Mormon Coffee

New West Politics ran a story this week about the political race for Wyoming’s U.S. House seat. Two candidates are running neck-in-neck, but the Republican congressional candidate, Cynthia Lummis, hopes to add the Mormon vote to her support base. Mormons make up 10% of the voting Wyoming public.

Ms. Lummis is a conservative life-long Missouri Synod Lutheran, but she investigated Mormonism — up to the point of baptism — two times while in college. She had many LDS friends then, and, according to the New West Politics article, she hopes that history, coupled with her conservative politics, will win the day.

But, as the article mentioned, the LDS vote is not “monolithic.” Church leaders in Wyoming say there is a strong minority of Mormon Democrats in the state, and the Church allows people to vote their consciences.

Read more »

Eight years ago, 61 percent of California voters passed Proposition 22, the “California Defense of Marriage Act.” The proposition read very simply: “Only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California.” No doubt many Californians thought that because the people had spoken, the issue was over. But this was not to be the case. On May 15, 2008 four members (George, Werdegar, Moreno, and Kennard) of the seven-member California Supreme Court voted to overturn Proposition 22, thus reversing an earlier decision in 2004 that put a stop to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s defiant order to issue marriage certificates to nearly 4,000 same-sex couples.

Read more »

Last week Jeff Spector over at Mormon Matters wrote about an interesting phenomenon. In “Hedging Your Bets: Refusing to Leave the Church” Mr. Spector talked about inactive Mormons and the negative reactions from some of them when they are visited by their Home Teachers. Mr. Spector wrote:

“I have been yelled at, cursed at, threatened with the police, etc. just for showing up at a member’s door and asking about them. And yet, most do not want their name removed from the Church rolls.

“Either, they have family concerns, are just too lazy to write the letter, or don’t care enough to do anything about their Church membership other than request no contact from the Church….

“So, it has always intrigued me as to why these folks seem unable to completely divorce themselves from the Church. Even though they want no contact.”

Read more »

After reading some of the Google news alerts that came across my desk in the past couple of weeks I was left pondering several questions. For instance…

On August 27th this headline appeared: “Huckabee Denies Mormon Slur.” The story was actually a transcript from a Rush Limbaugh radio interview with former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. At issue was the comment Mr. Huckabee made during his campaign when, responding to a reporter’s question, he asked, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” Mr. Huckabee explained to Mr. Limbaugh,

“It was a question that I actually asked of the New York Times Magazine writer, because he knew a lot more about Mormonism than I did. It appeared as 11 words in about a 10,000-word story, and that got all the play.”

The question I ponder from this story is this: Since Mormonism teaches (and hence Mormons believe) that Jesus and the devil (Lucifer) are brothers, why was Mr. Huckabee’s comment labeled a “slur”? Would it have been a slur if Mr. Huckabee had said, “Mormons believe in baptism for the dead, don’t they?” Or, “Mormons believe God appeared to a farm boy in upstate New York, don’t they?” Or, “Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, don’t they?”

On September 3rd the Salt Lake Tribune ran a story titled, “Utah Democrats back off religion-based attack on Palin.” The article reported,

“The Utah Democratic Party charged this week that Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a ‘devout member of an anti-Mormon denomination’ and questioned whether LDS faithful should vote for her.”

As it turned out, the charge against Mrs. Palin by the Utah Democratic Party had no basis in fact:

“Palin is not a member of the church the Democrats are referencing, that church denies it is anti-Mormon and there’s no evidence of any anti-Mormon rhetoric from its pulpit.”

The Democratic Party has backed off and now says they have no plans to make Mrs. Palin’s religion an issue in the election. But one question I have been asking myself since reading this article is this: If it is bigotry to not vote for a Mormon because of his religion, isn’t it also bigotry to not vote for a non-Mormon because of her religion?

Someone who appears to be LDS (identified as ne1410s) left a comment about the Salt Lake Tribune story that included this:

The Utah Democrats have nothing to be ashamed of. Stan Lockhart’s phony righteous indignation doesn’t change the fact that the Assemblies of God [the denomination in question] are indeed anti-mormon. This is from their official web site:

http://www.ag.org/Pentecostal-Evangel/Articles2002/4579_spencer.cfm

The link provided by ne1410s does indeed go to the Assemblies of God web site, to an article which appeared in its denominational magazine Pentecostal Evangel in 2002. Written by former Mormon Jim Spencer, the article, titled “Is Mormonism Christian?” begins,

“Notice that the title of this article is not ‘Are Mormons Christians?’ That is a somewhat different question. No one can see into the human heart but God. No one but God is qualified to judge hearts. But, does Mormonism teach a consistent biblical doctrine — a Christian doctrine? That is an important question because we can judge the teachings of an organization. And we must do so if we are to faithfully discharge our responsibilities as Christ’s disciples.”

What follows in Mr. Spencer’s article is a look at several key doctrines (i.e., the nature of God, priesthood, grace, scripture, etc.) and how the LDS understanding of these doctrines differs from that of historic (biblical) Christianity.

My question: If it is “anti-Mormon” for a non-LDS organization to delineate some major differences between Mormonism and historic Christianity, is it also anti-Mormon when the LDS Church does the same? Or, if it has to do with the perspective of the author, should the LDS explanation of how Mormonism differs from other religions be deemed anti-evangelical? Or anti-non-Mormon? Based on the distinctions listed and explained on the LDS web site, is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints an anti-[fill-in-the-blank] denomination?

On September 4th the East Valley Tribune (Arizona) ran “Group uses billboards to reach out to ex-Mormons,” a story about PostMormon.org. The article described a recent billboard ad sponsored by the group:

“It features a generic smiling family of eight, a Post-It note that reads ‘You are not alone!’ and the Web site address: www.PostMormon.org.

The article went on to interview and record the stories of former Mormons and the feelings of loneliness they experienced after leaving the LDS Church. The article quoted an LDS spokesman in Arizona:

“I think it is another instance of people who have decided to leave the church. Generally, what we find is that oftentimes people who leave the church don’t leave quietly. [They sometimes] leave bitterly and want to make some sort of a statement.”

One Mormon (lmoll4) commented:

“Whether or not you believe what the church represents you should out of respect for other people who do believe, just leave it alone. Because you have left the church I am not going to attack you so I would hope that you would do the same. In this country we have freedo[m] of religion. Please be respectful of that.

This story raises yet more questions in my mind. If it is true that those who leave Mormonism and talk about it, that those who make statements about it are bitter and disrespectful, is it true that people who talk about having left another religion for Mormonism are also bitter and disrespectful? Are people who talk about their spiritual journeys into Mormonism attacking those who have not made the same journey? Are they infringing on the Constitutional rights of others to freely practice their own religions?

Just wondering…

Friends, as you engage in discussion please be aware of the Mormon Coffee profanity filter that removes the Mormon N-word from comments.

Last week Joel Campbell over at Mormon Times posted two columns (Wednesday and Saturday) dealing with the media and its treatment of Mormon issues. Wednesday’s column asked, “FLDS: Does the media get it yet?” Mr. Campbell took a look at how well the media is doing now, a month and a half after the LDS Church asked journalists to stop using the terms like “Mormon fundamentalists” and “Mormon polygamists” when reporting on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. According to Mr. Campbell, the frequency of the use of those terms is generally much lower now than before the Church made its request. However, terms including “renegade Mormon sect” and “breakaway Mormon sect” are still causing some consternation for the Church. Mr. Campbell wrote of one example,

“The Salt Lake Tribune has allowed the term ‘Mormon fundamentalist’ to appear in some of its recent news stories, including the front-page story about a home for fundamentalist grandmothers. The story was picked up by the Contra Costa Times and San Jose Mercury News, which ran the inaccurate headline ‘Mormon sect finds a home for its grandmothers.’”

Actually, the term “Mormon sect” could hardly be more accurate when applied to the FLDS Church. The dictionary definition of “sect” is “a group that has separated from an established church; a non-conformist church.” While it has not always used the FLDS name, the beginning of that church can be traced back to a separation from the LDS Church. The term “Mormon sect” identifies the FLDS group as one that has separated from an established church, and it identifies from which church it separated. The term is informative and correct. Latter-day Saints don’t like it, but their dislike of the facts does not change the facts.

Mr. Campbell’s Saturday column at Mormon Times was about how his readers responded to a question he asked of them: “So are Mormons treated fairly when the media chooses to identify religious affiliation of a story subject?” The responses he included are fairly typical: journalists are biased and lazy and sensationalize stories to put the Church in a bad light. I’m not sure what these folks are reading or watching, but the stories that come across my desk most often include glowing reports about Mormons joining other faith groups in providing disaster relief, Mormons going on missions, or Mormons winning Mrs. America pageants (etc.). Sure, there are occasional stories of fraud or child abuse, but from my perspective it seems that the LDS Church’s Public Relations firm is earning its fee well.

One of Mr. Campbell’s readers commented:

“The media are all a bunch of Johnny-one-notes when it comes to our faith. There really does seem to be a herd mentality, because every reporter falls back on the same tired tropes when it comes to Mormonism, almost as if newsroom computer keyboards have a macro set up (control-M?) to spew out ‘Big Love, 1978 revelation, magical underwear, evangelicals hate Mormons’ whenever a member of the Church (or the Church itself) makes news.”

This man decried the media’s use of “the same done-to-death stereotypes” in describing Mormons; but he didn’t express any concern over the repetitious use of the more positive stereotypes provided to the media by the LDS Church. It’s only natural that Mormons would want their church portrayed before the public in the best possible light, yet wholly positive stereotypes paint a picture no more accurate than negative stereotypes do.

In Utah they say there’s a great divide between the Mormons and the non-Mormons. Mormonism is often like that – black or white, all or nothing. If media reporting is not always positive about the LDS Church, it is perceived as being always negative. If the media uses the word “Mormon” in reports on FLDS news stories, though journalists may make an effort to use the word accurately and clarify possible public misperceptions regarding the LDS Church and today’s polygamy, Mormons think the media just doesn’t get it; and worse, the newspapers are accused of confusing people with inaccurate and misleading information.

That’s how Mr. Campbell and his readers at Mormon Times see it. I wonder how the readers here at Mormon Coffee would answer Mr. Campbell’s questions?

On July 24th (2008), at a sunrise service commemorating the first Mormon pioneers to enter the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, LDS Seventy Earl Tingey talked about some of the admirable traits of those first settlers. In addition to doing their duty, being willing to sacrifice for their beliefs, and raising “a righteous posterity” with faith and vision, Mr. Tingey praised these people for being “obedient to their prophets.”

Two weeks earlier (July 8, 2008), the BYU NewsNet web site published an article titled “Follow the Prophet.” In this editorial it was argued that “active Mormons” cannot and will not “disagree with the Prophet’s counsel.”

The context for the editorial was the June 29th statement by the LDS First Presidency asking Church members to do all they could to support California’s proposed marriage amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Some members had publicly disagreed with the Church directive; hence BYU NewsNet’s clarification of what it means to be an “active Mormon.”

The editorial stated,

“Regardless of their rationale for disagreeing, any ‘active Mormon’ sustains President Thomas S. Monson as the prophet, seer, revelator and mouth-piece of God. ‘Active Mormons’ raise their right hand during General Conference and sustain him and the other 14 apostles as the leaders of God’s church on the earth today. In sustaining, they are not voting for them or agreeing with their position, they are promising to support and listen to them.

“Consequently, ‘active Mormons’ know that when the prophet speaks, the debate is over. No matter how diligently someone reads their scriptures, attends church or pays a full tithe, unless they sustain President Monson, his counselors and the other 12 apostles, they are not ‘active Mormons.’”

The idea expressed in the editorial, that when the prophet speaks the debate is over, likely came from an address delivered at a Church-wide fireside meeting in 1978. There, Elaine Cannon, Young Women President, told the women of the Church,

“Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the Prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over.” (Ensign, November 1978, page 107)

The idea rang true with Church leadership for in the August 1979 First Presidency Message N. Eldon Tanner titled the message “The Debate is Over” and wrote,

“I was impressed by that simple statement [of Mrs. Cannon's], which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us…

Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” (Ensign, August 1979, page 2).

Mrs. Cannon’s words also appeared in “Lesson 12: Follow the Living Prophet,” from the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 1, page 39.

This is all in keeping with what an LDS prophet has spoken. President Heber J. Grant once said,

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it…” (quoted by Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1960, page 78).

It’s hard to accept as good counsel the directive to do what the LDS prophet says “even if it is wrong.” Of course, if Mormons understood the prophet to be infallible, that would be one thing. But the Mormon-on-the-street is quick to tell critics that the prophet is just a man, capable of giving his own opinion without identifying it as such. In that case, doing whatever the prophet says “even if it is wrong” becomes of serious concern. President Grant seemed to think, though, that the prophet was infallible; for after giving the above counsel he said, “But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”

Heber J. Grant died in May of 1945. The following month the LDS magazine Improvement Era had the following:

“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’ of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy….It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking.’…When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.” (June 1945, page 354)

This sounds a lot like “‘active Mormons’ know that when the prophet speaks, the debate is over.” If these teachings are to be believed, any Latter-day Saint that does his own thinking is not only unworthy of the title “active Mormon,” but he is unwittingly cultivating a spirit of apostasy.

You might consider bringing this up the next time a Mormon objects to the teachings of a Latter-day Prophet with, “That’s just his opinion.”