Mormon Coffee

New LDS manual acknowledges Smith’s teaching of polygamy - It’s as though historians who have been addicted to the “faithful history” paradigm of story-telling are in a 12-step, AA-like meeting being praised for “baby steps”. - Aaron

I just finished reading When Salt Lake City Calls by Rocky Hulse. Published late in 2007, the book addresses the question, “Is there a conflict between Mormonism and the public trust?”

Mr. Hulse was born and raised a 6th generation Mormon. He remained in the LDS Church until he came to saving faith in Christ in 1986. Mr. Hulse and his wife, Helen, are the directors of the Nauvoo Christian Visitors Center in Nauvoo, Illinois.

When Salt Lake City Calls offers a logical progression of thought as it explores LDS doctrines and history which are pertinent to the question,

“Could a Mormon who holds a Governmental position of authority, whether elected or appointed, be forced by their religious beliefs, to make a decision contrary to all logic, reason, facts or evidence because their Prophet has directed the request?” (Back cover)

After a thorough examination of the LDS Priesthood, the LDS concept of the Kingdom of God coupled with politics, the LDS doctrines regarding Prophets, the LDS-mandated covenants and endowments, and a look at how these Mormon teachings have played out in history, the book’s conclusion says this:

Our Republic form of government was originally drawn up by the Founding Fathers to place representatives in Congress that would be independent and unencumbered. A Mormon, by definition of their own doctrine, having been placed in a multiple covenanted relationship with their Church, is not independent or unencumbered. Mormonism not only functions by oath, it is conditioned by rote and ritual and all Mormons are bound by obligation to its Priesthood authorities.” (304)

When Salt Lake City Calls continues on to quote a relevant passage from John F. Kennedy’s famed speech which highlights a big difference between the issues related to JFK’s presidential bid and that of a Mormon:

“I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none — who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require him to fulfill — and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.” (304)

John Kennedy was the sort of chief executive outlined in that speech; but, as propounded in When Salt Lake City Calls, an active and fully committed Latter-day Saint could not match those qualifications. A Latter-day Saint is under obligation, via oath and ritual, to obey their Church leaders at all levels:

“WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, AND LIVE TO GOD and none else; and learn to do as you are told….But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.” (305, quoting President Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 6:32)

Heavily weighted with lengthy quotes from LDS authorities and manuals, When Salt Lake City Calls is fully documented, resulting in arguments that are quite compelling.

Dan Phillips interacts with Mormons on his doorstep

“I don’t know how to speak about heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisaical, beauty that we speak of heaven – I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven without my wife, my children. It would, it would not be heaven for me” (Jeffrey Holland, Introductory DVD shown at Rexburg temple open house).

From Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1830 - 1915, pp. 63-64:

“The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants was originally a two-part work, as its name would indicate. If we look at the current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, we see that the work contains 138 revelations, or sections. In the 1835 edition, the work is divided into two distinct parts. The first part of the work is titled ‘Theology: Lecture First of Faith on the Doctrine of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.’ Subsequent lectures are simply titled ‘Lecture Second of Faith,’ ‘Lecture Third,’ and so on. The revelations were included in a second part titled ‘Covenants and Commands of the Lord,’ which begins on page 75. That the seven Lectures on Faith originally comprised the doctrine part of the Doctrine and Covenants there can be no doubt. The revelations in turn comprised the ‘Covenants and Commands’ portion of the work. The two parts, collectively, were called the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

“For many of the Saints in Kirtland, and for Mormons of subsequent generations until 1921, the Lectures of Faith were Mormon doctrine. For the members of the Church in the late 1830s, the Lectures of Faith were the doctrines of the church to which they belonged. The decanonization of the Lectures of Faith brought about a serious revision of Latter-day Saint theology. The Lecture of Faith by 1921 were representative of a theological position that the Church had not held for nearly a century. Their continued inclusion, in post-1921 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, would have presented an additional problem for the Church by providing an older, rejected, theological option for the membership of the Church. Having just resolved the Jehovah-Elohim controversy, a new thorn in the flesh was not needed.

“Scholars have attempted to legitimize the reasons for the removal of the Lectures in 1921. Reasons for the decanonization of the Lectures followed an apologetical line of logic. Reasons such as they contain imperfect doctrines on the godhead, they were not received as revelations by the Prophet, and they were only given as instructions, form the core of the apologists’ arguments. The opinions surrounding the decanonization have never been fully explained. Why were the Lectures originally included as part of the canon? It seems odd that a religious movement that holds to beliefs not contained in its canon (the King Follett discourse) would include in that canon teachings which it did not believe to be authoritative. In what must have been an embarrassing position for the Church to be in, removing part of its canon, reasons for the removal were needed. This was accomplished by arguing that the Lectures were never part of the canon.”

“Plead with them more than you rebuke them.” Advice applicable for just about any interaction with non-believers you love. (>>)