Public Offerings

The woman looked at me with smug satisfaction and said, “At my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we never pass a collection plate. It’s such a prideful thing to put your tithes and offerings on display for everyone to see. We do our giving in private.”

It’s likely that those who have spent much time around Mormons will have heard comments similar to this one – maybe multiple times. I’ve heard it quite often. The first few times the issue came up I was surprised and confused. Surprised at the depth of passion Mormons seem to have for this topic, and confused that they understand the passing of a collection plate in a worship service to be utterly inappropriate.

I suppose it’s true that no good thing on earth is beyond being corrupted by man’s sinfulness. I’m certain that throughout the Christian church’s history some people in some places in some periods of time have placed their offerings in the offering plate pridefully. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn of some folks in Christian church congregations watching who did what when the plate came by. Nevertheless, I think many Mormons don’t understand the historic Christian concept of collecting the offering.

The Bible portrays the giving of tithes and offerings as an act of worship. As such, it is appropriate for the giving to be done during a worship service. When Christians gather together on the Lord’s Day in corporate worship, several things comprise the service including the preaching and hearing of the Word of God, praying, singing, sharing the Lord’s Supper, and giving.

Prideful giving is wrong. Giving to be seen of men is wrong. Judging others by what they give is wrong. But collecting the gifts of worshippers during a public, corporate worship service is not wrong. Giving to God as a demonstration of trust in Him, and as a declaration that we know our true treasure is in heaven, is pleasing to Him and is accepted by Him as worship.

I don’t think the mechanics of how we give matters much to God. Whether it’s placing a gift in an offering plate, dropping it in a box at the back of the church, or sending it through the mail, the important things are that we give and that we have a right heart attitude as we give. Yet having said that, another interesting aspect of the Mormon viewpoint on traditional Christian giving during the worship service is worth mentioning.

As an alleged restoration of the early Christian church, it’s surprising that LDS Church members find fault with the traditional passing of a collection plate in other churches. Christian apologist Justin Martyr (100AD-165AD) wrote a detailed description of early Christian worship services in his First Apology, addressed to Emperor Antonius Pius:

“On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together… The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read… the president in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers.

“When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented with wine and water… A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person…

“Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president… in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need.”

In the early Christian church, like now, offerings were collected publicly during the Sunday worship service. Nevertheless, this detail really isn’t that important. It would be much better for us to focus instead on 2 Corinthians 9:7:

“Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

Mormons, Scientologists face uphill battle against Wikileaks

Mormons, Scientologists face uphill battle against Wikileaks

The Privilege to Worship What They May

On the “Before God Was God” thread here on Mormon Coffee a Latter-day Saint has been defending his position that Mormonism is not polytheistic. The core of his argument resides in his definition of “polytheism,” which he defines as the worship of more than one God. He posits that Latter-day Saints worship only Heavenly Father; they do not worship any other Gods. I asked him about the worship of Jesus Christ and provided two supporting statements made by late LDS prophet Gordon B. Hinckley:

“We honor Him, we worship Him, we love Him as our Redeemer, the great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New Testament.” (”A Testimony of the Son of God,” Ensign, 12/2002 p. 4)

“He is the central focus of our worship. He is the Son of the living God, the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten in the flesh…” (”We Look to Christ,” Ensign, 5/2002 p. 90)

If Mormons worship Heavenly Father (one God) and Jesus Christ (a second God), they would be polytheists according to our Mormon friend’s definition. He responded,

“As for President Hinckley’s comment, i do not agree with his use of the word ‘worship’, and this may be just an argument of semantic, which is prevalent on this board. However, as a mormon, i and we only pray TO Our Heavenly Father. Though your quote has minor merit, it is hardly a statement of doctrine. It is hardly a revelation that any religious doctrine may have a verse, statement, or idea that is an inconsistency or contradiction. Even as a prophet, man is not, and never can be, perfect.”

This raises all sorts of issues, not the least of which being the idea that the LDS prophet was wrong about something so basic and important as who members of the “Only True Church” worship. But the question that interests me at the moment is whether or not Mormonism promotes the worship of Jesus Christ.

Worship of Christ as God is and has always been at the core of Christianity. From His birth (Matthew 2) to His resurrection (Matthew 28) to His triumphant return (Revelation 22), Jesus Christ is to be worshipped.

Yet Mormons disagree about whether they do or ought to worship Christ. On May 2nd (2008) the Mormon Insights blog discussed this question. “Do Mormons Worship Jesus?” LDS blogger S. Faux asked. The answer is long — and complicated.

After providing four sample quotes from the March 2008 Ensign magazine stating that Mormons do worship Christ, and providing several references from LDS scriptures that state Mormons worship the Father “in the name of Christ,” S. Faux demonstrates how LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie introduced confusion on the issue when he taught,

“We worship the Father and him only and no one else.

“We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense–the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.” (BYU Devotional, March 2, 1982)

But in his book Mormon Doctrine, Mr. McConkie wrote:

“The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship. ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’ (Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8; Ex. 34:14; Mosiah 18:25; D. & C. 20:17-19.) No one can worship the Father without also worshiping the Son. ‘All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.’ (John 5:23.) It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son.” (page 848)

S. Faux doesn’t accept Bruce McConkie’s idea that the worship Mormons offer to Jesus is somehow a lower form of worship than that offered to the Father. Indeed, there doesn’t seem to be any LDS support for that apart from Mr. McConkie. Yet some Mormons subscribe to that notion as they attempt to support their claim of monotheism by insisting Latter-day Saints worship only one God — in the face of evidence to the contrary.

It seems that Mormons are on the horns of a dilemma. Their faith requires either:

a) Monotheistic worship of the Father alone (at the exclusion of worshiping the Son); or
b) Polytheistic worship of both the Father and the Son.

Either way Mormonism is way outside the boundaries of historic, biblical Christianity.

I don’t know which is of more concern — that Mormons might not worship Christ, or that they don’t know if they worship Christ.

Christian Pastor John Piper once noted,

” This is God’s design…His aim is that the nations — all the nations (Matthew 24:14) — worship His Son. This is God’s will for everybody in your office at work, and in your neighborhood and in your home. As John 4:23 says, ‘Such the Father seeks to worship Him.’ At the beginning of Matthew we still have a ‘come-see’ pattern. But at the end the pattern is ‘go-tell.’ The magi came and saw. We are to go and tell. But what is not different is that the purpose of God is the ingathering of the nations to worship His Son. The magnifying of Christ in the white-hot worship of all nations, the reason the world exists.”

One day all will know, without question, that Jesus Christ is worthy of worship, for “God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11).

Come before the King of kings now — and worship Him.

FLDS and LDS Express Complaints

A couple of interesting stories appeared over the weekend in the Salt Lake Tribune and in Deseret News. Both are related to the FLDS situation that continues to dominate headlines these days.

The Salt Lake Tribune article is an opinion piece written by Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint Maggie Jessop. She begins, “So, you want to hear from the FLDS women, huh? OK, you asked for it.” Mrs. Jessop writes with biting sarcasm in an effort to debunk the media stereotype of FLDS “uneducated, underprivileged, information-deprived, brainless, spineless, poor, picked-on, dependent, misled class of women identified as ‘brain-washed.’” A couple of Mrs. Jessop’s arguments sound somewhat familiar to me. Consider this:

“I have never been guilty of intentionally breaking the law, never been in a courtroom, never even spoken to an attorney.

“In the face of the holocaust going on, most people want to know the truth, right? Well, do you get truth from liars? Come on, John Doe-Head, do you revel in crude and erroneous sensationalism? What kind of a person are you, anyway? Isn’t it better to get the truth from those who really know?

“…I have broken no law. I have never abused my children. I have injured no one in the choices I have made.”

I’d like to mention two observations regarding Mrs. Jessop’s article. The first is her interesting claim of being innocent of intentionally breaking the law. Though illegal activities allegedly take place regularly in the FLDS community (”spiritual” marriage of young girls to older men, sexual assault of children, polygamy, etc.), as a representative of FLDS women, Mrs. Jessop suggests they are, nevertheless, guiltless. This reminds me of an 1844 public declaration by LDS Prophet Joseph Smith, then husband of thirty-four women:

“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 [his accusers] all perjurers” (History of the Church 6:411).

Another observation about Mrs. Jessop’s article has to do with her assertion that the only place to get accurate information about the FLDS is from the FLDS themselves. I can almost hear her say, as I so often hear Latter-day Saints say, “You wouldn’t go to a Chevy dealer to get accurate information about a Ford, would you?”

I find this type of cultural similarity between the FLDS and the LDS intriguing. Are Latter-day Saints able to see the parallels? If so, does it cause them to ponder these things in their hearts and minds?

I’m saddened to think that Mormons probably can’t see themselves at all in the FLDS story. They are too distracted by a concentrated effort to make sure nobody draws any comparison between LDS and FLDS — which brings me to the Deseret News.

Joseph A. Cannon wrote a Deseret News editorial for Sunday (May 11, 2008) titled, “Adoption of FLDS name is akin to identity theft.” Here Mr. Cannon argues that it is not only improper to join the word “Mormon” to “Fundamentalist,” but that is also wrong to join “Fundamentalist” to “Latter Day Saint.” He writes,

“…much misidentification simply results from the confusion between the terms LDS and FLDS.

“Not only are many of the FLDS teachings in conflict with, and repugnant to, the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but, in fact, a person who believes in or practices the teachings of the fundamentalists would be excommunicated from the LDS Church.

“While not strictly speaking identity theft, the adoption of FLDS by this group at best is confusing and at worst undermines the credibility of the Latter-day Saints and tarnishes the LDS ‘brand.’ Sometimes damage to a brand or a trademark has been called attempted identity theft at the corporate level.”

After providing an analogy to illustrate his argument, Mr. Cannon attempts to further distance the LDS Church from the FLDS Church by subtly questioning the latter latter-day church’s true origin:

“Similarly, this group which claims to be a break-off of the LDS Church is, as noted, utterly different in its beliefs and practices.” (emphasis mine)

Finally, Mr. Cannon concludes,

“Whatever their motivation, the consequence of this group’s adoption of the name FLDS has damaged the LDS Church’s identity, brand name and reputation.”

Okay. If use of the terms “Fundamentalist Mormon” or “Polygamist Mormon” generate too much confusion, and we can’t use the FLDS’ own name or initials without thoughtlessly damaging the LDS brand name, what should we call the FLDS? In his editorial Mr. Cannon provides no alternative suggestions. Maybe you folks reading Mormon Coffee have some ideas…

“As Does the Bible”

Since 1981 the Introduction to the Book of Mormon has stated,

“The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting Gospel.”

Recently the Introduction was changed; among other things, the words “as does the Bible” have been removed. This change is consistent with the teaching of LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer found in an article which appeared in the March 2008 issue of the Ensign magazine. In “Who Is Jesus Christ?” Mr. Packer stated, “Nephi testified that the Bible once ‘contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record’” but later the “great and abominable church” took away many “plain and most precious” parts of the gospel (Ensign, March 2008, 16).

The above reference to the teaching of Nephi in the Book of Mormon has been a component of LDS doctrine since the Church’s inception. LDS prophets and apostles have preached continuously that the Bible has been corrupted and much truth lost from the original text. This LDS view of a corrupted Bible is now and has always been a major concern among Christians. The idea that the Bible is missing parts of the LDS Gospel is nothing new or shocking; but with this recent change to the Book of Mormon Introduction, the incongruity of the pre-changed text is brought to the forefront.

The Introduction was originally written for a new edition of the Triple Combination (one volume which contains the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price) published in 1981. The new edition of the scriptures was heralded as “the product of years of research and inspired direction.” * One wonders, therefore, how the inaccurate claim that the Bible contains the fullness of the everlasting Gospel came to be included in the first place. It certainly did not reflect the true teachings or doctrine of the LDS Church, yet it remained in the Book of Mormon Introduction for about 25 years.

Why?

———–

* Edward J. Brandt, “Using the New LDS Editions of Scripture—As One Book,” Ensign, October 1982, 42

LDS Church Rebuts NY Times “Faith of Our Fathers”

The LDS Church has posted a rebuttal to an opinion piece written by Timothy Egan that appeared on the New York Times blog on April 23rd (2008). Mr. Egan’s article, “Faith of Our Fathers,” makes a critical comparison between FLDS polygamy and the early Mormon Church. He writes,

“Faith is a moving thing; witness the throng in Yankee Stadium who came away in a fever of fellowship after listening to the Pope last weekend, or the 55,000 moved to practice random acts of compassion by the Dalai Lama at Qwest Field in Seattle two weeks ago.

“But religion can also be used as an excuse for awful behavior – from the torture of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, to beheadings by Jihadist killers, to the sexual manipulation of children by early Mormons and their latter-day sects.

“…The [LDS] church has been vocal about denouncing the renegade Mormons in Texas, and quick to point out that it abandoned polygamy in 1890, as a condition of Utah’s statehood.

“For a long time, though, the church was at odds with basic American ideals, and not just because old guys sanctioned marital sex with dozens of teenage girls. What you see in Texas — in small part — is a look back at some of the behavior of Mormonism’s founding fathers.”

The LDS rebuttal, “Polygamy Then and Now,” written by LDS Church Historian Marlin K. Jensen, begins with this:

“…Egan wrote a post on the Outposts blog claiming that the way polygamy is practiced today by members of the FLDS sect in Eldorado, Texas is the same as it was practiced by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in the 19th century.

The alert reader might notice a disparity here. In the New York Times article Mr. Egan does not say, as the LDS rebuttal claims, that the way FLDS practice their polygamy (which might include, for example, forced marriages, exiling young boys, etc.) is the same as the way in which early Mormons practiced polygamy. Mr. Egan actually writes that what we see in the Texas FLDS community is a look back at the behavior of early Mormon leaders “in small part.”

The LDS rebuttal continues,

“Much of the argument Egan makes for similarities between FLDS polygamy and early Mormon marriage practices relates to the claim of ’sexual manipulation’ of children as evidenced by the age of marriage.”

Mr. Egan does mention the young age of some of the plural wives of both early Mormons and today’s polygamists, but the bulk of his argument is based on “some of the behavior of Mormonism’s founding fathers”; specifically, the claim of divine revelation commanding polygamy coupled with militant defiance against the government.

Mr. Egan’s charge of “sexual manipulation of children by early Mormons,” is not set forth as an empty claim. He provides his readers with one example as background. Speaking of Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s first prophet, Mr. Egan writes:

“Before he died at the hands of a mob, he married at least 33 women and girls; the youngest was 14, and was told she had to become Smith’s bedmate or risk eternal damnation.”

The LDS rebuttal points out that it was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for 15-year-old girls to wed. Yet it misses an important point and does not address the other factors involved in these Mormon marriages: the 15 year-old girls often married men twice their age, and they married men who had multiple wives.

The remainder of the LDS rebuttal does not address issues raised in Mr. Egan’s opinion piece but rather addresses differences between early Mormon society and the FLDS communities that the LDS Church would like to stress. For example, it talks about the freedom enjoyed by Mormon women in the nineteenth century, about the industriousness of the Mormon communities, about the involvement of these early Mormons in things like politics and education; all starkly contrasting with today’s FLDS model.

At the same time that the LDS rebuttal discusses these non-issues in relation to Mr. Egan’s article, it avoids discussion of the core of Mr. Egan’s comparison: the divinely commanded and divinely required practice of plural marriage in defiance of the law.

The LDS rebuttal concludes,

“Mr. Egan’s cavalier comparison of FLDS polygamous practices with those of 19th century Latter-day Saints is historically unsupported and simply wrong. By implication, he also unfairly impugns the integrity of all Latter-day Saint marriages and families, the very institutions they hold most dear.”

Though the Church is loath to admit it, Mr. Egan’s statement, “What you see in Texas — in small part — is a look back at some of the behavior of Mormonism’s founding fathers,” is historically supportable and accurate. Does Mr. Egan “unfairly impugn the integrity” of polygamous Mormon marriages? He is entitled to his opinion. And you and I are entitled to ours.

« Previous Page — Next Page »