Mormon Coffee

On January 25th (2010) LDS Seventy Bruce C. Hafen spoke at the University of Utah during a fireside for young adults. Though I didn’t agree with everything, I found some of Mr. Hafen’s remarks (as reported in Mormon Times) to be quite refreshing. For instance,

“Faithful questioning is a hallmark of a searching soul, he said…”

I don’t know what Mr. Hafen meant by “faithful” questioning, but I agree with his implication that spiritual questioning is a good thing. Mr. Hafen goes on to qualify his remark by excluding information found on the Internet that is critical of Mormonism, suggesting that searching souls have no way of knowing whether the arguments presented have “already been discredited” or “addressed by Mormon scholars and leaders.” On this I disagree. In my experience, a searching soul will usually find both sides of an argument on the Internet quite readily.

Mr. Hafen, using a mountain metaphor, reportedly conveyed,

“Other ‘mountains’ in the gospel are the doctrines of premortal life and eternal nature of the soul, the Mormon rejection of original sin and the hallowed, the nature of the Godhead, and the elevated way the church views Eve.

“These are not ‘picky, theological details,’ he said, ‘they are life-giving differences.’”

To which I heartily assent. I like the way Christian pastor and author A.W. Tozer conveyed a similar idea:

“What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us. The history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen above its religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God. Worship is pure or base as the worshiper entertains high or low thoughts of God.

“For this reason the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like. We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God. This is true not only of the individual Christian, but of the company of Christians that composes the Church. Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God.” (The Knowledge of the Holy, 1)

Mr. Hafen’s talk continued, according to the Mormon Times report,

“When a person considers how unique the church’s understanding of core doctrine differs drastically from the rest of Christianity, ‘It shouldn’t come as a big surprise that other Christian churches don’t know quite what to do with us.’”

Thank you, Mr. Hafen. Again we agree. Core Mormon doctrines differ drastically from historic (and I would say biblical) Christianity. These are nothing less than “life-giving” or eternal-death-inducing differences; it is extremely important to know under which category these doctrines fall.

So I agree with some of what Mr. Hafen says above, but I disagree with his suggestion that the Christian church doesn’t know quite what to do with Mormonism. Long before Mormonism ever appeared on the scene Martin Luther wrote,

“I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered, neither love nor patience are in order…when these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy are in order, but only anger, dispute, and destruction–to be sure, only with the Word of God as our weapon.”

Indeed, “It is a plain Scriptural duty to ‘contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints’” (J.C. Ryle, quoting Jude 3). Let searching souls observe and study the battle. When ready, with armor on, let them enter into the fray (Ephesians 6:10-20).

———————-

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

———————-

Comments (13)

Always interested in Mormon history, I’m currently reading a book about the 1856 Mormon handcart tragedy. Before getting to the heart of the story, the author (David Roberts) provides a sketch of some of the history of the Saints leading up to the handcart “experiment.” Mr. Roberts touches on a bit of Mormonism’s past that we really haven’t discussed at Mormon Coffee; I thought you might like to read this. He writes about the infamous Danites:

By 1838 the numbers of Mormons in northwest Missouri had swelled to between eight thousand and ten thousand, 1,500 of them in Far West alone. It was too large a throng to be ignored. And the Saints did their part to stir up trouble. The paranoia engendered by very real persecution and vilification around Palmyra and Kirtland transmuted in Far West into grandiose assertions of superiority.

One of [Joseph] Smith’s closest associates, Sampson Avard–[Fawn M.] Brodie calls him “cunning, resourceful, and extremely ambitious”–proposed forming a secret Mormon army. [Sidney] Rigdon was enthusiastic, and Smith listened.

Thus was born the most nefarious organization ever to coalesce within the Mormon church. Referred to at various early stages as the Brothers of Gideon, the Daughters of Zion, or the Sons of Dan, the band–less an army than a kind of secret police–soon became known as the Danites. They took their name from a verse in Genesis: “Dan shall be a serpent by the way, and adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.”

Men handpicked for their skill with guns and their courage, the Danites were sworn to secrecy and invested with cabalistic handshakes and signals. They would prove, across nearly half a century, well into Brigham Young’s reign in Utah, a devastatingly effective cadre of assassins, targeting apostates, enemies, right Gentiles, and even Indians–in effect, the KGB of the Mormon church. Both Smith and Young would aver that the Danites never existed. In 1859, the famous journalist Horace Greeley arrived in Salt Lake City and won from Young one of the first interviews he ever gave to a professional newspaperman. Greeley pressed the Prophet hard, asking, among other questions, “What do you say of the so-called Danites, or Destroying Angels, belonging to your church?” Brigham smoothly countered, “What do you say? I know of no such band, no such persons or organization. I hear of them only in the slanders of our enemies.”

Leonard J. Arrington, whose Brigham Young: American Moses, published in 1985, is considered by orthodox Mormons to be the definitive life of the second Prophet, turns somersaults to deny the existence of the Danites in Utah. He insists that Young had instead “created a small force of Minute Men” charged with recapturing stolen livestock and establishing emigrant way stations, not with perpetrating murders and assassinations. As for the Danites, Arrington insists, “They played and continue to play a major role in western fiction, and many readers have imagined Brigham as a military dictator with a personal army of avengers who carried out his orders to capture, torture, and kill people who crossed him.” (Many non-Mormons regard Arrington’s voluminous biography as a partisan whitewash, and insist the definitive life has yet to be written.)

There is simply far too much evidence not only of the existence of the Danites, but of the specific murders and assassinations carried out by thugs whose names and characters we can identify. One of the most notorious, Bill Hickman, who eventually fell out with Young, collaborated in 1872 with an anti-Mormon journalist to publish his confessions of many a murder and robbery ordered by the Prophet, under the lurid title Brigham’s Destroying Angel. And from 1838, within weeks of the founding of the secret society, a text survives in which Smith himself sums up Avard’s clandestine orders to his Danite captains. Among other duties, they were instructed “to go out on a scout of the borders of the settlements, and take to yourselves spoils of the goods of the ungodly Gentiles” and “you will waste away the Gentiles by robbing and plundering them of their property; and in this way we will build up the kingdom of God.”

In the middle of 1838, Missouri settlers indeed began to complain of goods and livestock stolen, of barns and houses burned. (David Roberts, Devil’s Gate: Brigham Young and the Great Mormon Handcart Tragedy, 2008, pages 50-51. Emphasis retained from the original.)

Mr. Roberts does not identify the source of Joseph Smith’s 1838 summing up of Danite orders (Roberts quotes Avard, not Smith), but he may be referring to this entry in Smith’s journal:

July 27th [1838] [For] Some time past the brethren or Saints have come up day after day to consecrate and to bring their offerings into the store house of the Lord to prove him now herewith and se[e] if he will not pour us out a blessings that there will not be room enough to contain it. They have come up hither. Thus far, according to order /revelation/ of the Danites. We have a company of Danites in these times, to put right physically that which is not right, and to cleanse the Church of every [very?] great evil[s?] which has hitherto existed among us inasmuch as they cannot be put to right by teachings and persuasyons. This company or a part of them exhibited on the fourth day of July [-] They come up to consecrate, by companies of tens, commanded by their captain over ten. (An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, 198, Scott H. Faulring, editor. Brackets retained from the original.)

———————-

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

———————-

Comments (12)

You can download the video here.

Comments (101)

The Bible talks about church discipline. With a double emphasis on holding firmly to the truth and living a moral life, the New Testament says the church (the body of true believers) is to call sinners to repentance. If someone is accepted as part of the visible church but refuses to repent of sin, whether it is of a moral nature or a heretical nature, the church is to turn them out of the fellowship.

For example, 1 Corinthians 5 tells of a man in the church who is proudly unrepentant of his blatant immorality. Paul instructs, “Let him who has done this be removed from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:2). Following this pronouncement Paul includes, “Purge the evil person from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:13).

When Paul wrote to Titus, he warned about a person who “stirs up division” within the church with unsound doctrine. Paul says, “…after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11).

Jesus spoke about what to do with unrepentant people in the church also. After approaching the person twice with a call to repentance, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector,” Jesus said (Matthew 18:15-20).

In 2 Corinthians Paul warns the church about people who teach heresy for truth. He calls them “false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). Paul told the Corinthians, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial?  Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?…’Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord’” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

Why do I bring this up? A friend of mine once said, “Mormons want to be embraced as part of the Christian church, but they wouldn’t be happy with the reality. For if they were part of the visible church, they would be subject to discipline for believing the heretical doctrines the LDS Church teaches.”

What would the result of such church discipline look like on a corporate scale? It would look exactly like what we see today. In obedience to the mandates of Scripture, the greater Christian church would denounce Mormonism and remove it from among us. The Christian church would purge itself of LDS heresy. It would have nothing more to do with Mormonism. We would be obligated to obey the command to be separate from the LDS Church, for what fellowship has light with darkness?

If Joseph Smith and his followers were ever embraced as part of Christianity, if Joseph ever taught his followers the true nature of God as God has revealed Himself in the Bible, when Joseph began to teach that God the Father became a God by obedience to laws and ordinances, that there are multiple true Gods, and that human beings can become the same sort of God as God the Father has become if we but follow the same path of obedience, everything would have changed.

At that point Christians would have been obligated to call Joseph Smith to repentance for his false teachings. Historical evidence suggests that this very thing transpired. But Joseph refused to repent. Therefore, by necessity, compelled by the Word of God, Mormonism would have been (and has been) cut off from the tree of Christian fellowship.

Today Christians continue to call believers in Mormonism to repentance for the sin of idolatry. We plead, “Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and incline your heart to the LORD God of Israel” (Joshua 24:23). Put them away, friends, and enter into the joy of the Lord.

———————-

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

———————-

Comments (215)

A newspaper story from Australia came across my desk this week. It seems that some students and staff at Melbourne’s Deakin University are being annoyed by LDS missionaries:

MORMON missionaries are “creepily” spruiking for new members in an underpass near Deakin University, an academic says.

Two missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints are regularly found at an underpass that leads from Deakin University to the number 75 tram on Burwood Highway.

Deakin staff member Colleen Murrell said the pair had harassed students.

“It is just creepy to have two young men hanging around in an underpass all the time,” Ms Murrell said.

MS. Murrell later (in the comments section) relates that she has seen these missionaries follow a female student:

“He followed her right the way up the stairs and cornered her in the tram stop. I asked the woman if they were harrassing her and she said yes.”

I believe one man’s (or woman’s) harassment may merely be another’s attempt at friendliness (or proselytizing), so I don’t find fault with the LDS missionaries here; nor do the Mormons who left comments on the article’s web site. But some folks don’t like it, and I think it’s interesting that the Mormons seem unable to understand that.

I think back to the ’70s when “Hare Krishnas” were actively approaching people on street corners, in shopping malls, and (most notoriously) in airports. Selling flowers, literature, or ideology, though they were soft-spoken they succeeded in annoying Americans coast-to-coast.

I think of my own missionary activities. Are people happy to see me at LDS events with literature in hand? Do they enjoy being required to accept or decline the literature I offer as they walk by? I don’t think so. I am neatly dressed, friendly, and sensitive (I believe) in my approach, yet I am unwelcome by many. I get that.

And that’s what I find so interesting about a similar scenario with Mormons. They don’t get that. In the newspaper article about the Deakin University Underpass Missionaries, the local mission president, Corey Lindley, could not believe that the missionaries would harass anyone. Therefore, referring to the complaints that had been lodged against them, Mr. Lindley suggested, “Maybe it is people from another religion who are unhappy about us being there.” Is that it? Is persecution always the Mormon answer?

Personally, I don’t think people are necessarily upset with the Mormon aspect of these missionary encounters; they are merely annoyed at being interrupted and accosted — perhaps day after day — with something that doesn’t interest them. This classic scene from Airplane is a great illustration:

There is a difference between rejection and persecution. In the case of the Deakin University Underpass Missionaries, it appears that people just don’t want to be bothered. Is that so hard to understand?

This, of course, is neither here nor there when approaching the question of whether Mormonism is true. Again, I find no fault with the Deakin University Underpass Missionaries, or anyone else who publically approaches people with respect. The missionaries should keep doing their jobs, even if some are offended. I write about this merely as a curiosity–an interesting facet of Mormon culture.

———————-

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

———————-

Comments (24)

One significant difference between biblical teaching and Mormonism has to do with the nature of God’s Law. LDS leaders teach that salvation/exaltation is gained through faith plus works. To achieve the celestial kingdom (to spend eternity in the presence of God) one must believe in Christ and also keep the commandments embodied in the Law.

“It [the Book of Mormon] promises each of us that ‘all who will come unto [the Savior] and obey the laws and ordinances of his gospel may be saved’ (Robert D. Hales, “Holy Scriptures: The Power of God unto Our Salvation,” Ensign, 11/2006, 24)

Indeed, according to a seasoned BYU Professor of Theology, God Himself is subject to the Law:

“Many traditional theologies conceive of God as some type of divine power, the ‘first cause’ or ‘prime mover’ of the universe, the self-creating, self-motivating source of all creation and progression. Many theologians claim that nothing existed before him, and that all things derive from him. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, assert that God progressed to his present state of perfection and glory by strict adherence to eternal law. In Mormon theology, law is the first cause and prime mover of the universe, and by adherence to it, people may become like God” [which is to say, people may become Gods] (Victor L. Ludlow, Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel, Deseret Book Co., 382. Brackets mine. ).

However, the Bible teaches something quite different. Rather than God being subject to the Law (i.e., the Law is above God), God created and gave human beings His Law for His sovereign purposes. In Galatians Paul provides both the reason and the goal of the Law:

“Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary” (Galatians 3:19).

“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian [the Law], for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (Galatians 3:25-26).

Tabletalk magazine explains:

“In describing the Law’s purpose in justification, Paul must also give us the Law’s purpose in the history of redemption, which he does in [Galatians 3] verses 19-29. Given the priority of the Abrahamic covenant, which bestows salvation on those who trust in God’s promise (vv. 15-18), it is clear that the Lord never intended His Law, which grants righteousness to those who keep its precepts flawlessly, to be used by sinners to effect their own salvation. Even the structure of the Mosaic law denies that fallen people can justify themselves by their works of obedience. Our Creator gave the Law after He redeemed the Israelites from slavery (Ex. 20:1-17), expecting them to obey it in gratitude for a redemption He accomplished, not to earn their own righteousness. The Law’s sacrifices for atonement presuppose that the people would continue to miss the mark.

“Knowing the fall made us stubborn enough to believe we can get right with Him by doing enough good works to ‘outweigh’ our bad ones, God gave the Mosaic law to Israel in order to refute this belief. The Law ‘was added because of transgressions’ (Gal. 3:19) to imprison ‘everything under sin’ (v. 22). It reveals wrongdoing as a transgression of the divine will (Rom. 7:7-25) to show Israel the depth of sin and her need for the righteousness of another. Augustine writes on 3:22 ‘Transgression of the law was needed to break the pride of those who…boasted of having a sort of natural righteousness’ (Ancient Christian Commentary, NT vol. 8, p. 47). Martin Luther echoes this in his Galatians commentary, explaining how the Law prepares a person for faith as ‘a mirror that shows…he is a sinner, guilty of death, and worthy of God’s indignation and wrath.’ Rightly used, the Law spurred Israel to look to God for salvation.” (Tabletalk, February 2009, vol. 33, no. 2, page 45)

So the Law was given because of transgressions — because of evil (Genesis 6:5) — to:

• Restrain the ungodly and unholy (1 Timothy 1:8-10)
• Reflect (as in a mirror) the depth of our sin (Romans 7:7)
• Enslave us in order that we recognize our inability to save ourselves (Galatians 3:23)
• Lead us to Christ “that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:25); and finally,
• Reveal God’s perfect will, to define a holy life, that we may know how to honor and serve the God we love as we seek to please Him (Psalm 119:105)

Again from Tabletalk:

“Remember that our Savior pleased the Father by keeping His Law perfectly, by seeing the will of God as His ‘food’ (John 4:34). If the imitation of Jesus makes us grow spiritually (1 Cor. 11:1), and if Jesus followed the commandments of His Father to please Him, then it follows that we will please God if we keep His Law. We cannot keep it perfectly, and we cannot make Him love us or accept us through our obedience. However, we can bring Him pleasure in doing good. Freed from the curse of the Law through the cross, we can now keep these holy statutes by the power of His Spirit (Rom. 8:1-4).” (Tabletalk, February 2009, vol. 33, no. 2, page 53)

The Bible says the Law was given by God to lead us Christ; believers strive to obey God’s Law out of gratitude and as an expression of our love for Him.

Dr. Ludlow, after decades of research, Church callings, and teaching for the LDS Church, believes Mormonism says the Law is the “first cause” and “prime mover of the universe”; that God the Father–and every other human being–is required to obey it in order to prove themselves worthy and exalt themselves to Godhood.

See the difference?

———————-

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

———————-

Comments (108)

Christianity is a monotheistic religion, but what is Mormonism? Mormonism has been called monotheistic, polytheistic, henotheistic, tri-theistic, and more recently, monolatristic. I don’t know if there is a defined theistic category that fits Mormonism, but let’s look at what these five are, and see which seems best suited for the LDS belief system.

I checked three sources for definitions; they all said essentially the same thing. Provided below are the definitions as found in the Dictionary of -Ologies & -Isms at the Free Online Dictionary (also see The American Heritage Dictionary at the same url and the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry Dictionary of Theology). These definitions are simplistic, but they are adequate for our purpose here.

• Monotheism: the doctrine of or belief in only one God.
• Polytheism: a belief in, or worship of, many gods.
• Henotheism: a belief in one supreme or specially venerated god who is not the only god.
• Tri-theism: 1) the heretical belief that the Trinity consists of three distinct gods; 2) any polytheistic religion having three gods.
• Monolatry: the worship of one god without excluding belief in others.

Monotheism/Polytheism

In June of 1844 Joseph Smith preached a discourse that has been sub-titled “Plurality of Gods.” He said,

“I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, ‘Abba, Father!’ Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 375).

Mr. Smith also said that humans must “learn how to be Gods…the same as all Gods have done before” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346), and claimed that whenever he preached on the subject of Deity, “it has always been the plurality of Gods” (ibid, 370).

If we accept the definition of “polytheism” as “a belief in, or worship of, many gods,” according to the teachings of Joseph Smith, Mormonism is polytheistic. But polytheism is a broad classification comprised of narrower sub-categories, including (but not limited to) henotheism, tri-theism and monolatry.

Henotheism

Early LDS apostle Orson Hyde taught,

“There are Lords many, and Gods many, for they are called Gods to whom the word of God comes, and the word of God comes to all these kings and priests. But to our branch of the kingdom there is but one God, to whom we all owe the most perfect submission and loyalty; yet our God is just as subject to still higher intelligences, as we should be to him” (Orson Hyde, “A Diagram of the Kingdom of God.” Millennial Star 9 [15 January 1847]: 23, 24, as quoted in The Words of Joseph Smith, 299).

This does sound like the definition of “henotheism,” a belief in one supreme God who is venerated or worshiped above all other Gods. Yet we should also consider the teaching of a later LDS apostle:

“Three separate personages – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 576).

Tri-theism

Perhaps Mr. McConkie’s statement quoted above would fit here as well. Tri-theism defines the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three Gods. Joseph Smith’s teaching agreed with Mr. McConkie’s:

“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370; emphasis mine).

Monolatrism

Monolatry is defined as the worship of only one God, though there are others that exist. As we have seen above, Bruce McConkie taught that Mormons believe in untold numbers of true Gods, but they worship only the three Gods that pertain to this world. On another occasion Mr. McConkie said,

“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” (Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 60).

Indeed, the Book of Mormon instructs people to worship Christ (e.g., see 2 Nephi 25:29 and 3 Nephi 11:17), and some LDS leaders have agreed (e.g., Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign 11/1998, 70). Nevertheless, sixth LDS Prophet and President Joseph F. Smith taught the contrary,

“And yet, while we give the honor and glory unto the Lord God Almighty for the accomplishment of his purposes, let us not altogether despise the instrument that he chooses to accomplish the work by. We do not worship him; we worship God, and we call upon his holy name, as we have been directed in the gospel, in the name of his Son. We call for mercy in the name of Jesus; we ask for blessings in the name of Jesus” (Gospel Doctrine, 139).

Where do we put Mormonism in this array of isms? LDS author Rodney Turner wrote, “Mormonism is simultaneously monotheistic, tri-theistic, and polytheistic. There is but one God, yet there is a Godhead of three, and beyond them, ‘gods many, and lords many’ (1 Cor. 8:5).” (Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., “The Doctrine of the Firstborn and Only Begotten”).

What do you think? Is it unreasonable to call Mormonism “polytheistic,” as Latter-day Saints often assert? Is the designation “monolatry” a better fit? Because of the lack of consistency in LDS teachings it may be impossible to figure out where Mormonism really belongs. We might, therefore, invent a new term: Mormontheism. But I rather like Aaron’s conclusion. He said, “Whatever they want to call it, it’s spelled i-d-o-l-a-t-r-y.”

———————-

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

———————-

Comments (147)

Taken from The Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions, edited by Arthur Bennett.

Most High God,
The universe with all its myriad creatures is thine,
Made by thy word,
Upheld by thy power,
Governed by thy will.
But thou art also the Father of mercies,
The God of all grace,
The bestower of all comfort,
The protector of the saved.
Thou hast been mindful of us,
Hast visited us,
Preserved us,
Given us a goodly heritage –
The Holy Scriptures,
The joyful Gospel,
The Saviour of souls,
We come to thee in Jesus’ name,
Make mention of his righteousness only,
Plead his obedience and sufferings
Who magnified the law both in its precepts and penalty,
And made it honorable.
May we be justified by his blood,
Saved by his life,
Joined to his Spirit.
Let us take up his cross and follow him.
May the agency of thy grace prepare us for thy dispensations.
Make us willing that thou shouldest choose our inheritance and
Determine what we shall retain or lose, suffer or enjoy;
If blessed with prosperity may we be free from its snares,
And use, not abuse, its advantages;
May we patiently and cheerfully submit to those afflictions
Which are necessary.
When we are tempted to wander, hedge up our way,
Excite in us abhorrence of sin,
Wean us from the present evil world,
Assure us that we shall at last enter Immanuel’s land
Where none is ever sick,
And the sun will always shine.

May the coming year be one in which we each take up His cross and follow Jesus. Happy New Year!

Comments (2)

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)

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)