Mormon Coffee

Images of the Restoration is a really interesting blog site for those interested in Mormon history. Currently, the site includes 10 drawings that represent different aspects of the foundational history of the LDS Church with documented historical accounts accompanying each image. Some of the topics included are Oliver Cowdery’s gift of using a divining rod, Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon, the nine First Vision accounts, and the final hours at Carthage Jail (pictured below).

The creators of the site explain,

“Many interesting and informative events in the development of Mormonism have never been depicted in visual art, and remain concealed in big, dry history books. This site represents an attempt to bring some of these events to light. Hopefully, after viewing these images, those history books won’t seem so big or dry anymore.

“Many other important facts and events in the development of Mormonism have appeared in Mormon art, but some have been depicted in ways that are materially inaccurate and misleading. This is a place to find Mormon art that is as true as possible to the historical record.”

Consequently, the depiction of the Prophet and his friends in Carthage Jail is unlike anything we might find in any official LDS portrayal of the event. The description of the image given at Images of the Restoration begins:

“Joseph and Hyrum Smith were murdered in a gunfight in the late afternoon of June 27, 1844. This drawing depicts the hours immediately before that gunfight, which Joseph, Hyrum, John Taylor, and Willard Richards spent smoking, drinking, and singing to lighten their mood.”

This description is followed by several supportive quotes from History of the Church and one from William Clayton’s Journal.

As might be anticipated, many Mormons do not like the Images of the Restoration site. Here are a few comments as reported in a February 2008 Beliefnet News article:

• “Kim Farah, a spokeswoman at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, expressed ‘zero interest’ in commenting on the ‘anti-Mormon’ blog.”
• “William R. Stringham, a Mormon bishop in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, said trying to understand Mormon doctrine through the ‘anti-Mormon activists who are parading as historians’ would be like trying to understand Judaism through the writings of Adolf Hitler.”
• “Scott Gordon, president of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), an independent Mormon apologetics group, said the issues portrayed on the blog are ‘favorites that are brought up and highlighted by antagonists of the LDS Church.’”

Interesting comments, especially in light of the fact that the “anti-Mormon activists” and “antagonists” who created the images and the blog site are Latter-day Saints.

This raises the question: What, exactly, constitutes being “anti-Mormon”? It seems that here, among these LDS people quoted, “anti-Mormon” is synonymous with a truthful presentation of LDS history. Which, for me, raises yet another question.

A new LDS Church History Library is currently under construction in downtown Salt Lake City. Speaking of the extensive collection of documents that will be housed in the Library, Church historian and member of the Seventy Marlin K. Jensen said,

” These documents are the crown jewels of Mormonism. The truthfulness of Mormonism is inextricably tied to its history, and it is in our best interest to preserve these records and make them available to those who wish to study the origins of this remarkable faith.”

My question: Will the new Church History Library be “anti-Mormon”? Or will it instead portray a perhaps inaccurate but faith-promoting view of Mormon history?

Comments (13)

My neighbors are very kind, loving generous people. They seem like the most happy people in the world to me and my husband. They are not wealthy, and we are, yet something is missing. We asked them why they are so happy and they told us about their church. It seemed so amazing and wonderful, we asked them what things they had to do to stay in the church. They told us about the commandments and the strict but humble rules they follow. I saw a protestor with this address so it is why I am asking, why do people like you protest against these kind and loving people. I have seen what they do and when people like you protest and say they are being “mislead” it ruins something, almost like a peace. What if these Mormons are wrong? What if they are being led astray to the depths of Hell. They are good and happy people, and no matter what you think about them, you should give them their peace. Or do you people think that freedom of choice should be dropped. These people choose to be happy and when I see people like you I am disgusted, maybe I am being led astray.

Hi,

Thank you for your email. I will try to answer your questions.

I’d like to clarify that we at Mormonism Research Ministry wholly believe in freedom of religion. The material we produce and distribute is primarily for the purpose of educating people about the differences between Mormonism and biblical Christianity as we understand it. The goal is to help people become better informed so they may make good, sound decisions about their possible involvement with the LDS Church. We support their right to make whatever decision they choose.

You have suggested that a person’s earthly “peace” is more important than their eternal future. You ask, “What if these Mormons are wrong? What if they are being led astray to the depths of Hell. They are good and happy people, and no matter what you think about them, you should give them their peace.” I appreciate your perspective/opinion on this, but I cannot agree with you. If someone was being “led astray to the depths of Hell” the loving thing to do would be to try to rescue them.

My brother is a firefighter. When he is called to fight a house fire several things happen. Even if it’s the middle of the night and people everywhere are sleeping comfortably, he jumps on a truck that screams through the streets with flashing lights and a blaring siren. He arrives at the burning home and begins pounding on the door with all his might in an effort to disturb the peace of the family inside. “Wake up! Fire! Get out!!!” Once the family is safely outside he climbs up on the roof with his ax and begins destroying the home. He chops, others flood the place with water, destroying furniture, family photos, and parts of the structure itself. Once the fire is out, the home is a complete mess — but hopefully not a complete loss. The family is saved and the home can be repaired.

My brother could follow your suggestion and refrain from disturbing the family’s peace. After all, while they are sleeping they are happily unaware that their life is in danger and their home is turning to ash. He could let them have their peace and die in their sleep. I think you and I would agree that that would be terribly wrong.

If preserving earthly life is important enough to risk shattering a person’s peace, surely a person’s eternal life is even more important. There was a Christian preacher in the 19th century who said something about this. His name was Charles Haddon Spurgeon and he said, “If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for.”

We at Mormonism Research Ministry pray for the LDS people. We care deeply about their eternal future. We cannot (and would not) force them to change religions. But we sincerely believe that Mormonism is a false religion which leads people away from their only hope for reconciliation with holy God, and so we implore them (and others) to take a closer look at what the Bible says with the hope that they will find true peace, the peace that surpasses all understanding, the peace that lasts forever (Philippians 4:7).

Thank you again for sharing your concern. Please let me know if there are any other questions I can try and answer for you.

In Christ,

Sharon

Comments (18)

During the Republican “Fox Forum,” news correspondent Chris Wallace pressed candidate Mitt Romney about his “attack ads” against John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Romney responded to this line of questioning with an answer I’ve heard him give before. Essentially he said his ads were not an attack, but merely a “comparison.” I happen to agree. I have no problem when politicians run ads that recount an opponent’s record; so for me, “comparison” ads are absolutely fair and I think necessary, because they tend to remind voters of things they may have overlooked or did not know. But here’s where many Mormons fall prey to the logical fallacy of equivocation. When Christians write articles that “compare” the teachings of Mormonism to that of Christianity, the Mormons rarely see them for what they are – a comparison. Mormons are often quick to accuse those who are critical of Mormonism as attacking their faith. Well, I’m glad to hear Mitt set the record straight.

This may also come as shocker to some, but I like listening to Mormon radio talk-show host Glenn Beck. I find him to be very entertaining, and though I don’t agree with everything he says, I have often found myself laughing out loud at some of his pithy comments. However, Beck committed a horrible logical fallacy on January 8th when he used the word bigotry to describe voters who say they would never vote for a Mormon. He “compared” this to those who claim they would never vote for a black man.

Here’s the problem. Skin color is a God-given attribute that a person has no control over and cannot change, nor should they. When it comes to what makes a person who he is, skin color, in and of itself, is really a benign factor. However, religious beliefs, like political beliefs, are views that must be learned and can be either accepted or rejected. Political ideals, like religious ideals are gleaned from a variety of sources and are subject to debate and disagreement. Both carry with them truth claims that automatically assume all other truth claims that conflict with them are of necessity, false. Differences of opinion are expected to be challenged when they trample on another’s truth claims yet nobody uses the term “political bigot.”

As a talk-show host Beck challenges truth claims on a daily basis, and I support him for it. However, when it comes to religious ideology, he expects us to set aside this standard when a Mormon candidate is involved. It isn’t that Beck does not understand the power of religious persuasion. In November of 2006 he demonstrated this all too well when he interviewed Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN). Said Beck, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.” He added: “I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.” Would Beck have been inclined to ask this if Ellison did not have an Islamic worldview? I don’t fault Beck for asking these questions, nor do I consider him a bigot for daring to say what he said. Just the same, people who do not share a Mormon worldview should be free to express their disagreement without fear of being given a negative label.

Comments (5)

Errol Louis, columnist for the New York Daily News, wrote an opinion piece about Mormonism for the online publication last Sunday (25 November 2007). More specifically, the article was about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism; but in the course of Mr. Louis’ remarks, he provided some basic information about the LDS belief system.

Though not LDS himself, Mr. Louis did a fair job representing the various aspects of Mormonism which he chose to discuss. Nevertheless, his column brought criticism and accusations from some members and friends of the LDS community. One reader noted:

“This is just Mormon bashing (and very uninformed bashing at that) disguised as an opinion piece of thoughtful commentary. 90% of the statements regarding Mormonism are either totally incorrect or given a spin to make the beliefs of these wonderful people sound ridiculous.” (tpdrjkt Nov 26, 2007)

What? Ninety percent of Mr. Louis’ statements regarding Mormonism are “totally incorrect” or spun to make Mormons look silly? This didn’t seem right to me, so I pulled out the fact-based statements about Mormonism (as opposed to Mr. Louis’ statements of opinion) to get a better look. Here they are:

• “…the [specifically] Mormon holy books [include] the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price…”

• “Mormons, it turns out, believe human souls have existed for all eternity, temporarily inhabit physical bodies and can eventually evolve into gods. They also believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and that tribes from Israel traveled to what is now America, built ancient cities and fought epic battles…”

• “Needless to say, there’s no physical evidence of the cities or the thousands killed in the ancient wars of the Mormon holy books, and DNA evidence rules out American Indians as descendants of ancient Israel…”

• “I want to know more about Bishop Romney’s beliefs and actions related to the Mormon religion’s odious and longstanding practices of racial segregation…”

• “Brigham Young, an early father of the Mormon Church, preached, ‘If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain [those with dark skin], the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.’”

• “Mormons barred blacks from becoming priests or taking part in the religion’s holiest rituals. This went on until 1978.”

I’m having trouble understanding “tpdrjkt’s” complaint. None of the above statements are “totally incorrect” and there doesn’t seem to be any added spin. Yet “tpdrjkt” is not alone with his concerns over Mr. Louis’ remarks. Consider this:

“Br. Louis, Italians have a name for what you’ve been told about the LDS Church: Baloney. For reasons of their own, certain vocal people love to spread the twisted stories you re-told. There are too many in your column to correct without a column of equal size. ..we mourn especially the twisted version of LDS racial beliefs you’ve been fed.” (Carelli Nov 26, 2007)

Another reader questioned Mr. Louis’ education. Wondering if such a man could possibly have any friends, “Leinads” complained that the article is filled with errors. Really, the accuracy of only one fact-based statement made by Mr. Louis can be reasonably disputed; that is, that Mormons believe human souls “temporarily inhabit physical bodies.” Mormonism teaches that the bodies inhabited by human souls after resurrection are different from earthly bodies, but they are, nevertheless, “physical.” Mr. Louis’ use of the word “temporarily” was imprecise; all other points he made are correct, amply supported by the teachings of LDS leaders.

So what’s all the commotion over Mr. Louis’ statements regarding Mormonism? Why are these pretty standard LDS doctrines labeled “baloney” by Mormons who should know these things are part of their church’s teachings? Is it possible they really don’t know?

Another New York Daily News reader took issue with Mr. Louis’ quote of Brigham Young. I wonder if it was the inclusion of the Mormon Prophet’s harsh words that generated the disclaimers from Mormons and their friends. The reader wrote,

I doubt if Brigham Young said any such thing. That is an outrageous quote attributed to Brigham Young - what is the source of that quote? I have an extensive database of thousands of Mormon references and find no match for a [s]ource for that quote. An[t]i-Mormon attacks, which I have studied for many years, have a long history of misquotations or outright false alleged quotations - so what is the source for this quote, because I do not find it in any Mormon sources? Even if he said such a thing, that is only his opinion, and personal opinions of Mormon leaders are not sources of Mormon doctrine or official Mormon beliefs.” (chuckb20DN Nov 26, 2007)

If “chuck20DN” had trouble finding the Brigham Young quote, he should have Googled it. When I searched for “seed of cain” the first hit was a link to an article on MRM’s web site which provides the Mormon source for the quote (Journal of Discourses 10:110) as well as additional related teachings by LDS leaders.

This reaction to Mr. Louis’ article strikes me as smoke and mirrors. Why is it Mormons seem to have such a hard time owning up to what Mormonism really is (or has been)? I ask (tongue-in-cheek), why are “ninety percent” of the criticisms brought against accurate remarks about Mormonism “totally incorrect” or spun to make the journalists look bad?

Agreeing with a popular misquoting of the Bard, “Methinks the [Mormon community] doth protest too much.”

Comments (56)

A tempest in an herbal teapot is brewing over a sermon preached by Dr. Robert Jeffress last month. On September 30th Dr. Jeffress told his congregation at First Baptist Church of Dallas,

“Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and Savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.”

The Dallas Morning News published a story about the sermon on October 18th. The next day LDS-owned Deseret News picked up on it and ran their own story.

The Deseret News article said Mr. Romney’s LDS membership has

“come under fire again — this time by a prominent Dallas minister who told his congregation Romney is not a Christian.

“The newspaper story published Thursday [in the Dallas Morning News] said some members of the pastor’s large audience began to applaud as he continued his discussion of Romney’s faith as part of a talk titled ‘The Power of a Positive Purpose.’

“‘What really distresses me is some of my ministerial friends and even leaders in our convention are saying, “Oh, well, he talks about Jesus, we talk about Jesus. What’s the big deal?” It is a big deal if anybody names another way to be saved except through Jesus Christ,’ the pastor said.”

As most readers of Mormon Coffee know, considering context is always important. Unfortunately, neither of the two newspaper articles placed Dr. Jeffress’ statements in context. Subsequently, though it should come as no surprise, his remarks are being widely misconstrued.

Dr. Jeffress was preaching on Philippians chapter 1 where Paul wrote about the different motives people had for “preaching Christ.” Some motives were good, some were bad. But for Paul,

“What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.” (Philippians 1:18)

Dr. Jeffress thought it important that his congregation understand what Paul meant by that, so he spent a few minutes explaining. He showed how important Paul considered the truth when it came to the Gospel message (Galatians 1:8). Therefore, Paul was not suggesting that the theology of what people said didn’t matter as long as they spoke the name of Christ (as a cursory reading might suggest). By way of illustration Dr. Jeffress made the remarks about Mitt Romney. Since he cannot know Mr. Romney’s heart, the pastor should have limited his comments to Mormonism, but his point was that Gospel truth is a non-negotiable essential.

Dr. Jeffress said,

“There are not many ways to God, there is only one way to God, and it’s through His Son, Jesus Christ.”

At this point in the sermon the congregation erupted in applause. The implication in Deseret News was that people applauded Dr. Jeffress’ continuing discussion of Mr. Romney’s faith. But that’s not so. The congregation actually applauded the Gospel message and the pastor’s call to stand firm for the truth.

Dr. Jeffress went on to explain that Christians often differ on some “finer points of theology,”

“but we must be united in the belief that faith in Christ alone is what saves.”

So, in Philippians, Paul is not saying he rejoices when people preach a false gospel, but that he rejoices when the true Gospel is preached, even if the motive of the preacher is impure.

Dr. Jeffress’ discussion of Mitt Romney and Mormonism lasted for one minute and sixteen seconds. He did not disparage Mitt Romney as a person nor as a politician; his remarks were wholly based on theological concerns. Many people who read the newspaper articles are up in arms over Dr. Jeffress’ comments. If only they would put it in context by listening to the entire sermon. Then we would really have something interesting talk about.

Comments (51)

A couple of weeks ago the Vatican released a document which reaffirmed its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. In the mass of media coverage following the release of this document, one Canadian newspaper column caught my attention.

Paul Albers is a freelance columnist in Ottawa who also happens to be LDS. Using the controversy surrounding the Vatican’s reaffirmation as a springboard, Mr. Albers wrote an opinion piece for the Canada Free Press in which he takes issue with evangelicals who delineate doctrinal differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity, and who make an effort to proselytize Mormons. He wrote:

“An industry has developed among Evangelicals that is focused on attacking other denominations, branding them as ‘cults of Christianity’ just for disagreeing with some of the conclusions they have reached about Christian doctrines. Individuals and businesses in this industry make their living selling books, movies and presenting speeches on the perceived evils and errors of their targets. Their hit list includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists and The Church of Jesus Christ or Latter-Day Saints (also known as the Mormons).

“As a practicing Mormon, I find it amusing to see their consternation at the Pope’s words when it is impossible for us to hold a single General Conference, temple dedication or religious pageant without Evangelicals showing up insulting and desecrating what we hold sacred in protest of the mere existence of our faith. In 1998 the Southern Baptist Convention decided to hold their national convention in Salt Lake City specifically to target Mormons for conversion. Mormons generally shrug these stunts off, supporting the right of all religions to conduct missionary work, but I can’t help but wonder how Evangelicals would react if Catholics began showing up at their events with anti-Protestant placards and pamphlets.”

I can’t speak for all evangelicals, but I recall a discernment conference I attended a few years back. Some folks from a group identified within the conference as heretical stood outside the building handing out opposition pamphlets to conference attendees. The evangelical response was to dialog with these folks, invite them in for lunch, and allow them to attend — and address — the conference session that covered their specific faith group.

At any rate, Mr. Albers offered this advice to Catholics and Protestants alike:

“Those who want to proselytize others to their faith would do better to concentrate on making the case for their position rather than going on the offensive against what others believe. They will likely be more successful that way as well…

“Freedom of religion is undermined by churches that spend their resources trying to tear down other religions, spread misinformation about them, or foster contention between faiths.”

I thought Mr. Albers’ advice surprising in light of teachings from the LDS Church’s last General Conference. Consider these:

Offensive against what others believe: “The knowledge of God and His physical separateness from His Son and the Holy Ghost was lost after the death of Christ and His Apostles. Confusion and false doctrines about the Godhead were fashioned out of the Nicene Creed and Constantinople councils…I know that heaven-sent revelations have replaced the gross errors of man-made doctrines concerning the Godhead.” (Gary J. Coleman, “Mom, Are We Christians?” Ensign 5/2007, 92, 93)

Misinformation: “When the emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, he became aware of the divisiveness among the clergy concerning the nature of Deity. In an attempt to overcome this he gathered the eminent divines of the day to Nicaea in the year 325… When a definition could not be reached, a compromise was made. It came to be known as the Nicene Creed, and it’s basic elements are recited by most of the Christian faithful.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Things of Which I Know,” Ensign 5/2007, 83)

Fostering discord between faiths: Speaking of the organization of the LDS Church, “Thus the Church of Jesus Christ was again in existence on the earth to bless mankind with the doctrines and teaching of the Savior… the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth…you can compare the glorious message with what you may hear from others, and you can determine which is from God and which is from man.” (L. Tom Perry, “The Message of the Restoration,” Ensign 5/2007, 88)

As readers of Mormon Coffee know, I don’t have a problem with the LDS Church pointing out differences between the doctrines of Mormonism and the doctrines of other faiths. Freedom of religion is not “undermined” when the LDS Church asserts that its doctrines and organization are true, which results in an implied proclamation that faiths in disagreement with Mormonism are not true. The problem I have is with the double standard I see so often coming from Latter-day Saints.

In his column, Mr. Albers was the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. I would like him to keep this in mind:

During their time in the mission field, most Christian missionaries around the world seldom find it necessary to discuss Mormonism (or the other religions on Mr. Albers’ list). The Christian missionary message begins with, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The Gospel message moves on to discuss the remedy for man’s eternal peril, Jesus Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:21).

Contrast that with the Mormon missionary message which begins with the Restoration: full spiritual truth and authority were not to be found on the earth — all religions and all Christian churches were wrong — but in 1830 truth and authority were finally restored and now can be found only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Every Mormon missionary kicks off his or her “gospel presentation” with a direct offensive against every non-LDS church. But it’s evangelicals who are chastised and accused of undermining freedom of religion.

Comments (30)