Mormon Coffee

A friend from the Las Vegas area sent me a copy of a local publication, Desert Saints Magazine. According to the “Letter from the Editor” in the March 2007 issue,

“This magazine is produced by three stay-at-home LDS mothers (with contributions from two talented husbands) who are trying to do a service for the LDS community in between mothering our combined total of fourteen children, serving in church callings and running busy lives. We are faithful, good women doing what we can to further the Lord’s kingdom. We’re not perfect.”

If you think this sounds a bit defensive, you’re right. Apparently, the February issue of Desert Saints Magazine ruffled some Latter-day Saint feathers. A publisher’s note in the March issue stated,

“Concerning our February 2007 Issue cover photo, we apologize for choosing a photo where the bride’s sleeve appeared to be not temple-appropriate. We did not mean to offend our readers or imply that weddings outside the temple are ‘the latest trend in LDS weddings.’”

According to editor Danielle Ellis, she spent the month following the publication of the Annual Bridal Issue fielding phone calls and emails from people upset by the magazine’s cover which featured “a lovely bride in a short sleeve dress.” Ms. Ellis wrote:

“We apologize for running a photo where the sleeve appeared too short to be appropriate.

“All of us who looked at it saw it as a cap sleeve. In fact, as you can see from a different photo of the same bride, it is. More to the point, this beautiful, temple-worthy bride was married in the Newport Beach Temple, in this dress.

“Still, to any who were offended, we apologize for our mistake and ask for forgiveness.

“However, the complaints have given me pause. There were some extremely un-Christ-like comments directed our way, which is ironic since they were coming from ‘good members of the Church.’”

Ms. Ellis’ letter explained that, in light of the readers’ “blistering condemnations in the name of righteousness,” the March issue of Desert Saints Magazine would be focused on “Christ-like love.”

The concern of upset readers might seem inconsequential to non-Mormons. After all, the dress was modest and the bride was temple-worthy. But to many Latter-day Saints the idea of a wedding dress that hints at being outside the bounds of “temple appropriate clothing” is a serious matter.

On the LDS.org web site I found the following regulation regarding temple wedding dresses:

“Sisters may wear their wedding dresses for their temple wedding, but the dress must be white, have long sleeves, be modest in design and fabric, have no train, and be free from elaborate ornamentation.” (”Lesson 6: Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple,” Endowed from on High: Temple Preparation Seminar Teacher’s Manual, 26)

Additionally, a Church magazine instructs:

“In the temple, brides’ dresses worn during the ceremony should be long sleeved, modest, white, and not elaborately ornamented. Dresses worn in the temple should also have high necklines. Dresses with trains are not permissible in the temple, unless the trains can be removed or bustled for the ceremony.” (Shanna Butler, “Planning Your Temple Wedding,” New Era, Oct 2004, 25)

I’m not certain, given these rules, how a dress with cap sleeves is any closer to being temple-appropriate than is a dress without sleeves. But apparently it makes enough of a difference to have allowed this bride to wear her cap-sleeved gown for her Newport Beach Temple wedding.

The LDS faith system is based on grace-plus-works. Grace alone will never do; perfect obedience to all commandments and rules is imperative to achieving forgiveness for sins and, ultimately, eternal life. Consequently, dressing appropriately in the temple is of significant concern. The choice one makes represents much more than mere observation of a preferred standard. Modesty is the grace-based principle, but conformity to the rule is the works-based reality.

Desert Saints Magazine experienced the repercussions of Mormonism’s legalism, a preoccupation with form at the expense of substance. In the wedding dress incident, had there been an inch and a half more fabric over each shoulder, all would have been well. But as the magazine’s LDS readers thought the dress was sleeveless, for them, much, much more than propriety hung in the balance.

Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith once wrote,

“SALVATION AND A CUP OF TEA. You cannot neglect little things. ‘Oh, a cup of tea is such a little thing. It is so little; surely it doesn’t amount to much; surely the Lord will forgive me if I drink a cup of tea.’ If you drink coffee or tea, or take tobacco, are you letting a cup of tea, or a little tobacco stand in the road and bar you from the celestial kingdom of God, where you might otherwise have received a fullness of glory?” (Doctrines of Salvation 2:16)

There is a similar danger for LDS brides wearing the wrong wedding gown. Or, at least, that’s what some Mormons fear. For in Mormonism members are taught to live by an incomplete portion of Paul’s words to the Romans:

For the wages of sin is death.

Tragically, they carry this burden through life without receiving the hope in the words that follow:

But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

Responding to those who are not comfortable with the idea of a Mormon becoming president in 2008, supporters of Mitt Romney have, on numerous occasions, cited Article Six of the United States Constitution. This three-paragraph Article states in part that,

“…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

First of all, this clause has been historically understood to apply to federal employees and either elected or appointed political officials. In other words, the clause prohibits the Federal Government from forcing someone to have certain religious beliefs in order to run for public office or serve in any government capacity. For Romney supporters to appeal to Article Six is a logical fallacy of the worst kind. Known as a red herring, it attempts to prove a point by bringing up an argument that has no relevance. Of all the reasons being raised as to why the United States should not have a Mormon president, I don’t know of anybody who is arguing that Mitt Romney should not be allowed to run for the presidency because of his religious convictions.

Let this be perfectly clear, Article Six has nothing whatsoever to do with the personal preference of voters. A legal citizen of the United States has every right to vote for whomever he/she chooses. This freedom is so wide open you can even vote for a dead person if you wish. Don’t believe me? Google “dead man wins election” and see for yourself.

If a person likes Romney’s Mormon worldview, then by all means they should exercise that right and vote for him. Those who disagree should (and do) have the same right. Discrimination is not always a bad thing. In fact, the ballot is one of the few places left where an American can exercise discrimination to their heart’s content without fear of reprisal and Article Six does not infringe on that right whatsoever. Quite frankly, anyone who uses Article Six as a means to intimidate or sway a voter might want to consider retaking Civics 101.

Comments (16)

In the recent PBS special, The Mormons, Daniel Peterson publicly and explicitly admitted that “most of the translation [of the Book of Mormon] was done using something called a seer stone.” Since many Mormons have labeled claims like these “anti-Mormon“, Peterson’s statement is significant because he is a professor at BYU and is considered the foremost apologist of Mormonism today. While one has been able to find such candid admissions buried in some FARMS/FAIR material, depictions of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon in church-published literature have led nearly all Mormons to believe that Joseph Smith simply translated with the golden plates right in front of him. But Peterson knows better:

“We know that Joseph didn’t translate the way that a scholar would translate. He didn’t know Egyptian. There were a couple of means that were prepared for this. One was he used an instrument that was found with the plates that was called the Urim and Thummim. This is a kind of a divinatory device that goes back into Old Testament times. Actually most of the translation was done using something called a seer stone. He would put the stone in the bottom of a hat, presumably to exclude surrounding light. And then he would put his face into the hat. It’s a kind of a strange image for us.”

MRM has a relevant video available entitled, “How Did Joseph Smith ‘Translate’ the Book of Mormon?“. We encourage you to share it with your friends!

Comments (34)

Bonneville Communications is an advertising agency owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s web site explains,

“For over 30 years, Bonneville Communications has designed, produced and distributed public service messages for national nonprofit organizations.

“Long after people forget what they hear, they remember how they feel. So Bonneville creates those unforgettable feelings for those who request our support. Bonneville’s work has been internationally recognized for its ability to inspire and motivate.”

On the web site of Bonneville’s parent company, Bonneville International, we learn,

“Bonneville’s ability to touch the hearts and minds of audiences makes it an essential resource for organizations with vital messages.

“…the creative professionals at Bonneville Communications…unique strength is the ability to touch the hearts and minds of audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action. They call this uniquely powerful brand of creative HeartSell® — strategic emotional advertising that stimulates response.”

Marketing is an amazing thing. This uniquely powerful, strategic emotional manipulation of peoples’ feelings has been trademarked by the LDS Church. HeartSell® has proven to be a useful tool in advertising; it seems it’s also effective in LDS proselytizing.

The friend who pointed me to this information about HeartSell® (my thanks to Paul) said tongue-in-cheek,

“Next time a Mormon tells you the Church is true because they had a feeling, point them to the makers of those feelings: Bonneville Communications.

“‘That special feeling that you have about Joseph Smith being a true prophet? Well that’s been trademarked by Bonneville Communications; it’s called HeartSell®.’”

Though we can find humor in this, there is a serious side to the issue, something Ravi Zacharias has called “seduction of the eye.” At the Ligonier Ministries 2007 National Conference, “Contending for the Truth,” Mr. Zacharias pointed out that we are living in a time when people think with their feelings rather than with their minds. He quoted poet William Blake,

This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And goads you to believe a lie
When you see with and not through the eye.

Mr. Zacharias explained,

“We are intended to see through the eye with a conscience. We run into serious trouble when we see with the eye, devoid of conscience.”

Bonneville’s HeartSell® is a seduction of the eye. It strategically appeals to our emotions to stimulate a pre-determined response. It is a marketing ploy designed for us to watch with our eyes — devoid of conscience — and then be willingly catapulted to action.

As Mr. Zacharias said, truth is primarily a quality of proposition. Therefore, whether HeartSell® is delivered via video or LDS missionaries, the safer course for us all would be to see it through the eye of thoughtful, biblically informed discernment.

Comments (43)

One hundred and sixty-three years ago tomorrow (June 7, 1844) the one and only issue of The Nauvoo Expositor was published in Nauvoo, Illinois. The newspaper was intended to be the voice of the Reformed Mormon Church, a dissident religious group led by former counselor in the LDS First Presidency, William Law.The members of the Reformed Mormon Church were deeply opposed to Joseph Smith’s polygamy. The preamble of The Nauvoo Expositor explained,

Many of us have sought a reformation in the [Mormon] church, without a public exposition of the enormities of crimes practiced by its leaders, thinking that if they would harken to council, and show fruit meet for repentance, it would be as acceptable with God, as though they were exposed to public gaze… But our petitions were treated with contempt, and in many cases the petitioner spurned from their presence, and particularly by Joseph [Smith], who would state that if he had sinned, and was guilty of any charges we would charge him with, he would not make acknowledgment, but would rather be damned; for it would detract from his dignity, and would consequently prove the ruin and overthrow of the Church.We would ask him on the other hand, if the overthrow of the Church was not inevitable, to which he often replied, that we would all go to Hell together, and convert it into a Heaven, by casting the Devil out; and says he, Hell is by no means the place this world of fools suppose it to be, but on the contrary it is quite an agreeable place, to which we would now reply he can enjoy it if he is determined not to desist from his evil ways, but as for us, we will serve the Lord our God! (as quoted in Hallwas and Launius, Cultures in Conflict, 143-144)

The sermon in which Joseph Smith spoke of converting Hell into a Heaven was given in July of 1843 and is recorded in History of the Church 5:517. The other concerns voiced in The Nauvoo Expositor preamble can be better understood in the context provided by a speech Joseph delivered to the Saints just two weeks before the newspaper was published. On May 26, 1844 the Prophet said,

The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted… If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last…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… How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go…

A man has asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet [William Law] has charged me with adultery…

What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. (History of the Church 408-412)

At the time Joseph Smith gave this speech there were 34 women and girls in Nauvoo who were wives of the Prophet.

Joseph said proven facts would allow truth and innocence to prevail; yet the publishers of The Nauvoo Expositor are defamed to this day, while Joseph Smith is lauded in song: “Great is his glory…Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom, crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.” (Praise to the Man, LDS Hymn 326)

Comments (5)

“Romney candidacy has resurrected last days prophecy of Mormon saving the Constitution,” reads a headline today in The Salt Lake Tribune. The article, written by journalist Thomas Burr, discusses the so-called White Horse Prophecy which was purportedly received by Joseph Smith in 1843. The article states,

It’s Mormon lore, a story passed along by some old-timers about the importance of their faith and their country.In the latter days, the story goes, the U.S. Constitution will hang by a thread and a Mormon will ride in on a metaphorical white horse to save it. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it does not accept the legend — commonly referred to as the “White Horse Prophecy” — as doctrine. …

The disputed prophecy was recorded in a diary entry of a Mormon who had heard the tale from two men who were with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Ill. when he supposedly declared the prophecy.

“You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed,” the diary entry quotes Smith as saying. “It will hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber.”

Not only will the Mormons save the Constitution, under the prediction, but the prophecy goes further, insinuating that Mormons will control the government.

“Power will be given to the White Horse to rebuke the nations afar off, and you obey it, for the laws go forth from Zion,” the prophecy says.

In 1918 sixth LDS President Joseph F. Smith made certain Latter-day Saints understood the White Horse Prophecy was bogus. In that October’s General Conference President Smith said the prophecy was “never spoken by the prophet” in the way people claim, and that, “It is simply false; that is all there is to it.”

The White Horse Prophecy is generally ignored or forgotten, but it seems to come to the forefront when a Mormon becomes a candidate for the U.S. presidency. It came up in 1968 when George Romney was running for president, in 2000 when Orin Hatch was running for president, and now, while Mitt Romney is campaigning. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Mr. Romney does not believe in the White Horse Prophecy.

In the article, Journalist Thomas Burr quotes George Cobabe, a man who researched the White Horse Prophecy for the LDS apologetics group FAIR. Mr. Cobabe said,

“I don’t think the White Horse Prophecy is fair to bring up at all. It’s been rejected by every church leader that has talked about it. It has nothing to do with anything.”

While I agree with Mr. Cobabe that the White Horse Prophecy is not germane to Mitt Romney’s white house bid, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the prophecy “has been rejected by every church leader that has talked about it.” Brigham Young seemed to believe the prophecy was true. In 1855 he said,

“…and when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the ‘Mormon’ Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it.” (Journal of Discourses 2:182; also Discourses of Brigham Young, 361)

Thirteen years later, in 1868, Brigham Young again spoke in support of the White Horse Prophecy:

“How long will it be before the words of the prophet Joseph will be fulfilled? He said if the Constitution of the United States were saved at all it must be done by this people. It will not be many years before these words come to pass.” (Journal of Discourses 12:204; also Discourses of Brigham Young, 360)

Though the White Horse Prophecy has no place in modern-day Mormonism, there was a time when the prophet, seer and revelator of the LDS Church believed it — and preached it.

Comments (2)