of Bible-believing Christians? Now a Mormon may argue, “Wait a minute, this is God talking!” Such a rebuttal becomes irrelevant in that I have yet to meet a Mormon who does not share this view; so if we are to use Pignanelli’s standard, all Mormons are bigots.

Now do I personally believe this? Absolutely not! But I hope in repeating this argument I once again demonstrate why it is dangerous to use extreme language to describe what is nothing more than an ideological disagreement. I disagree with what Smith said he heard and saw, but I “tolerate” a Mormon’s right to believe it and say it.

Pignanelli must really be blind to his own hypocrisy when he concludes by writing:

Both Mormons and non-Mormons, in a very public manner, must paint this intolerance for what it is: bigotry. This is not the time for passive-aggressive behavior. Indeed, these narrow-minded fools will learn that there are serious ramifications for their stupidity, if we aggressively counter religious discrimination. We may not be able to convince the bigots overnight, but we can at least shame them out of releasing their poisonous thoughts.

Shaming the narrow-minded fools for their stupidity? Frank, you sound a bit intolerant. Don’t release those “poisonous thoughts”! Instead, deal with the real issues. People like you and Hugh Hewitt, and the many others out there who overuse the word “bigot” are not helping further meaningful discussion with this manipulative name-calling.

Comments (8)

On May 10th at Promontory Summit near Brigham City, Utah, visitors celebrated the 138th anniversary of the driving of the Golden Spike which completed the transcontinental railroad in 1869. The day before the commemoration Lee Benson of Deseret Morning News wrote an article he titled “138 years makes a big difference.” Commenting on the fact that Utah’s governor would be attending the festivities at one of two Utah celebrations this year, Mr. Benson wrote,

What a difference 138 years makes.I bring this up because on May 10, 1869, the last place you would have found the leader of Utah’s people, Brigham Young — he wasn’t officially governor but as president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints he might as well have been — was at the ceremony of the golden spike.

The Mormon leader purposely stayed away from Promontory Summit that day. He left instead for southern Utah, removing himself as far as possible from the historic event.

He had 1.2 million reasons.

That is how much money he claimed the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads owed Mormon workers who helped build the railroad.

As Mr. Benson tells the story, he explains that the railroads ran into money problems and stopped paying the Mormon workers. But the railroad executives reassured Brigham Young:

“You will be paid, be patient,” Durant and Stanford told Young, who turned around and told his Mormon laborers the same thing.But they never were…

Attempts by Young to recover anything — even at pennies on the dollar — were rebuffed.

One small concession by the railroads was that any Mormon who had worked on the railroad could ride free to California.

Other than that, nothing.

According to the Utah Historical Society, Mr. Benson has got it wrong. A lesson plan (pdf file) for students and teachers provided by the organization says this:

After the rails were joined, the Union Pacific’s financial problems continued to grow. Aside from resources Durant had siphoned off, contractors had stolen much material that the UP had paid for, or at least signed for. Among the many creditors was Brigham Young, who bombarded the company headquarters in Boston with demands for payment in full. The UP had no money, but it did have equipment left over. Young was desperate to have a branch line, to be owned and controlled by the Mormons, running from Ogden to Salt Lake City. Finally, in September 1869 a deal was made. The UP gave the Mormons 4,000 tons of iron rail ($480,000), 144 tons of spikes ($20,000), 32 tons of bolts ($5,600), 4 first-class passenger cars ($5,000 each), second-class cars, mail cars, flatcars and boxcars. The total value that Young signed for was $599,460. The Mormons got started on their railroad immediately and had it in service in a few months.

Six hundred thousand dollars is nowhere near $1.2 million, but it’s certainly a far cry from “nothing.” Why is it that Mormon-told Mormon history is always exaggerating the “victimhood” of Mormons?

When I first read Mr. Benson’s article in Deseret News I had no notion that the report might not be accurate. I only researched the story a bit because it had reminded me of another event from Mormon history, this one coming in the aftermath of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Most people who know about the Mormon massacre of 120 emigrants passing through Utah in 1857 are horrified by the murders and the treachery of those who did the killing. But many do not know much about what happened afterward. Seventeen young children had been left alive, orphaned after the brutal deaths of their parents. The day after the massacre Latter-day Saint John D. Lee disbursed the homeless children among Mormon households in southern Utah for care and feeding. The children remained in these Utah homes for two years.

In 1859, after much trial and effort, U.S. Indian Superintendent Jacob Forney recovered the orphaned children. The Mormons claimed the children had initially been taken captive by Native Americans, who required the Mormons to purchase the children if they wanted them. This was untrue; the children had never been outside the care of the Mormons. Nevertheless, according to Massacres of the Mountains,

…as if desirous of adding a little more to the awful infamy of this affair, all the Mormons who had custody of these children put in claims for the purchase-money expended in buying them from the Indians, as well as for their maintenance, the total claimed amounting to over $7000. Of this amount Forney paid $2961.77 for what he considered proper charges, and reported as to the rest that he “cannot condescend to become the medium of even transmitting such claims to the department.” (J.P. Dunn, 307)

Whoa. I think I’ll just stop here and leave it to you to sort out the implications.

There’s another movie about Mormonism in the works. A French magazine reports,

A Mormon President, the first documentary film to explore the Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith’s campaign for the US Presidency and its implications for the candidacy of another Mormon, Mitt Romney, has begun production and is slated for a fall 2007 release.

Filmmaker Adam Christing grew up in the Community of Christ Church (formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), studied theology at Biola University, and is currently a member of the Mormon History Association. Mr. Christing spoke about A Mormon President:

This film may be upsetting to “anti-Mormons” because it shows what a generous man and visionary leader Joseph Smith was. It may shock some Mormons because it documents the untold story of Smith’s secret marriages to more than 30 women and his campaign for President which led directly to his murder in 1844…This is a serious piece, but it will be very engaging. I’ve been fascinated by Joseph Smith’s story ever since I was a kid. Here’s a man who started a religion, built a city bigger than Chicago in its day, became a Master Mason, and ran for President. He packed more adventure into 3 years than most people experience in a lifetime.

This sounds like it will be an interesting film, as the history of Joseph Smith’s politics is very intriguing. For instance, many people don’t know that Smith was secretly crowned king on April 11, 1844. His campaign for president of the United States was much more complicated than most would imagine.

About Smith’s ordination as king, former LDS historian D. Michael Quinn wrote:

William Marks…stated that the [LDS] Council of Fifty performed an ordinance “in which Joseph suffered himself to be ordained a king, to reign over the house of Israel forever.”Some have been uncomfortable with the assertion that Smith became a king. They have claimed that Marks and other critics either confused or misrepresented Smith’s reception of the strictly religious ceremony of the second anointing as “king and priest.”…

In fact a later revelation to the Council of Fifty affirmed that God called Smith “to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator to my Church and Kingdom; and to be a King and Ruler over Israel.” (The Mormon Hierarchy, Origins of Power, 124)

Joseph Smith told the press that he wanted to create a “Theo-democracy.” Quinn wrote,

The phrase was catchy, but what precisely did he mean by “Theo-democracy”? In the spring of 1844 Smith gave the public only an indistinct foreshadowing of the new world order he was formulating in his secret meetings with the Council of Fifty. (125)

I’m not sure how a monarchy fits with a theocracy, a theo-democracy, or a republic. But the subject of the film A Mormon President holds the promise of being fascinating indeed.