Mormon Coffee

———————-

Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.

———————-

Comments (32)

This article was originally posted at Dan Phillips’ blog, Biblical Christianity. I am re-posting here as a part of a three-article simultaneous posting between Tim and Bridget, two other evangelical bloggers. Please see their articles as well.

—

Getting turned down and even having doors slammed in your face isn’t fun. It’s emotionally and physically draining. I know because many Mormons are rude to me on a weekly basis here in Utah on evangelistic outings. No matter how positive and polite I try to be, that I am trying to convert them from their Restoration to our Great Apostasy doesn’t go over well. “Get a job.” “What are you, an anti-Mormon?” “You should be ashamed of yourself.” “What did the Mormons ever do to you?” “How much money do you get paid to do this?” “Don’t you have anything better to do?”

All that, but at least I still get to pick up the phone and talk to my mom whenever I want. Mormon missionaries are typically only allowed to send letters/email once a week, and make a phone call twice a year to their family. Once on Christmas, and once on Mother’s Day. They eat lots of Ramen noodles, Mac and Cheese, and anything else cheap that a budget-conscious bachelor pad might serve.

Mormons tell us all the time to take our tough and deep questions to the young missionaries, because surely these guys know the answers. But that is hardly the case. These are a bunch of young 19 and 20-year-olds who are playing the part of a Mormon tradition that is designed to help them plant deep roots of Mormon commitment and belief. Many of them are on their mission to participate in an adventure and figure things out for themselves, not yet having the deep belief in Mormonism that they wish they had. The two-year-mission largely functions in Mormonism to solidify that belief. It’s a spiritually formative time in their life, and it’s our duty to plant seeds of truth in love.

Read more »

Comments (107)

Some of you may have already seen this reading by Charles Spurgeon. It was posted on Of First Importance a little while ago, but it bears repeating — and discussing.

———————————-

Away with your tools

If you make me an altar of stone,
you shall not build it of hewn stones,
for if you wield your tool on it you profane it.
Exodus 20:25

“God’s altar was to be built of unhewn stones, that no trace of human skill or labor might be seen on it. Human wisdom delights to trim and arrange the doctrines of the cross into a system more artificial and more congenial with the depraved tastes of fallen nature; however, instead of improving the gospel carnal wisdom pollutes it, until it becomes another gospel, and not the truth of God at all. All alterations and amendments of the Lord’s own Word are defilements and pollutions.

“The proud heart of man is very anxious to have a hand in the justification of the soul before God; preparations for Christ are dreamed of, humblings and repentings are trusted in, good works are cried up, natural ability is much vaunted, and by all means the attempt is made to lift up human tools upon the divine altar. It were well if sinners would remember that so far from perfecting the Saviour’s work, their carnal confidences only pollute and dishonor it. The Lord alone must be exalted in the work of atonement, and not a single mark of man’s chisel or hammer will be endured.

“There is an inherent blasphemy in seeking to add to what Christ Jesus in His dying moments declared to be finished, or to improve that in which the Lord Jehovah finds perfect satisfaction. Trembling sinner, away with your tools. Fall on your knees in humble supplication. Accept the Lord Jesus to be the altar of your atonement, and rest in Him alone.”

- Charles Spurgeon, Morning by Morning (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2001), 204.

Comments (75)

On October 10th (2009) a new documentary will debut at the Exmormon Foundation Conference in Salt Lake City. In the Shadow of the Temple by Pepita Productions promises to provide 55 minutes of interesting and insightful glimpses into the lives of people who have chosen to leave Mormonism. From the producer’s blog site:

Documentary Film Explores the Mormon Culture of Control

“My mother wishes I was dead!”

This plaintive account of a true believing Mormon mother’s response to her 42 year-old son, the father of her six grandchildren, who doubts the validity of the LDS church, is replicated in themes of fear, rage and renewal in the documentary, In the Shadow of the Temple.

Through dozens of interviews with active Mormons, trapped non-believers and with Ex-Mormons who have left the Church and view it as an oppressive cult, this…production explores, delineates and challenges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ power to exploit the family as a weapon against those who choose to no longer accept what the Mormons believe to be “the One, True Church.”

For more than a year, we (Karen and Dennis, the film’s producers) have peeled away layers of LDS public relations to find a stone cold resistance to free will, exemplified by the Mormon Church’s ability to use the family as a weapon of control. We thought we were going to do a film about Mormon theological principles, but we found that this is a story about personal and family tragedies.

It’s understandable that those leaving the LDS Church may be angry when they discover the thing to which they have devoted their entire lives turns out to be a fable — a great hoax perpetrated (they may feel) by people they thought they could trust.

But at times deep anger and suspicions are exhibited against those who leave, these unrestrained emotions coming from Mormons who choose to remain in the Church. Parents, siblings, spouses, friends — sometimes they “wish” their loved-ones were dead. Sometimes they think those who have left the Church are the “bad guys.” Sometimes they won’t speak to ex-Mormon family members for years, or they go to their graves never reconciled, never accepting a loved-one’s decision to leave Mormonism to embrace a different faith. What drives such a response? What drives such a tragic wedge between those who really do love one another?

—

Watch the documentary’s trailer:

To see short outtakes from In the Shadow of the Temple visit the Pepita Productions You Tube Channel.

———————-

Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.

———————-

Comments (118)

“It is by no means improbable that some future textbook… will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen? And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet.” Josiah Quincy, Jr., Figures of the Past, 1883

The above quote is oft used in Mormondom to impress people with a notable non-Mormon’s positive opinion of Joseph Smith. It can be found in numerous Mormon videos shown at LDS Visitors Centers. It is included in books about the “Prophet.” Most recently it was highlighted at Mormon Times in an article titled “Joseph Smith ‘most influential’ 19th century American.”

I found that Josiah Quincy’s book, Figures of the Past, is available online, so I read Mr. Quincy’s entire chapter on Joseph Smith and did a little additional research.

Josiah Quincy, Jr. visited Nauvoo in mid-May, 1844. His travelling companion was Charles Francis Adams, Sr., son and grandson of two American presidents. Being deemed important visitors, these men were received and welcomed by Joseph Smith. Mr. Quincy wrote:

Intelligence of our arrival had in some mysterious manner reached General Smith, and the prophet’s own chariot, a comfortable carryall, drawn by two horses, soon made its appearance. It is probable that we owed the alacrity with which we were served to an odd blunder which had combined our names and personalities and set forth that no less a man than ex-President John Quincy Adams had arrived to visit Mr. Joseph Smith.

After spending a day with the Prophet, Josiah Quincy wrote his impressions in a journal. Later he wrote about the visit in letters to friends. Later still he compiled his impressions into a chapter for his book. The chapter began with the now-famous quote; Josiah Quincy was impressed by Joseph Smith. But if all that he wrote in his book is considered, Josiah Quincy was not favorably impressed.

Mr. Quincy referred to the religious system of Mormonism as being comprised of “monstrous claims” (383). He said the sect created by Joseph Smith was filled with “demoralizing doctrines” (377). Quincy noted several times that Joseph Smith apparently thought very highly of himself and thought himself quite clever. Speaking of himself as the militia commander of 3,000 men, Smith reportedly explained,

“I decided that the commander of my troops ought to be a lieutenant-general, and I was, of course, chosen to that position. I sent my certificate of election to Governor Ford, and received in return a commission of lieutenant-general of the Nauvoo Legion and of the militia of the State of Illinois. Now, on examining the Constitution of the United States, I find that an officer must be tried by a court-martial composed of his equals in rank; and as I am the only lieutenant-general in the country, I think they will find it pretty hard to try me.” (383-384)

When Joseph Smith talked about theology and his ability as Master of languages, Josiah Quincy wrote,

Smith was well versed in the letter of the Scriptures, though he had little comprehension of their spirit. He began by denying the doctrine of the Trinity, and supported his views by the glib recitation of a number of texts…The degrees and orders of ecclesiastical dignitaries he set forth with great precision, being careful to mention the interesting revelation which placed Joseph Smith supreme above them all…The prophet referred to his miraculous gift of understanding all languages, and took down a Bible in various tongues, for the purpose of exhibiting his accomplishments in this particular. Our position as guests prevented our testing his powers by a rigid examination, and the rendering of a few familiar texts seemed to be accepted by his followers as a triumphant demonstration of his abilities. It may have been an accident, but I observed that the bulk of his translations were from the Hebrew, which, presumably, his visitors did not understand, rather than from the classical languages, in which they might more easily have caught him tripping. (385-386)

Perhaps the most concise and clearly stated opinion Mr. Quincy formed of the Prophet Joseph Smith is found following Quincy’s praise of the beautiful city of Nauvoo. He wrote,

And all the diligent workers, who had reared these handsome stores and comfortable dwellings, bowed in subjection to the man to whose unexampled absurdities we had listened that morning. Not quite unexampled either. For many years I held a trusteeship which required me to be a frequent visitor at the McLean Asylum for the Insane. I had talked with some of its unhappy inmates, victims of the sad but not uncommon delusion that each had received the appointment of vicegerent of the Deity upon earth. It is well known that such unfortunates, if asked to explain their confinement, have a ready reply: ‘I am sane. The rest of the world is mad, and the majority is against me.’ It was like a dream to find one’s self moving through a prosperous community, where the repulsive claim of one of these pretenders was respectfully acknowledged. It was said that Prince Hamlet had no need to recover his wits when he was despatched [sic] to England, for the demented denizens of that island would never detect his infirmity. If the blasphemous assumptions of Smith seemed like the ravings of a lunatic, he had, at least, brought them to a market where ‘all the people were as mad as he.’ (388-389)

Josiah Quincy’s travelling companion also wrote of this 1844 visit with the Prophet. Though his recollections are not as detailed as Quincy’s, Charles Francis Adams wrote this in his diary:

There is a mixture of shrewdness and extravagant self-conceit, of knowledge and ignorance, of wisdom and folly in this whole system of this man that I am somewhat at a loss to find definitions for it. Yet it is undoubted that he has gained followers at home and abroad…On the whole I was glad I had been [to see Joseph Smith]. Such a man is a study not for himself, but as serving to show what turns the human mind will sometimes take. And herafter [sic] if I should live, I may compare the results of this delusion with the condition in which I saw it and its mountebank apostle.

Such was the “powerful influence” these respected visitors found in Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet.

———————-

Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.

———————-

Comments (140)

When Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard called on members of the LDS Church to defend their faith on the Internet, I immediately thought to myself that this will probably end up badly. It seems that I am not the only one who has noticed.

In December 2007, Ballard bemoaned what he saw as an abundance of outsiders defining what the LDS Church teaches. He called on members to no longer “stand on the sidelines” and urged them to join in the conversation by using what he called “the modern printing press,” the Internet. As faithful followers, many have done so, and in many cases it hasn’t been pretty.

Ballard’s marching orders came with a set of “things to avoid,” but sadly, many Latter-day Saints have ignored his counsel. Instead of utilizing the admonition of Proverbs 15:1, many Mormons have responded with personal attacks against those who question Mormonism’s truth claims.

In a commentary published in the February 27, 2009 issue of the Salt Lake Tribune, Ken Kuykendall writes how “Mormons have taken the mandate to new heights, commenting on every possible story. All too often, they forget Ballard’s advice about civility. At times, LDS commenters on sites such as The Salt Lake Tribune’s can be shrill, self-righteous, dismissive and downright insulting. They egg on the critics, rather than persuade them. Even with strong opinions on controversial topics, it doesn’t have to be that way.” I concur with Kuykendall’s assessment. You can be firm and passionate about your position and still convey it with a respectful tone.

I’ve seen Kuykendall’s example expressed too many times on Mormon Coffee. This site is meant to be a forum for an intellectual exchange of ideas around the subject of Mormonism. I am amazed at how many (certainly not all) Mormons respond when their faith is challenged. I personally view Mormon Coffee as a type of house where participants are invited guests. People who understand this concept should also appreciate the fact that there should be a certain level of decorum that demonstrates appreciation for the invitation. I am not at all against pithy comments or tongue-in-cheek remarks, but outright name calling and innuendo regarding a person’s intelligence level have no place here. We have tried to curtail this by implementing rules and even reproof to offenders, but it appears that some see no problem in being bad houseguests.

Please know that I am not defending or ignoring similar conduct by non-Mormons. This is certainly not a one-sided problem. I understand we are all human and prone to let our emotions get the best of us. Sadly, because blog responses are usually done in a rapid-fire manner, many participants don’t let their rebuttal cool off as they might with a regular letter or email.  I know I am not completely innocent of this. In fact, as I write this the Holy Spirit is reminding me of when I have been less than careful in how I express myself.

From now on we are going to “raise the bar,” an expression of which I am sure Mormons and non-Mormons are very familiar. We are going to continue to assume commenters are mature enough to police themselves; however, if someone wishes to disrespect their invitation by using ad-hominem on other participants, their entire comment will be removed and they will not be allowed to post for seven days. After three infractions your invitation will be revoked and you will no longer be welcome to participate at all. Now some will say, won’t this be rather subjective? Yes it will. So the best advice I can give is keep it as civil as possible, and you won’t notice a thing.

So please, come share your thoughts, but let us do so in a manner that honors what we claim to be.

Comments (125)

Yet another interesting difference between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity has caught my attention recently. The July 2009 issue of the Ensign magazine includes an article about modesty written by Silvia Allred, First Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency. As Ms. Allred discusses the principle of, and blessings associated with modesty, she also explains the doctrine behind the principle. She writes,

“From the beginning, the Lord has asked His children to cover their bodies. After Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, their eyes were opened and they became aware that they were naked. Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves with simple aprons made of fig leaves. But the aprons were not enough, so the Lord made them more modest coats of skins. (See Genesis 3:7, 21)

“God had a higher standard then, just as He does now” (Modesty, A Timeless Principle for All, Ensign, 7/09, page 29).

I don’t disagree that God has a higher standard than His creatures, and I don’t dispute the virtue of modesty. But I can’t help feeling a bit stunned over Ms. Allred’s portrayal of God’s provision (coats of skin) for Adam and Eve as a more modest replacement for their immodest clothing.

Read more »

Comments (62)

Updated with new audio.

The Adam’s Road show list is available here.

Comments (48)

“Our Father in heaven, who once was perhaps a horrific sinner…”

Warning: this is an edgy poem meant to engage sleeping consciences over the God Never Sinned issue.

Read more »

Comments (9)

A refreshingly honest Mormon left the following comment on the video:

The more interesting question is whether we Mormons believe that Father ever sinned. I do not believe that question to have been answered. We tend to believe, with Lorenzo Snow, that “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” That aspiration seems to be consistent with John 1: 12 and 17: 21 – 23.

If we can become “as God is” despite our current sinfulness, I see no horror in the possibliity that Father may (before He become God) have sinned, repented, and been redeemed,.

It’s nice to find an honest Mormon like this. It’s especially refreshing when so many LDS internet-defenders deceptively insist that the exclusive position of Mormonism is that God never sinned.

Comments (104)