Mormon Coffee

I have asked on a few occasions here, “Do you believe that the early church apostasized towards this?” Usually it is in regards to going from a type of polytheism to monotheism, however it holds true for the Virgin Birth. Does anybody really believe that the primitive church held that the Heavenly Father had sex with Mary, then apostatized by claiming that Christ was born of a virgin?

The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are well known by most in the West and especially those who frequent this blog. Both testify that Jesus was born of a virgin – a virgin being a person who has never had sex with anyone – man, god, etc.

However, for Mormons there is a problem. Some GA’s of the 19th & 20th centuries have challenged the Virgin Birth. Aaron identified four – Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, James Talmage and Bruce McConkie. I would add Heber C. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Joseph Fielding Smith, Hugh B. Brown, and possibly Henry D. Taylor; there is a very good chance more could be added to the list. The idea that Mary was not a virgin, in the truest sense of the word, after she conceived was (and to some extant is) a widespread belief in Mormonism. The quotes from G.A.’s on the issue demonstrate that this belief was held at the highest echelons of Mormonism.

Read more »

Comments (230)

The ability to earn one’s own salvation is an important distinction in the teachings of the Mormon Church. Using the Book of Mormon passage that a person is saved “by grace after all (he or she) can do” (2 Nephi 25:23), LDS leaders throughout the years have made it abundantly clear that grace only takes a person to the dance, but the onus of one’s salvation is placed on the shoulders of the 14 million members and their good works.

This was made very clear in Seventy Jorge F. Zeballos’s message titled “Attempting the Impossible,” which he delivered during the Fall 2009 General Conference; it is printed in the November 2009 Ensign (pp. 33-34). Let’s provide some of Zeballos’s quotes to show what I mean:

• Quoting 3 Nephi 12:48 (“Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect”), Zeballos said that the Father and Jesus “are the models to be followed by each one of us.” It ought to be pointed out that this passage obviously came from Matt. 5:48;
• Zeballos said, “From a purely human point of view, at first this seems to be an impossible task. However, it begins to appear possible upon understanding that in order to achieve it, we are not alone.” Those he says will help an individual attain this perfection include the Father and Jesus.
• He then quotes D&C 14:7, which says, “And if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.” Zeballos promises that “this divine promise is possible to achieve.”
• Attaining this, he said, is necessary if we hope to “live with our Father and with our families forevermore.” In fact, “should not this promise be the greatest incentive to do the best within our reach and give the best of ourselves in pursuit of what has been promised to us?”
• “These rewards,” he said, “will be for those who nurture faith in Jesus Christ and comply with His will to work, sacrifice, and give all they have received to strengthen and build the kingdom of God.”
• Furthermore, “the fulfillment of the divine promise to have eternal life, to achieve perfection, and to be happy forevermore in the family unit is subject to the sincere demonstration of our faith in Jesus Christ, obedience to the commandments, perseverance, and diligence throughout our lives.”
• Fascinatingly enough, he declares, “The Lord does not expect that we do what we cannot achieve. The command to become perfect, as He is, encourages us to achieve the best of ourselves… (and) to realize our potential as children of God.”
• He adds, “The invitation and challenge to become perfect, to achieve eternal life is for all mankind.”

These quotes are interesting because, after motivating his audience to achieve perfection, Zeballos appears to back off from his hard teaching. This is indicated when he said,

“God will not require more than the best we can give because that would not be just, but neither can He accept less than that because that would not be just either. Therefore, let us always give the best we can in the service of God and our fellowmen…. Let us do the best we can and each day be a little better.”

The “trying your best” idea has been around for a long time, but President Spencer Kimball said this was a weak position. Kimball wrote the following in his 1969 book The Miracle of Forgiveness:

“Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin. To try with a weakness of attitude and effort is to assure failure in the face of Satan’s strong counteracting efforts. What is needed is resolute action” (p. 164).

Kimball then tells a story of a soldier who told his officer that he would “try” to fulfill an order. After he was reprimanded, the soldier told the officer that he would do his “best.” When the officer rejected this as not being good enough, the soldier said that he would “do it or die.” Kimball wrote,

“To this the now irate officer responded: ‘I don’t want you to die, and I don’t want you merely to do the best you can, and I don’t want you to try. Now, the request is a reasonable one; the message is important; the distance is not far; you are able-bodied; you can do what I have ordered. Now get out of here and accomplish your mission’” (p. 164).

To conclusively show that to try one’s best is all that the LDS God requires, Kimball concluded the section this way:

“To ‘try’ is weak. To ‘do the best I can’ is not strong. We must always do better than we can. This is true in every walk of life…. With the inspiration from the Lord we can rise higher than our individual powers, extend far beyond our own personal potential” (p. 165).

Perhaps Zeballos knew that trying is weak, because toward the end of his sermon he appeared to revert back to his original hard-line stance. In the last minute of his sermon, he provided a line from the title of his sermon that made things appear very clear:

“Even when, from a purely human perspective, perfection can appear an impossible challenge to achieve, I testify that our Father and our Savior have made known to us that it is possible to achieve the impossible. Yes, it is possible to achieve eternal life. Yes, it is possible to be happy now and forever” (emphasis mine).

What a confusing message! According to a current LDS general authority who was speaking at a general conference—a place where doctrine can be taught and clarified before the membership—complete obedience is necessary. The only way a person can find happiness is achieving the impossible. Yet can anyone actually achieve what is impossible? Oh, what a hopeless, confusing message that Mormonism offers!

———————-

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

———————-

Comments (179)

An email from a former Mormon (I’ll call “XM”) arrived in my inbox. He was disturbed over a video he found on You Tube. In the video, (now) LDS President Thomas Monson instructs LDS missionaries on how to find investigators (people interested in learning about the Mormon Church with a eye toward membership).

XM wrote,

“…listen closely at who he wants the missionaries to target. First he tells them how to ’set the stage’ [with members] by using ‘loaded language’ (Mind control tactic #6 of 8 Lifton) and addressing the ’sacred science’ (Mind Control tactic #5 of 8, Lifton). Then he goes on to [clarify] who he wants the missionaries to talk to by asking the member family, ‘first, who do you know who has recently lost a loved one; second, who do you know who has welcomed a newly born child to the family; third, who do you know who has recently moved into the neighborhood; fourth, who do you know who has trouble coping with their teenage children?’ All four of the examples have a common thread, all the people are in a vulnerable position and have just had an emotional or challenging experience happen in their life. Doesn’t it seem odd that the LDS organization that claims that it represents God would use [these] predatory practices?”

If you can get past the strong language he uses, XM raises a point worthy of discussion. Note that Mr. Monson talks about the “best way for a Mission to achieve its optimum productivity.” He says it won’t happen if the missionaries casually ask members for referrals. The missionaries need to find people who are at a vulnerable point in their lives in order to be successful.

XM wrote,

“I call these predatory practices because Monson does not ask for people who are: one, Stable in their Jobs; two, have a stable family life; three, who do you know who has raised their family in an honest fashion; and four, who do you know who is looking for the truth. Why would Monson want the missionaries to go after people who have experienced a major change in their life? We all become weak from time to time, emotional stress tends to take its toll, this is when the missionaries strike.

“The reason is surprisingly simplistic. People who have experienced one or more of the life changing or challenging events Monson describes are generally more open to hearing language that is best described as cult like language. Robert Lifton and Alan Hassan describe this technique as ‘Love Bombing.’ Love bombing is basically killing them with kindness. It is easy to conclude that someone who is having an emotional event in their life, who is feeling lonely, or confused by a situation, would be open and more receptive to a cult’s advances.”

When I first watched this video of President Monson, I thought, “Well, hurting people need the Good News and hope that Christ can bring into their shaky lives.” But then I realized that Mr. Monson is not suggesting that hurting people be ministered to in the name of the Lord. He’s not suggesting that the LDS missionaries bring them the hope and peace of Christ. He’s suggesting that these people be used to achieve optimum productivity for the Mission.

XM explained,

“It is completely appropriate to reach out to families and individuals who are experiencing life altering events; as a matter of fact it is important to be the friendly neighbor and friend. Most people help out or lend a shoulder to cry on out of the goodness of their heart. The difference here is that Monson has the intention of converting those families and individuals. The perceived concern for the family or person is conditional, the missionaries have an ulterior motive; that is to baptize. Jesus died for our sins, with no strings attached. It’s just disheartening that the organization that claims to be the ‘one true church’ has to resort to manipulative tactics that prey on people who are already having a tough time.”

People in the midst of these life-changing circumstances are tender. They’re afraid. They’re frustrated. They’re at the end of their ropes or feeling a heavy weight of responsibility. They don’t really need answers to questions about where they came from or why they’re here. They don’t need pressure to join the “One True Church” with all of its burdens piled on top of their already overloaded backs. They need their burdens relieved, their fears calmed, their hopes renewed.

They don’t need to become a statistic that allows an LDS mission to “achieve its optimum productivity.” They need Jesus–the one and only answer for their souls.

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me,
for I am gentle and lowly in heart,
and you will find rest for your souls.”
Matthew 11:28-29

———————-

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

———————-

Comments (125)

As a Mormon said on CARM’s Mormonism forum:

“Mary was no longer a virgin after having sex with God the Father. Jesus was born of a virgin, a virtuous young woman, who up to that point, did not have sex with any man.”

Or as an ex-Mormon wrote on the same forum:

“I was LDS. It was explained to me that the spirit overcame Mary and that a sexual union between Elohim and Mary took place (because the spirit overcame her she had no memory of the event). She was still a ‘virgin’ because intercourse did not happen with a human. This is what I was taught and there were plenty of quotes from leaders that were used to support this idea. I was a convert and I required a LOT of teaching about this concept.”

It’s a serious issue. And it still matters.

I talked the night of the above video with a descendant of James Talmage about the mrm.org/virgin-birth issue. He was upset that I was criticizing Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie over their denial of the virgin birth. I asked him if he personally believes the New Testament is compatible with the idea of God the Father coming down to have physical relations with Mary and he said he didn’t want to talk about it because the issue was too “sacred”.

Read more »

Comments (138)

About a year ago I heard the story for the first time. An LDS friend who was seriously questioning her chosen religion told me the story, punctuated by her confusion. If the LDS Church wasn’t of God (the conclusion she’d recently embraced), how could this reported miracle be explained?

It seems a friend of hers had once been at a fireside and listened as a Japanese man told of his conversion to the LDS Church. The story went like this:

On December 7, 1941 Japanese planes flew over Hawaii on their way to bomb Pearl Harbor. One of the pilots (the man telling the story) noticed a big, white building sitting smack in the middle of fields growing pineapple and sugarcane. Reasoning that this building must be important to the US military, the pilot peeled off from the rest of the formation and flew over the building — the Laie Hawaii Temple — and attempted to drop a bomb to destroy it. But something went wrong and the bomb wouldn’t release. So, giving up, the pilot rejoined the other planes and completed the attack on Pearl Harbor, dropping his bombs with no further mechanical complications.

After the war, the Japanese pilot came into contact with LDS missionaries. When they showed him a picture of the Laie Hawaii Temple he recognized it as the building he had been unable to destroy. Noting that the temple had been protected by some unseen power, the man joined the LDS Church and spent the rest of his days telling his faith-promoting story at firesides.

My confused friend wondered, how can this be? Why would God protect the temple if it didn’t belong to Him?

Of course, we know that God often protects things that don’t “belong” to Him. As was said by a commenter here on Mormon Coffee recently, “God makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). But what about this particular “miracle” involving the Laie Hawaii Temple?

I’d never heard the story before, so it took me a bit by surprise. My friend knew the person who heard this story first-hand, right from the horses mouth, so to speak. I didn’t know what to say. But I went ahead and did a little research so I would be better prepared the next time I encountered the story.

What I found was that the LDS story is a myth that has grown out of a different true story. According to Mormon Myth-ellaneous by LDS author J. Michael Hunter, 30 years ago BYU history professor Kenneth Baldridge set out to prove or disprove this report. For many reasons, he finally judged the story to be false; if there ever was a pilot, the man never joined the LDS Church, and he never gave fireside talks. Dr. Baldridge concluded,

“I humbly suggest that the tale be confined to the vast collection of Mormon folklore and not be repeated as an actual faith-promoting incident.”

So this LDS story is untrue, but it had a beginning and Dr. Baldridge thinks he knows where it came from.

“Baldridge thinks the fireside rumor came from the story of Captain Mitsuo Fuchida, a Pearl Harbor pilot who later converted to Christianity–not the LDS Church–after reading a religious tract during the war-crimes trials. One of the few Pearl Harbor veterans to survive the war, he later became a traveling evangelist and often told his story throughout Japan and North America in his speech, ‘From Pearl Harbor to Calvary.’” [At the linked site scroll down to access Captain Fuchida's testimony.]

Okay, one mystery is solved, but another is left in its wake: Why did my friend’s friend claim to have heard this fictional pilot tell his story at a fireside she attended? This mystery is one I can’t solve.

———————-

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

———————-

Comments (32)

At NewsOK, November 30, 2009:

Utah’s Spanish Fork has Krishna temple

PROVO, Utah (AP) — Ask any Spanish Fork resident and they will be able to point you in the direction of one of the most unique buildings in town and possibly in the whole state. Perched on a hill just south of downtown Spanish Fork stands the Sri Sri Radha Krishna Temple. Completed in 2001, the Krishna Indian Hindu Temple certainly stands out among the surrounding rural fields.

Hare Krishna is an Eastern religion that worships Krishna, a god who appeared in India about 5,000 years ago. To followers, Krishna exhibited divinity unlike anyone before, during or since his time on earth. Krishna devotees, or Vaishnavas, spend their life studying and serving Krishna. Vaishnavas study a sacred Hindu scripture called the Bhagavad Gita…

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has supported the temple since its inception. In fact, the church gave $25,000 to help build it.

Hmmm. Passionate zeal for exclusive devotion to the true God is demanded throughout the entire Old Testament history of God’s dealings with His covenant people. When He led them into the land of Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey, God ordered the complete destruction of all the marks of idolatry found in that place. The altars, the sacred pillars, the carved images were to be torn down. “You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree” (Deuteronomy 12:2). God demanded that His people be holy — set apart — and that they, like Him, not tolerate pagan religion. They were to guard the purity of their worship of the one true God lest the presence of false gods become too great a temptation and compromise that true worship.

Destroying places of false worship is not what God’s people are called to do in this current age of grace. Instead, followers of Christ are instructed to be patient while reasoning with those who are in opposition to the truth, and always be ready with an answer for the hope that is within them. Even so, in the New Testament the Apostle Paul reissues the call for God’s people to be set apart. He argues, “What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion dies a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:15-16).

A question arose in the New Testament church regarding the eating of meat sacrificed to idols in pagan rituals. Within the context of this discussion Paul asserts that, though an idol is nothing, behind pagan ritual is the reality of Satan’s work. These sacrifices are made to demons and not to God. “I do not want you to be participants with demons,” Paul says. His mandate is that believers flee from idolatry; have nothing to do with paganism (1 Corinthians 10:14-20).

Paul has given followers of Christ a rule to live by which is easily discerned: Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. All Christian behavior should be for the glory of God and for the salvation of the lost, taking care that nothing is done which would cause anyone to stumble (1 Corinthians 10:31-33).

So I wonder: What would the Apostle Paul have to say about the LDS Church’s large donation toward the building of a temple for the worship of a false god?

———————-

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

———————-

Comments (148)