Mormon Coffee

Marvin Cowan in Mormon Claims Answered, chapter 7:

The Apostle Paul wrote: “Unto Him (God) be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end Amen” (Eph. 3:21). Could that be true if there was a universal apostasy of the church for several centuries? Jesus also said, “Upon this Rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Notice that it is Christ Himself (not mortal men) who builds His church or adds to it (Acts 2:47), and Christ has all power in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18; Rev. 19:6). LDS often claim that the true church must be built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, as Eph 2:20 says. This is commented upon later in this chapter under the sub-title, “Apostles.” But Paul wrote, “…other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Since Jesus Christ is the Foundation of the church, He is also part of the church! Could that church “collapse” or become extinct when the omnipotent Christ is the Foundation of it? Is it possible for Christ to lose “the church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25)? Christ is called the “Good Shepherd” in John 10:11. But, any shepherd who loses all his sheep is not a very good shepherd!

Jesus must bear some responsibility for the existence of the church since God “gave Him to be head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). The Lord Himself also nourishes (feeds) and cherishes (lovingly cares for) the church (Eph. 5:29). Jesus never told anyone else to go build His church. Instead, He declared, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). And after He ascended into heaven, Acts 2:47 declares, “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” He needed no successor to build His church because He lives forever (Heb. 7:24-25). That is why Col. 1:18 declares, “He is the head of the body, the church.” Notice the present tense verb is used which shows that Jesus was still Head of His church even though He had ascended to heaven many years before that was written! And Jesus is still the Head of His Church and He is adding members to it today! Thus, when LDS claim that Christ’s church was prevailed against and ceased to exist, they insult the living Head of the Church!

As if Mormon doctrine itself wasn’t enough of an insult to the Great Shepherd, Joseph Smith boasted of having done more to “keep a whole church together” than Jesus Christ:

“Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (Address of the Prophet—His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo; Sunday, May 26, 1844)

Comments (45)

On 27 June 1844 Mormonism’s founding prophet, Joseph Smith, was killed. Much has been written about the death of Joseph Smith, accounts written from every perspective imaginable. In 1994 historian D. Michael Quinn, a former BYU professor and former Mormon, published The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. In this book, Dr. Quinn carefully documented the political tinderbox in Nauvoo, Illinois which led to the death of the Prophet.

Having organized the theocratic Council of Fifty and having been crowned by this Council as king in April 1844, Joseph Smith continued his bid for the U.S. Presidency. Dr. Quinn wrote:

“The largest missionary force in the church’s first six decades was campaigning full time for Smith’s presidential candidacy. …

“It is fair to say that all Mormons in the first half of 1844 took Smith’s presidential candidacy very seriously. As Apostle John Taylor told a special meeting of Nauvoo’s citizenry on 7 March 1844: ‘We must do what we can to elect him.’” (134-135)

But some Mormons grew uncomfortable with the Prophet’s aspirations. A month after being crowned king Joseph Smith preached a sermon in which he proposed a revolution. Some understood this to be a reference to a spiritual revolution, but others, in the context of the theocratic Council of Fifty, feared the revolution was to be farther-reaching. Dr. Quinn wrote:

“With good reason most council members regarded Smith’s public statement as his literal intentions, both religious and governmental. There was already a theocratic organization bound by capital oaths. These fifty men acknowledged Smith as a monarch over a pan-religious kingdom on earth in which they were princes. Publicly Smith was seeking the nation’s highest office by constitutional means, but privately he recorded in a thinly veiled reference to himself, and unidentified Vermonter’s endorsement of revolution. ‘This government was about to be overthrown,’ his diary reported of the Vermonter’s prophecy, ‘and the Kingdom which Daniel spoke of was about to be established some where in the west and he thought Illinois.’ …

“Covertly dissenting members [of the Council of Fifty] wondered if there were any limits to Smith’s theocratic ‘designs.’” (137)

This led to the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor, a dissenter newspaper that threatened to expose Joseph Smith’s political ambitions. The Prophet, as mayor of Nauvoo, led the city council in declaring the newspaper a “public nuisance” for which it was quickly destroyed.

Subsequently, Joseph Smith found himself in Carthage Jail charged with treason. According to Dr. Quinn,

“The morning of 27 July [sic - June], Smith sent an order (in his own handwriting) to [LDS] Major-General Jonathan Dunham to lead the Nauvoo Legion in a military attack on Carthage ‘immediately’ to free the prisoners. Dunham realized that such an assault by the Nauvoo Legion would result in two blood baths — one in Carthage and another when anti-Mormons (and probably the Illinois militia) retaliated by laying siege to Nauvoo for insurrection. To avoid civil war and the destruction of Nauvoo’s population, Dunham refused to obey the order and did not notify Smith of his decision. One of his lieutenants, a former Danite, later complained that Dunham ‘did not let a single mortal know that he had received such orders.’

“About 5 p.m. on Thursday, 27 June 1844, more than 250 men approached the Carthage Jail. When informed of this by the panicky jailer, Joseph Smith replied: ‘Don’t trouble yourself [--] they have come to rescue me.’ That was not to be. Within moments three prisoners were desperately trying to secure the upper room’s door with bare hands and wooden canes against a cursing mob shooting randomly inside. Joseph Smith fired back with a six-shooter pistol at the attackers in the doorway, wounding three of them. Shot in the face, Patriarch Hyrum Smith died instantly. Struck by four bullets, Apostle John Taylor lay motionless on the bloodied floor. Pinned behind the door as the mob rushed into the prison cell, Apostle Willard Richards miraculously escaped with only a bullet-nicked ear. The man the murderous vigilantes knew as church president, mayor, militia commander, U.S. presidential candidate, and Master Mason leaped out the second-floor window shouting, ‘O Lord my God!’

“Mormonism’s king was dead.” (141)

Related Resource

• Final Moments at Carthage Jail
• The Untold Story of the Death of Joseph Smith (YouTube)

Comments (42)

Welcome to our coffee house. We’d like for you to enjoy intelligent discussion over important issues here, but first we’d like to ask you to take your shoes off. We have some simple rules designed to create an environment where fruitful interaction is possible:

• We consider this blog our virtual living room. Take your shoes off and be respectful.
• Criticism of a person’s character as a substitute for dealing with the positions they maintain is not allowed.
• Use of the pejorative term “anti-Mormon” is not allowed. Comments that include the term will at the very least be filtered by our profanity filter and the comment may be entirely deleted.
• Off-topic comments may be deleted. Entire discussions may be extensively filtered to prevent future readers of the thread from having to sift through comments not closely related to the original topic.
• Avoid back-to-back comments.
• You will be allowed a maximum of three comments per day. The purpose of this is to encourage a kind of dialog where more people can participate without feeling overwhelmed by a dominant few.
• Each comment is limited to 2000 characters (your browser will alert you if you’ve gone over the limit and trim your text).
• Unless permission is otherwise granted by a moderator, links or references to Mormon apologetic material must be accompanied by a satisfactory summary (in your own words) of the key arguments made.
• Always respond first and forthrightly to direct questions personally asked of you by a moderator.

Comments that do not conform to our policy may be deleted or edited at the moderators’ discretion.

In addition, those who regularly cross the line may receive a moratorium from Mormon Coffee, a cooling-off period for a length of time wherein their comments will not be posted.

Repeat offenders may be excluded entirely from Mormon Coffee.

Thank you to all who contribute to the discussions here. Please help us to maintain a Christ-honoring presence on the internet.

Tips

• To indent a paragraph (usually appropriate for quoting someone), use:
  <blockquote>[insert text here]</blockquote>
• To embolden a phrase, use:
  <b>[insert text here]</b>
• To italicize a phrase, use:
  <i>[insert text here]</i>

See Also:

• The Habit of Clear-Thinking People

In April Mormon Coffee reported on a billboard campaign instituted in LDS areas by PostMormon.org, a group of former Mormons seeking to offer support to others who have left the LDS Church. Last Friday (22 June) the Idaho Falls’ Post Register reported on the “early termination” of the display of one of these billboards. Reproduced at the PostMormon.org web site, the article explains,

“The local advertising campaign for a Web site that caters to former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has ended prematurely.

“A billboard on U.S. Highway 20 promoting http://www.postmormon.org was taken down more than a week before its contract expired. The decision to yank the sign came at the behest of Dome Technology Inc., a local business that owns the land where the sign’s post is buried.

“Barry South, president of the monolithic dome company and an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said his sons expressed concern about the billboard to Lamar Outdoor Advertising, which owns the billboard space, after an article about postmormon.org was published two weeks ago in the Post Register.”

The executive director of PostMormon.org, Jeff Ricks, believes the actions of the South family were “a form of religious discrimination. At the very least, it’s religious intolerance.”

Dome Technology says it has a policy of neutrality that it believes the PostMormon.org billboard violates. The Post Register article states,

“Dome Technology interacts regularly with customers of diverse religious backgrounds throughout the world, the statement [provided by Dome Technologies] reads, and the company would have expressed the same concern for any advertisement with a negative or positive context toward any religious denomination.”

The PostMormon.org billboard consists of the web site’s URL and a smiley face graphic. Apparently, some people think the very idea of a happy life after Mormonism (as suggested by the billboard) places The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a “negative context.” But there must be more than this concern to justify Dome’s Technology’s willingness to prompt the breaking of a contract between PostMormon.org and Lamar Outdoor Advertising.

Commenting at the PostMormon.org web site, a reader took issue with the allegation that the billboard violates Dome Technology’s policy of religious neutrality. Noting PostMormon.org is not a religion and does not promote any single religious creed, dogzilla wrote,

“This equates, IMHO, to say asking Alcoholics Anonymous to take down a billboard that advertises the resources available for people who have stopped drinking.

“At the end of the day, though, we can all smile and chuckle quietly to ourselves because the bottom line: the action that Dome Technology took just reinforces our point and our reason for having this site in the first place.”

What is it in Mormonism that creates the sort of response against an ex-member support group as was expressed in Idaho? One possibility comes to my mind, though I’m sure there are others.

Since the owners of the land where the billboard stands are LDS, perhaps they are concerned over retaining or renewing their temple recommends. In the recommend interview where an applicant is deemed worthy to enter LDS temples (or not), one question members must answer is this:

“Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?”

The implication is that this sort of affiliation would be frowned upon and count against one’s worthiness. Hosting a billboard advertising a group which questions the claim that the LDS Church is God’s only true church might be understood to fall under the condemnation of the question cited above.

Before you dismiss this idea thinking it too far-fetched, I’ve talked with Mormons who tell me they’ve been warned by their bishops that they might not have their temple recommends renewed unless they stop attending family functions — because someone in the family is outspoken against Mormonism. If a Latter-day Saint’s temple recommend could be jeopardized by eating Thanksgiving dinner with a family member who speaks critically of the LDS Church, why wouldn’t a Mormon naturally fear his good-standing with the Church if his business indirectly supported apostates?

Comments (22)

One of the things most puzzling to me as an associate in this ministry is when I am told that I cannot truly understand the teachings of the LDS religion. Dozens of times Mormons have told me, “What you’re saying is not what we (Mormons) believe,” even though the doctrine I am describing normally comes straight from the standard works or the authoritative speeches and writings of the general authorities. What is the reason given for why my research ought to be invalidated? It’s because I’m not a Latter-day Saint, so apparently anything I say can be superseded by the opinions of those who might call themselves Mormon.

The postmodern idea that Latter-day Saints can interpret doctrine in their own way is quite common, even when these individual beliefs are contrary to the official teaching of the Mormon Church. Let it be said that I would never tell a Mormon what he or she personally believes because I don’t pretend to be omniscient. However, I think I’m capable of determining the basic idea of what Mormonism teaches, regardless of how a particular teaching might be spinned by the individual non-general authority, whether it is a professor at a church university or my next-door neighbor.

In the June 2007 Ensign, Seventy Jay Jensen and Apostle Jeffrey Holland, both of whom are LDS General Authorities, provided this exchange on page 96:

Elder Jensen: So far our discussion has concentrated on the four standard works. We do have other scripture.
Elder Holland: Yes. Do you want to say a word about the living prophets?
Elder Jensen: We do have good manuals, and we do have magazines and stories. Aren’t they powerful?
Elder Holland: We do have great material, to say nothing of the whole world of the living prophets and semiannual general conference broadcasts and publications that go to the Church. We have a wealth of the word of God available to us, and we ought to use it.

Notice what Jensen said: “We do have other scripture.” According to these GAs, the “other scripture” sources come through manuals, conference speeches, and other official church materials. Yet how often have I quoted from these sources and then been rebuffed because it’s different from what an individual Mormon might believe?

But let’s turn the tables. Why should I accept the Mormon’s individual interpretation about a particular doctrine as authoritative unless it can be fully supported by her scripture? Too often Christians let the Mormon off the hook—“after all,” we think, “she’s the Latter-day Saint and I’m not”—when the burden of proof should be placed upon individual Mormons. Let them support their beliefs by making reference to the authoritative words of the church and not just basing their ideas on feelings or what they feel is common sense. If I’m wrong, then show me; for example, did I take a particular teaching or quote out of context? But to say that I am not explaining Mormonism in an accurate manner merely because it’s different from a particular Mormon’s personal belief system is, as a friend of mine once termed it, “poppycock.”

Based on the above words of the two GAs, I don’t think it’s possible that the ideas of Mormonism belong to an esoteric postmodern camp. If so, then the only person who can truly follow this faith the way it was meant to be followed is each individual Latter-day Saint and the use of his or her own interpretation skills. If this is true, maybe the Mormon Church can save itself some time and money by no longer hosting conferences or producing its material for the membership. The church should then declare that its followers can interpret Mormonism any way they wish, just as long as they call themselves Mormons and pay their tithes.

I have a sneaking suspicion, however, that the leadership in Salt Lake City will never be willing to preach such a radical message from the conference pulpit. And think about it. Even if President Hinckley decided to turn this idea into doctrine, why should anyone accept it anyway? Quite the vicious circle, isn’t it?

Comments (104)

Recently, several of us at MRM took a “field trip” down to the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I have been to this area probably about a dozen times since my wife and I first visited in 1977. Back then a small sign marked the dirt road leading to the hill that overlooks both the Fancher/Baker campsite and the massacre site located to its north. Thirty years ago few people had a clue as to what happened there on September 11, 1857. Many are unaware that until the Oklahoma bombing in 1995, more Americans died in the Mountain Meadows Massacre than in any other terrorist act on American soil. Even after our modern 9/11 it remains number three in American deaths. The exact number is not known, but it is generally believed that 120 men, women, and children heading to California were killed by Paiute Indians and local Mormons.

Most of the times I have visited the Mountain Meadows you can hear nothing but the wind. However, this time the silence was broken by people talking and children playing around the rock cairn that marks the graves of several massacre victims. When the film September Dawn opens, now scheduled for August 24th, I am sure its popularity will grow even more. Already the LDS Church has denounced the film as inaccurate and no doubt many of the Mormon faithful will echo that sentiment without viewing it themselves. The fact that it has been given an R rating will automatically prevent many Mormons from watching it. A word of caution to thinking LDS before they join in the chorus with their leaders. Keep in mind that most of what we know about this brutal crime comes to us by the men who committed the crime.

The common folklore is that this was an act committed by a renegade band of Mormons and that Brigham Young had no connection whatsoever. However, as Sharon noted in early February, historians familiar with the massacre don’t all agree. Three of eight historians interviewed by LDS Church-owned KSL television felt Young ordered the massacre and all eight believed he covered it up. I personally can’t see this as surprising. Anybody who studies this religion knows that Mormons rarely do anything as a group without orders from above. Does it really make sense that a group of LDS family men would savagely attack a wagon train and kill 120 people without orders from Salt Lake City? John D. Lee, a major participant in the massacre, recalls a talk he had with then Mormon Apostle George A. Smith:

“General Smith did not say one word to me or intimate to me, that he wished any emigrants to pass in safety through the Territory. But he had led me to believe then, as I believe now, that he did want, and expected every emigrant to be killed that undertook to pass through the Territory while we were at war with the Government. I thought it was his mission to prepare the people for the bloody work.”

Lee went on to say,

“I have always believed, since that day, that General George A. Smith was then visiting Southern Utah to prepare the people for the work of exterminating Captain Fancher’s train of emigrants, and I now believe that he was sent for that purpose by the direct command of Brigham Young” (Confessions of John D. Lee , 225).

I can’t even begin to imagine these men acting in such a manner without some guarantee of protection from their leaders. The fact is, Brigham Young did protect the perpetrators. For twenty years all involved kept an oath of secrecy, and when the truth became known, only one man among many, John D. Lee, was executed for the crime. Apparently the LDS Church did not think Lee’s participation was too awfully bad. Will Bagley, author of Blood of the Prophets – Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, states that on April 20, 1961 “the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve authorized the restoration of Lee’s membership and temple blessings.” Bagley writes that on May 9, 1961, “Apostle Ezra Taft Benson officiated in the endowment and sealing ceremonies at the Salt Lake Temple” (361).

It is customary for the LDS Church to give a blanket condemnation of anything that criticizes its history or doctrine. However, given its history of hiding documents, can we really trust such denials? If you want to know more about this American tragedy, I strongly recommend Bagley’s book.

Comments (18)