It’s common around here to hear people respond to the content of these ads with a shrug and a “So what?” Yet the blitz effectively brings non-Mormons into a sort of 21st century “contact” with normal Mormons multiple times a day. Where Mormonism may have seemed remote and a little mysterious before, the ads will allow it to now be perceived as commonplace.

The LDS website for non-Mormons, Mormon.org, is also putting great emphasis on Mormons as regular people. Four of the five rotating linked images on the home page highlight individual Mormons and their stories while the one remaining linked image refers to an aspect of LDS belief.

While it has long been the aim of the LDS Church to be recognized as a Christian church, there seems to be an increased effort to encourage people to accept Mormonism as “normal” or non-unique. A recent article that appeared in The Daily Times (Maryland; July 31, 2010) was titled, “Mormonism has similarities to other Christian churches.” While the two bishops interviewed for the article talked a bit about LDS history (i.e., the First Vision: “What’s unique about the church of the Latter-day Saints is its origin with Jesus Christ himself”), the bulk of the article is about what Mormons do (e.g., go to church, shun alcohol, pray, take communion, etc). Furthermore, in telling the First Vision story, Bishop Long explained that Joseph Smith was told by God not to join any of the existing churches. However, it was not because they were “all wrong; …all their creeds were an abomination…[and] those professors were all corrupt” (Joseph Smith History 1:19). If Mr. Long had shared that bit of LDS scripture he could not have kept up the pretense that “there are more similarities between our church and other Christian churches than differences” (as Bishop Whitaker told the journalist). Instead, Mr. Long explained that Smith was not to join any church because he was chosen to “help restore the gift of the apostles.”

Another recent article that fits nicely with the campaign to present Mormonism as people and not as a belief system appeared in Mormon Times on August 1st, 2010.  Jerry Johnston’s article, “Actions are great equalizer in religion,” suggests,

“…that’s the problem with religious discussions today. We focus on each other’s ideas rather than each other’s ideals. We want to know what people think, not how they live.”

Mr. Johnston believes that, since faith resides in people’s hearts, not their heads, we should avoid focusing on what people “hold to be true” and instead look at how they live. While he affirms that what a person believes is important, he insists,

“Being a believer isn’t nearly as important as being a doer…

“The next time someone says, ‘Let’s talk religion. What do you believe?’ turn it around and say, ‘Let’s talk religion. How do you try [to] live your life?’

I do believe that faith will be borne out in one’s actions. This, after all, is what the Bible says (James 2:14-19). But we cannot know the nature of a person’s faith by looking at his actions. For example, a beautiful young woman believes (has faith) that if she treats a wealthy old man in a loving way he will remember her in his will. So she showers him with love — or what looks like love to those who are watching. Though her actions appear admirable, they are not; nor is her faith. Because we cannot know a person’s heart, we cannot know what they really believe by looking only at what they do.

The LDS Church is campaigning in the U.S. to be accepted as normal; that is, as mainstream America, mainstream Christian. There is nothing different about Mormonism — just look at how ordinary the Mormon people are. But Mormonism was founded on the very idea that it is different. It claims to be the only true church, after all. To suggest that one can know all they need to know about Mormonism by looking at the apparent normalcy of its members seems almost to employ a bit of slight of hand.

The Bible tells us that even Satan himself can appear as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:13-15); that people can and will do “many mighty works” in the name of Christ yet not be accepted by Him (Matthew 7:21-23). Of course Jesus cares about what we do, yet He taught, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (John 6:29).

Therefore, I urge you, friends, when you see the new Mormon ads, shrug and say to your LDS friends, “So what? Tell me what your church teaches. Tell me what you believe.”

The article at Mormon Times is titled, “The real story of Mormonism in Iceland collides with fiction.” It outlines Laxness’ visits to Utah and other times his life intersected with Latter-day Saints, as well as the history of Icelandic Mormons. When I initially read the article at the end of June (2010), I was troubled by the article’s assertion that Icelanders who had converted to Mormonism in the mid-1800s were “expelled from Iceland.” That didn’t ring true to me, so I contacted an Icelandic historian in Reykjavik and asked if converts to Mormonism had ever been “expelled from Iceland because of their conversion to the [LDS] church.” She replied,

“No one has ever been expelled from Iceland because of his or hers faith, except for a Catholic bishop or two, who were not to the taste of the Danish king in the 16th century. No written records or evidence relate to Mormons being ‘expelled’ from Iceland at any time. They may have left for the States because they did not like the environment or their neighbours, but so did a lot of people in the 19th century. Religious freedom was granted in Iceland in 1874, but the wast [vast] majority of people were Lutheran and still are. No mentioning of any cruelty to those few Catholics or Mormons who lived here in the 19th century, but in a small society it may always be difficult to be different.” (Private email date July 4, 2010)

I have read so many exaggerated, embellished, and downright fictional accounts of persecution against Mormons and Mormonism that I’ve grown quite weary of it. Perhaps it seems like a small thing, that it doesn’t really matter whether Mormon converts were “expelled from Iceland” or they chose to leave in order to “gather to Zion.” But my friends, if it doesn’t matter, why do LDS sources continually bring it up in their lectures, sermons and books?

It matters to Mormons. I tend to think Mormons love to think they are hated. If early converts are believed to have suffered for their commitment to the LDS Church, modern testimonies are strengthened and “investigators” are convinced. Where is the faith-building element to be found in a common 19th century immigration to America, if the story does not include forced expulsion from home and country? Where is it found in a typical wagon train of American pioneers traveling to the western reaches of the United States, if the story is not wrapped in extreme proportions of suffering and death? Where is it found in the frequent 19th century use of frontier justice, if the story is not shrouded in shameful tales of rape and murder?

I was surprised to find that, sometime after its initial posting, the Mormon Times article was edited. The original assertion that converts were “expelled from Iceland because of their conversion to the church” had been removed. I applaud the Mormon Times editor who made that call; if only corrections like this (or better yet, fact-checking before publication) would become the norm rather than being the exception. Deseret News ran an announcement on June 14th (2010) that, as of this writing, is still online. It perpetuates the same inaccuracy Mormon Times corrected. It says,

“Spanish Fork was the first Icelandic settlement in the United States, after Icelanders who joined the Mormon church were expelled from that country, said [Icelandic] association [of Utah] spokesman Glenn Grossman.”

To me, if a religion cannot stand on truth, it is worthless. To remain viable, Mormonism (apparently) needs a false history that can be used to manipulate the emotions of its followers. To enhance the value of belonging to the LDS Church, Mormons (apparently) need to believe they have been–and are–hated and maligned more than any other people. Is this sort of foundation–faith and history buoyed by exaggeration, embellishment, and fiction presented as truth–an exemplary characteristic of God’s one true church?

Friends, the house of Mormonism is built on sand, as is the faith of those who embrace it. When the floods come, it will all surely be swept away. The wise man, one who values truth, builds his house on the Rock (Matthew 7:24-27). God’s story does not need fictional enhancement to prop it up; His truth will set you free (John 8:32).

One such myth is this one, published in the Improvement Era in 1914:

After [the company] had given up in despair, after all hopes had vanished, after every apparent avenue of escape seemed closed, three eighteen-year-old boys belonging to the relief party came to the rescue, and to the astonishment of all who saw, carried nearly every member of the illfated handcart company across the snowbound stream. The strain was so terrible, and the exposure so great, that in later years all the boys died from the effect of it. When President Brigham Young heard of this heroic act, he wept like a child, and later declared publicly, “that act alone will ensure C. Allen Huntington, George W. Grant [the captains son] and David P. Kimball an everlasting salvation in the Celestial Kingdom of God, worlds without end.” (quoted in Roberts, 242. Brackets his.)

Roberts goes on to explain that in 2006 LDS historian Chad M. Orton published a paper in BYU Studies that provided these truths: none of the named men were eighteen-year-old boys; other men also helped the weakened pioneers cross the river; many of the pioneers crossed on their own power, without help from rescuers; and perhaps most importantly, none of the three named men died from the effects of the 1856 river-fording.

I don’t mean to minimize the heroism of the Saints that went to the rescue of the stranded handcart pioneers, for they were indeed heroes. Nor do I intend to focus here directly on the fact that this story is a faith-promoting myth. I’ll tell you what I find especially interesting about this.

During his research for the book, David Roberts, the author of Devil’s Gate, visited many LDS visitors centers along the Mormon/Oregon Trail. He listened politely without comment as Elders and Sisters (as docents) related what they believed to be true stories, but which Mr. Roberts knew to be myths. During one of Mr. Roberts’ trips to the Mormon Handcart Visitors Center at Martin’s Cove, he was welcomed into a small group of LDS adults from West Valley, Utah who were on the trail as a sort of pilgrimage. They traversed the trail together as the Mormons told stories of their ancestors (and others) who had crossed the plains in the 1850s. Mr. Roberts writes,

…one of the West Valley women repeated the story about the three eighteen-year-olds carrying the Saints across the Sweetwater. I could not bite my tongue. “You know, that’s a myth,” I blurted out. “Chad Orton has written a paper that completely debunks the story. It didn’t happen.”

This was not welcome news to the West Valley ward. An awkward silence ensued, as I began to feel like a drunken guest at a party who has just committed some unforgivable faux pas.

“How do we know what’s really the truth? asked Trish Ward, in conciliatory tones. I started to utter some piety of my own about relying on authentic primary sources, but instead, a young woman who had previously spoken not a word mused out loud, “Maybe we could pray.” (280)

Presumably, Chad Orton, who is an archivist with the Family and Church History Division of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, reached his conclusion regarding the Sweetwater rescue story after researching primary sources — accounts from people who were there, contemporary newspaper reports, birth and death data, etc. (You can download a pdf version of Mr. Orton’s paper here.) Yet when the Mormons in Mr. Roberts’ narrative were made aware of the discrepancy between the legend and the facts, they believed the proper response was to pray to know if the legend was true.

At the October 2009 General Conference of the LDS Church, Mormon Apostle Richard G. Scott said,

“I witness that as you gain experience and success in being guided by the Spirit, your confidence in the impressions you feel can become more certain than your dependence on what you see or hear.” (“To Acquire Spiritual Guidance,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 2009, page 6)

The context of Mr. Scott’s teaching was in regards to receiving divine guidance for decision making; but do Latter-day Saints also apply this principle to things that can be known objectively? It would be impossible, wouldn’t it, for actual God-revealed knowledge to be contrary to known facts?

The Mormons in the Devil’s Gate story fiercely wanted the familiar myth of the Sweetwater rescue to be true. They were more comfortable relying on their “impressions” than on an examination of verifiable records. Do you think their prayers yielded a confirmation that the story was false? Mr. Roberts doesn’t say.

What happens when we want something to be true more than we want to know the truth?

———————-

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

———————-

“Some students have complained that the [English lesson] teaching sessions take on the tone of a pushy time-share pitch.

“’They say “Oh, we can teach English” but the truth is that only if we go to church can we learn English, and we have to believe in their God,’ said Shin Ayeong, 22, who went to a few classes before dropping out.

“Still, the missionaries sent her telephone texts for months, imploring her to return, she said.”

Shin Ayeong dropped the Mormon English lessons on her own, but this is not always the case. GlobalPost reports,

“Every one of the 15 or so private English lessons [the LDS missionaries] teach each week has a religious requirement. Students must show interest in the faith or they’re shown the door.”

Of course, LDS missionaries are free to attach any strings they please in order to qualify students as worthwhile recipients of their service. What bothers the Korean people is the lack of full disclosure regarding the religious requirement for these “free” English lessons. As it is, they feel a bit like victims of a bait-and-switch scheme.

When asked about the Koreans’ perception that the missionaries are engaging in false advertising the Korea Seoul West Mission President replied simply, “You can’t put everything on a billboard.”

And you can’t put everything in a book, or tell it all on a tour. Or so Mormons have told me time and again.

• At the Carthage Jail Visitors Center: Why doesn’t the tour mention the gun Joseph had and the people he killed? “You can’t tell everything on a 20 minute tour.”
• About the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church series of “gospel reference books” published by the LDS Church: Why don’t the biographies included in these books mention the plural wives of early LDS prophets: “You can’t fit everything in a 350 page book.”
• At an LDS Temple open house: Why don’t we tour the washing and anointing areas? “Traffic flow. Please keep moving.”
• At a Church-produced theatrical portrayal of Joseph Smith delivering the King Follett Discourse: Why were the controversial but central teachings of the King Follett Discourse on the nature of God omitted from this performance? “The full sermon is too long for this setting. We had to be mindful of the time.”

Friends, you can’t put everything on a billboard and the LDS Church unabashedly uses this fact to its advantage. If you are investigating Mormonism, wisdom dictates that you proceed with caution.

“The law, which makes it a state crime to be in the country without proper immigration papers, has tarnished the Mormon Church’s image among many Latinos, a huge group the church is aggressively trying to attract.”

LDS missionaries report that people are less receptive to them than before the law was signed, evidenced by the young missionaries having to endure doors slammed in their faces as people ask, “Why would we want to hear anything from a religion that would do this to the Hispanic community?” Previously scheduled convert baptisms have been cancelled as well.

Though the LDS Church does not have an official position on immigration, converting Latinos to Mormonism is a booming business in the LDS Church. According to Joanna Brooks at Religion Dispatches online magazine,

“It is estimated that of the Church’s 13 million members worldwide, more than 4.5 million members are Spanish-speaking. Spanish-speaking LDS congregations in the US have grown by an estimated 90 percent in the last decade. The majority of Mormon converts in the US now come from Latino communities. And there are just about as many Mormons who live in Mexico and Central America as there are in the state of Utah.”

Utah is on record as being illegal-immigrant friendly, so it surprises some people that a Mormon would sponsor such a law. The Arizona Republic explains,

“Pearce has repeatedly said his efforts to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and keep them from coming here is based on the Mormon Church’s 13 Articles of Faith, which includes obeying the law. “

The Arizona Republic also talked to Nora Castañeda, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Hermosillo, Mexico. Ms. Castañeda has been LDS for 35 years and is now being confronted by people who are not happy about the immigration law.

“[Ms. Castañeda] does not believe…that Pearce’s anti-illegal-immigrant stance is in line with the Mormon faith, which, in addition to teaching obedience to the law, teaches compassion.

“‘It is embarrassing to have to defend the church for the thoughts of one man,’ said Castañeda.”

Ms. Castañeda told the Arizona Republic that the new law is not only making proselytizing more difficult, it is causing some new converts to leave the Church.

All of this makes me wonder what these new and prospective converts were being taught about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If the political actions of one Church member so deeply shook their faith that they want nothing more to do with the LDS Church, what sort of church did they think they were joining? What sort of faith had they been nurturing as they approached conversion to Mormonism? What sort of impression of the Church, its purposes, and its power, caused one Mormon Latino woman to say about Sen. Pearce, “I want the church to put a stop to him”?

It seems to me that if these new and prospective converts had been taught to make Jesus Christ the center of their faith and worship, the actions of one Latter-day Saint would not cause such a pervasive black mark on the entire LDS organization. But, if these investigators had been taught (as is typical in LDS proselytizing) to place their faith in Mormonism, if they had been led to believe that the LDS Church is God’s true kingdom on earth, the only church that really understands God and is led by God, the only church that is not beset by doctrinal and social confusion, the one church whose members are the most righteous of all people, then the actions of one Latter-day Saint who told the Salt Lake Tribune “that LDS scripture buttresses his push for a crackdown on undocumented immigrants” could well cause these people to stop and rethink their decisions.

And this is good. Proverbs 20:25 says, “It is a snare to say rashly, ‘It is holy,’ and to reflect only after making vows.” So whether one becomes aware of challenging doctrines, or perceived contradictions, or observed inconsistencies, it is wise to take a step back and reflect before making any vows.

In my opinion, this unintended consequence of the Arizona immigration law–causing people to reconsider their connection with Mormonism–is a very good thing.

—–

The Arizona Republic first posted the article “Arizona immigration law fallout harms LDS Church outreach” on May 18, 2010. The Salt Lake Tribune reposted the article on May 21, 2010 with some revisions under the title “Arizona immigration law thwarting LDS missionaries.” The above article utilizes both versions.

“Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, could be the most controversial and mysterious religious figure of the past two hundred years. While volumes have been written about him— both in praise and contempt— the reality is that very little is known about what occupied his thoughts and the meaning behind his actions…

“This book, Without Disclosing His True Identity— the Authorized and Official Biography of the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith Jr., will answer every question ever considered about the beginnings of Mormonism.”

With an impressive title and an equally impressive promise, this book sounds pretty interesting. The author, Christopher (no last name), states that his book does not rely on previous histories and source documents, all of which have been used by competing branches of Mormonism and critics to paint a picture of Joseph Smith to their own liking. Christopher asks, “Does anyone actually know the real truth?” (Introduction, p. 3). His answer may be somewhat surprising. Yes, someone does know the real truth, and that someone is Joseph Smith. The author’s claim is that this book is written under the direction of the resurrected Joseph, himself.

Christopher explains,

“Joseph Smith Jr., like his predecessor Moroni, is a living, advanced (resurrected) human being living on another planet near our own solar system. He is waiting for the time to come when he will reveal himself, along with other advanced human beings, to a world of unaware free-willed human beings; thus helping to save them from their own demise. If the angel Moroni is real, then why can‘t—why shouldn‘t—the resurrected Joseph be? The proper protocol for revealing information to the world was shown in the example of how Joseph Smith received his mission and the instructions to carry it out from Moroni and other resurrected beings.

“Because Joseph is a real person, he has the power to tell his own story and explain his own history. His own words will confound the wisdom of the learned historian and everyone else who pretends to know who Joseph was and what he accomplished during his tenure as a mortal upon this earth. Some might question the veracity of his existence and this presentation of his true history, claiming that if Joseph does indeed exist, then he should present himself to the whole world as a resurrected being and tell it from his own mouth. The same could be required of Moroni. But there was only ONE man who ever saw the angel Moroni and claimed to have received instruction from him through face-to- face communication. And there is only ONE man who has ever seen the angel Joseph and claims to have received instruction from him through face-to-face communication.” (Introduction, p. 5)

The publisher’s website provides more detail:

“Through Christopher, the resurrected Joseph Smith Jr. will now finally disclose his true identity to the world and explain the real truth about what happened from the time that he as a young boy, first inquired into the concept of religious thought, to the time of his martyrdom in Carthage, Illinois on June 27, 1844.  Through Christopher, and under the direct auspices of the resurrected Joseph, the real truth behind the establishment of an organized church, priesthood, ordinances, and everything else associated with his name will be revealed in its fullness.”

Is this exciting news for Mormons? Imagine, Joseph Smith himself setting the record straight, clearing away any misunderstandings, and clarifying debated doctrines!

I suspect the thought of this book does not generate hopefulness and electrified anticipation among Latter-day Saints. Christopher says,

“This information will put to rest, once and for all, any misconception of who Joseph Smith Jr. was and what he was commanded to do. Unfortunately, once these things are finally revealed, all sects of Mormonism will find themselves in a dilemma of forced self-introspect. ” (Introduction, p. 2)

But still. What if it’s true? Will Mormons read, ponder and pray about the things revealed in the Authorized and Official Biography of the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith Jr.?

One might apply the words of LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley (with a few alterations) to this new history: “This sacred book, which came forth as a revelation of the Prophet Joseph Smith, is indeed another testament of the calling of our Prophet. I would think that the whole Mormon world would reach out and welcome it and embrace it as a vibrant testimony.”

Will you?

The current news focus on Ronnie Lee Gardner’s fate brings up an interesting point of Utah (and therefore Mormon) history.  Employing a method of capital punishment that sheds the condemned person’s blood is somewhat unique to Utah. Though Utah law changed in 2004 to disallow future executions by firing squad, Ronnie Lee Gardner’s 1985 conviction predated that law. Therefore, he was given the choice of lethal injection or death by firing squad.

According to Martin R. Gardner (no relation that I’m aware of), the early “capital punishment law in Utah was a product of Mormon lawmakers influenced by Mormon doctrine” (“Mormonism and Capital Punishment: A Doctrinal Perspective, Past and Present,” Dialog, A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1979, p. 9). Martin Gardner wrote,

“Existence of the firing squad solely in Utah is no coincidence but instead is a consequence of an attempt by early legislators to effectuate religious belief through the capital punishment law of the state. Mormon justifications of capital punishment were intricately related to blood atonement, a doctrine requiring shedding blood as expiation for certain sins…

“However, the doctrine of blood atonement posits that man can commit some sins so heinous that Christ’s sacrifice is unavailing, but the offender himself may partially atone for his sin by sacrificing his life in a way which literally sheds his blood. The spilling of blood is required because blood is viewed as possessing symbolic religious significance. ‘The man who commits murder, who imbues his hands in the blood of innocence, cannot receive eternal life because he cannot get forgiveness of that sin. What can he do? The only way to atone is to shed his blood’” (pp. 9-10, quoting Charles Penrose, Blood Atonement, p. 21, 1916).

Martin Gardner explained that the LDS doctrine of blood atonement was most fully developed by Brigham Young, who said,

“‘There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilled upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such were not the case, they would stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world…

“‘It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet, men can commit sins which it can never remit… There are sins that can be atoned for… [only] by the blood of the man’” [p. 11, quoting Brigham Young, "The People of God Disciplined by Trials," "Atonement by the Shedding of Blood etc.," Journal of Discourses, 4:51, 53, 54, 1856).

Another early Mormon leader, Jedediah Grant, taught,

"But if the Government of God on earth, and Eternal Priesthood, with the sanction of High Heaven, in the midst of all his people, has passed sentence on certain sins when they appear in a person, has [sic] not the people of God a right to carry out that part of his law as well as any other portion of it? It is their right to baptize a sinner to save him, and it is also their right to kill a sinner to save him, when he commits those crimes that can only be atoned for by shedding his blood. If the Lord God forgives sins by baptism, and…certain sins cannot be atoned for…but by the shedding of the blood of the sinner, query, whether the people of God be overreaching the mark, if they should execute the law… We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him” (Deseret News, July 27, 1854, p. 2, col. 1).

So when the territorial government was established in 1851 for the state of Deseret,

“…the General Assembly of the state of Deseret, controlled by members of the Council of Fifty, adopted a criminal code that imposed capital punishment for the crime of murder: ‘Be it further ordained, that when any person shall be found guilty of murder, under any of the preceding sections of this ordinance, and sented [sic] to die, he, she or they shall suffer death by being shot, hung or beheaded’” (p. 12).

The LDS First Presidency in 1851 (Brigham Young, Jedediah M. Grant, and Heber C. Kimball), all advocates of blood atonement, were directly involved in establishing beheading and the firing squad as Utah law. Beheading was dropped as an execution option in 1888, but the firing squad option remained as Utah’s primary method of execution until 2004.

In his paper, Martin Gardner demonstrated the fact that many Mormon leaders have understood the allowance of firing squads in Utah law to be a provision for legally accomplishing blood atonement.

“To quote B.H. Roberts: ‘Latter-day Saints believe that where secular government prescribes capital punishment it is better that such form of execution be adopted as will shed the blood of the criminal; hence in Utah, when the Latter-day Saints, in their capacity as citizens of the state have made the laws, condemned criminals, subject to capital punishment, are permitted to choose their mode of execution either by being hung or shot, the latter mode, or course, resulting in the shedding of their blood, thus meeting the requirement of the law of God as well as the law of the state’ [quoting Comprehensive History of the Church 4:129 n. 41].

“Joseph Fielding Smith concluded that Mormon legislators wrote capital punishment provisions into the laws of Utah so the offender could ‘have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone so far as it is in his power, for the death of his victim’ [quoting Doctrines of Salvation, 1:136, 137]” (p. 15).

The LDS Church today does not support the early Mormon doctrine of blood atonement and offered no objection to the change in Utah law that excluded the firing squad from its modes of execution. Once again modern Mormonism shows itself at odds with the early Restoration and the teachings of founding LDS prophets and apostles.

Martin Gardner related a telling incident from 1849 wherein Brigham Young called for the beheading of an offender:

“Minutes of secret meetings of the Council [of Fifty] show that the doctrine of blood atonement was discussed, at least in passing, by the Council before adoption of the 1851 capital punishment law. [Endnote 29: For example, on March 3, 1849, the council discussed the cases of Ira West and Thomas Byres who had committed crimes serious enough to arouse Brigham Young to say, 'I want their cursed heads to be cut off that they may atone for their sins, that mercy may have her claims upon them in the day of redemption.' On the following day the council agreed that Ira West had 'forfeited his Head.'] Given the political influence of the Council and its commitment to blood atonement, the sudden and novel emergence of beheading and the firing squad in the law of Utah seems to be a religious phenomenon” (p. 14).

One can’t help but wonder at this teaching and behavior of men claiming to be true prophets of God when God Himself, in His Holy Word, said that Jesus’ shed blood on the cross is the full and final sacrifice for all sins for those who believe. Humanity is no longer enslaved under the Old Covenant requiring personal and repetitive sacrificial offerings as atonement for sins. Christ has ushered in the New Covenant, secured by the once-for-all shedding of His own blood on our behalf.

Did Brigham Young, et al., fail to understand the New Covenant provision of Christ’s sacrifice? Or were they just convinced that it wasn’t sufficient? Perhaps they should have read (and believed) Hebrews chapters 9 and 10.

The Arizona Republic recently ran a very sensitive and thoughtful article about one such family. “Non-Mormon family not being allowed to attend son’s wedding was wrenching,” by Jamie Rose, tells the story of Cheri Richardson and her struggle to come to terms with her son’s conversion to Mormonism, which ultimately resulted in a temple wedding that his family could not share.

From the time of Chase Richardson’s conversion to the LDS Church Cheri held out hope that, when the time came, her son would choose to marry outside the temple, maybe in a pre-temple civil ceremony, that the family could attend. Even when Chase became engaged to a wonderful Mormon girl (Annie), Cheri held on to that hope. For a while they all seemed to avoid talking about the location of the upcoming wedding. Then, one day,

“Cheri read about it on Annie’s Facebook page: Chase and Annie would be married on March 12, 2010, in the Mesa temple. Beneath Annie’s announcement, a few friends from church had already responded with excitement: ‘We’ll be there!’

“Cheri didn’t know them. They’d be at her son’s wedding. She wouldn’t.”

Cheri went on to explain,

“‘What is hurtful to me is that because of his beliefs, it feels like we’re being forced out,’ Cheri says, ‘and the reason we can’t be there is probably the most hurtful — that we’re deemed “unworthy” by the church to enter the temple.

“‘You’re there for 3 a.m. feedings. You’re there at every single game and headache and shot and broken bone and parent-teacher conference. You hug him when he’s got his heart broken for not making the basketball team, and to be told you’re not worthy to be there on his most important day?’”

The article quotes LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah, “It is easy to understand how feelings of exclusion can develop, but exclusion is never intended.” As a way to consider the feelings of family members who are not temple worthy, the article notes,

“The church allows a family gathering, often called a ‘ring ceremony,’ to be held before or after a temple wedding. Rings are not a part of a temple wedding and can be exchanged informally inside or outside a temple, Farah says, as long as vows are not exchanged, also.

“Cheri read enough about ring ceremonies to know the moment would feel forced and empty.”

Traditionally, one very important element of the Christian sacrament of marriage is the exchange of vows “before God and witnesses.” Therefore, the sort of “ring ceremony” allowed by the LDS Church has great potential to add insult to injury. That’s how Cheri saw it, anyway.

Though Chase and Annie wanted Chase’s mom, dad and sister to wait outside the temple during the wedding, and wanted to find them there immediately afterward, Cheri didn’t think she could do it. To her, conforming to the Church’s rules “would feel as if the church had won.” The day before the wedding Cheri and Chase spoke on the phone. He sounded lonely.

“My heart was breaking for him,” Cheri says. “Before he could even ask, I said, ‘Please. Please, Chase. Don’t ask me. Please. You know I can’t.’”

But in the end Cheri was there. Though she believed the Church was wrong both in policy and doctrine, though she felt humiliated and judged waiting outside the temple, though she continued to be frustrated with this religion that threatened to drive a wedge between mother and son, Cheri loved her son and decided to share in whatever part of that important day she was allowed.

Cheri’s heart broke on her son’s wedding day. Loving him unconditionally didn’t diminish the “wrenching” anguish his LDS temple wedding imposed on his “unworthy” family members. So many parents struggle with these issues when a child leaves his or her family’s faith for Mormonism. As wedding season approaches, parents, remember this. Cheri Richardson found a way to hold on to both of her loves: her love for her son, and her love for her God. With God’s help, you will find a way through the heartache, too.

Trust in the LORD forever,
for the LORD GOD is an everlasting rock.
Isaiah 26:4

“I started a blog to talk about how I’m ‘Faking it’ as a Mormon…I haven’t told my husband I joined for him.”

Calling herself “The Faker,” the blogger describes herself as “Married, childless, petless, late-20s… and, of course, fumbling through life as a make-believe Mormon.” Her blog, Faking It — The Life and Times of a Make-Believe Mormon, is the place where, she says, “I [can] tell the world how I really feel.” And she does.

The Faker fell in love with a Mormon man (returned missionary) and converted to Mormonism so she wouldn’t lose him. Then she married him. She writes,

“I have a handsome RM husband who absolutely adores me. He is an incredibly motivated person who is on his way up in a big corporation. Working is optional for me. We own a nice house. So on and so forth. And I totally wish I was as thrilled with that as I feel like I should be.

“In actuality, though, I’m not. I feel trapped a lot. I have a lot of resentment stemming from the pressure that was applied to me to convert. Worse than that, however, is the feeling I can’t shake that I was deceitful and made my own bed. After all, I pretended I was okay with converting and all that jazz. Much more serious than having pretended to love action films, for instance.”

The Faker isn’t mad at the LDS Church — she just doesn’t believe it and doesn’t enjoy going and being a part of that faith. And she feels trapped. After sending in her Post Secret last week she found she wasn’t alone. People who heard of The Faker’s blog flocked to her site to encourage and empathize. Some of the comments left by other make-believe Mormons are heartbreaking as they express their fears and regrets. A few excerpts:

“I went though the motions to marry the LDS girl I love, even the two year ‘wasted time’ adventure. I go to the three hour death march every Sunday. I don’t have a single true friend in the ward, but [what] I have is a phone ringing off the wall with folks asking me to do things for them…”

“I am a different person at church than I am at home — I am lucky my husband knows who I truly am, but I can’t open my heart to him and tell him how wrong I feel doing certain things. …I haven’t let him watch me weep…”

“I grew up in Utah…lived the ‘faking it’ life for about 5 years, 2 of which was married to the RM husband. I couldn’t do it any longer… It was a huge struggle for me day in and day out to ‘fake it’.”

“I am in my forties, I went on a mission for the LDS faith. Now I’m a faker for my children. I’m not sure how that’s going to go. My guess is that it will go badly.”

So these people find themselves between a rock and a hard place. What should they do? Continue the make-believe or come clean? The Faker writes,

“Whether or not [my husband] really *grasps* the full extent of my discontent is more iffy…It’s not like he has the constant barrage of doubts, thoughts, et cetera that I have. Understandable.

“The other problem is that the whole ‘doing something about it’ is easier said than done. For those of you who have been in the LDS church, you’ll know what I mean when I say it’s not a part-time religion. Your whole life tends to revolve around it…

“So, have no fear: I’m not pretending to be a Molly [Mormon] to my husband. And trust me, he’s expressed regret for pressuring me back in the day. We were both naïve. It’s just very difficult to know what choices to make from here. Where is my crystal ball?”

Many of The Faker’s readers told her to be obedient to the restored gospel, to fulfill her callings, to seek more diligently for a testimony of the Book of Mormon, to put the best face on her doubts and wait them out — in other words, keep up the charade. I don’t think that’s what Jesus would tell her to do. Nor would He tell her to consult a crystal ball. Finding wisdom in God’s Word, this is what I believe this young woman should consider:

• Regarding her relationship with her husband, love “rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6).
• Regarding feeling trapped, “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
• Regarding her relationship with her LDS friends, “Speak the truth to one another;… love no false oath,…[and] love truth” (Zechariah 8:16-18).

Jesus taught of the folly of building a house on the sand. When the winds and rain come, the house will fall. But, those who are wise build on the rock. Then when the storms come, the house will stand firm (Matthew 7:24-27). The Faker is building her house — her life — on sand. She fails to trust the words of Christ. She believes living the truth will cost her too much. But Jesus also taught, “[W]hoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25).

Truth is often costly. To each make-believe Mormon (and to everyone else), I encourage you to believe and act on Christ’s words: love the truth — the truth will set you free. Build your life on the Rock. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), so lose your life for the sake of the Truth, and by His grace, you will find new life — and be at peace.

I agree with The Faker’s sentiment, “The other problem is that the whole ‘doing something about it’ is easier said than done.” She’s right; it’s easy to say and yet much harder to do. Nevertheless, it is true — and it is worth doing something about.

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.

———————-