Mormon Coffee

Recently a letter from the LDS First Presidency was read in Sunday Mormon church services about the use of scriptures and visual aids in sacrament meetings and stake conferences. After stating that Church leadership is encouraged that members do study their scriptures, the letter said,

“In order to maintain an atmosphere of reverent worship in our sacrament and stake conference meetings, when speakers use scriptures as part of their talks they should not ask the congregation to open their own books to the scriptural reference. Also, members should not use visual aids and their sacrament meeting or stake conference talks. Such teaching methods are more effective in classroom settings and leadership meetings.

“We believe these adjustments will enhance the spirit of our worship services.”

Without any further explanation, I’m left wondering specifically how people looking up scriptures diminishes the “atmosphere of reverent worship.” Do those without their own scriptures find it distracting? Or is the sound of turning pages somehow irreverent? Do people who have missed the chapter and verse announcement make a racket asking their pew-neighbors where they are supposed to look?

Coming from a traditional Christian church background, I find this First Presidency directive really puzzling. Throughout my entire Christian life men in the pulpit have repeatedly expressed how much they love to hear the riffling of turning pages as people follow along in their Bibles. It’s my understanding that reading God’s Word in an effort to understand and know Him is itself an act of reverent worship.

When I look up a scripture passage during church I am better able to understand the Word and how it fits with the content of the sermon. I am better able to remember it. I am better able to find it later when I want to ponder the sermon and the scripture, or read the passage in its broader context. As far as I’m aware, the reverence of the setting is not disturbed, nor are the people around me, since they, too, are immersed in God’s Word.

This directive from the First Presidency reminded me of one of the last General Conference talks. LDS Apostle M. Russell Ballard related a funny story from his younger days in which he was in charge of his children during a sacrament meeting while his wife sang in the choir. He wrote,

“…I found myself sitting alone with my six children. I have never been so busy in my whole life. I had the hand puppets going on both hands, and that wasn’t working too well. The Cheerios got away from me, and that was embarrassing. The coloring books didn’t seem to entertain as well as they should.” (Ensign, May 2008, 108)

I’m sure every parent can relate to the dilemma of trying to keep small children quiet during church services. Yet, as I picture Mr. Ballard with his Cheerios flying and finger puppets waving – ineffectually, I might add – I honestly do not understand the concern that prompted the LDS policy for congregants to maintain an atmosphere of reverent worship by keeping their Quads closed.

“You will indeed see but never perceive.” –Matthew 13:14

In March (2008) Boyd K. Packer, president of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke via satellite to Latter-day Saints gathered for a stake conference in Bolivia. Speaking of his love for the Book of Mormon, Mr. Packer related the difficulty he had as a young man as he tried to read the book cover to cover. LDS Church News reports,

“He [Mr. Packer] would begin with the account of Nephi, but then struggle to read past the chapters on the Old Testament prophet Isaiah. [He said,] ‘I would read the Book of Mormon and then, in due time, I ran into Isaiah again. And I would lose interest and start over.’

“Later, as a seminary teacher, he realized that many young people struggle with the chapters on Isaiah… ‘I decided I was going to read the Book of Mormon if all I did was look at the words, whether I understood them or not. And that time I got through. …

“So if you start the Book of Mormon, you young people…and if the Old Testament prophecies of Isaiah seem difficult to you, look at the words and turn the pages. If you think you’re not getting very much, maybe you’re not. But, in due time, you’ll move right on through and you’ll close the book and you have read the Book of Mormon.’” (Church News, week ending March 22, 2008, 3. First ellipsis in this quote is mine for brevity, subsequent ellipses are in the original report)

The Church News article doesn’t make it clear, but I wonder if this is the same advice Mr. Packer gave his seminary students. I find this approach to reading the Book of Mormon quite odd – and unfortunate. The “prophecies of Isaiah” contained in the Book of Mormon consist of whole chapters reproduced from the Bible (with some alterations). Eighteen out of 55 chapters in the first two books of the Book of Mormon (1 and 2 Nephi) are duplications of chapters from Isaiah in the Bible. It’s no small thing for Book of Mormon readers to skip over them.

Surely there is a better solution for young people (or any people) who are having difficulty understanding what they believe to be God’s Word. If they are in seminary classes, wouldn’t it be useful for them discuss their questions with their seminary teacher? Or perhaps ask their parents? Or their Bishop? Or maybe consult Church-produced student manuals? Or ask God for help?

Mr. Packer, an LDS apostle, provides no such practical guidance. He essentially tells Mormon kids that it’s more important to be able to say that they’ve read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover than it is to understand what the book actually teaches.

I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is scripture, but Mr. Packer and his LDS audience do. So the question naturally arises: What is the purpose of scripture? The biblical apostle John provides the answer:

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31)

Furthermore,

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Another question: What is the purpose of reading scripture? Psalm 119 explains,

“How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.” (Psalm 119:9)

“I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.” (Psalm 119:11)

“I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways. I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.” (Psalm 119:15-16)

The psalmist talks about the power of God’s Word. He says it revives (v. 25), strengthens (v. 28), provides answers (v. 42), brings hope (v. 49), life (v. 50), comfort (v. 50), grace (v. 58), wisdom (v. 98), understanding (v. 104), joy (v. 111), truth (v. 142), peace (v. 165), and deliverance (v. 170). Why would anyone indifferently skip over a single word?

Mr. Packer places his emphasis on accomplishing a goal (completing the book) rather than on seeking to understand. I’m not sure just how to take Mr. Packer’s words to the LDS youth of Bolivia. Is it friendly counsel? Apostolic guidance? As one person told me, “Whatever it is, it’s bad advice.”

The woman looked at me with smug satisfaction and said, “At my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we never pass a collection plate. It’s such a prideful thing to put your tithes and offerings on display for everyone to see. We do our giving in private.”

It’s likely that those who have spent much time around Mormons will have heard comments similar to this one – maybe multiple times. I’ve heard it quite often. The first few times the issue came up I was surprised and confused. Surprised at the depth of passion Mormons seem to have for this topic, and confused that they understand the passing of a collection plate in a worship service to be utterly inappropriate.

I suppose it’s true that no good thing on earth is beyond being corrupted by man’s sinfulness. I’m certain that throughout the Christian church’s history some people in some places in some periods of time have placed their offerings in the offering plate pridefully. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn of some folks in Christian church congregations watching who did what when the plate came by. Nevertheless, I think many Mormons don’t understand the historic Christian concept of collecting the offering.

The Bible portrays the giving of tithes and offerings as an act of worship. As such, it is appropriate for the giving to be done during a worship service. When Christians gather together on the Lord’s Day in corporate worship, several things comprise the service including the preaching and hearing of the Word of God, praying, singing, sharing the Lord’s Supper, and giving.

Prideful giving is wrong. Giving to be seen of men is wrong. Judging others by what they give is wrong. But collecting the gifts of worshippers during a public, corporate worship service is not wrong. Giving to God as a demonstration of trust in Him, and as a declaration that we know our true treasure is in heaven, is pleasing to Him and is accepted by Him as worship.

I don’t think the mechanics of how we give matters much to God. Whether it’s placing a gift in an offering plate, dropping it in a box at the back of the church, or sending it through the mail, the important things are that we give and that we have a right heart attitude as we give. Yet having said that, another interesting aspect of the Mormon viewpoint on traditional Christian giving during the worship service is worth mentioning.

As an alleged restoration of the early Christian church, it’s surprising that LDS Church members find fault with the traditional passing of a collection plate in other churches. Christian apologist Justin Martyr (100AD-165AD) wrote a detailed description of early Christian worship services in his First Apology, addressed to Emperor Antonius Pius:

“On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together… The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read… the president in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers.

“When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented with wine and water… A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person…

“Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president… in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need.”

In the early Christian church, like now, offerings were collected publicly during the Sunday worship service. Nevertheless, this detail really isn’t that important. It would be much better for us to focus instead on 2 Corinthians 9:7:

“Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

A couple of interesting stories appeared over the weekend in the Salt Lake Tribune and in Deseret News. Both are related to the FLDS situation that continues to dominate headlines these days.

The Salt Lake Tribune article is an opinion piece written by Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint Maggie Jessop. She begins, “So, you want to hear from the FLDS women, huh? OK, you asked for it.” Mrs. Jessop writes with biting sarcasm in an effort to debunk the media stereotype of FLDS “uneducated, underprivileged, information-deprived, brainless, spineless, poor, picked-on, dependent, misled class of women identified as ‘brain-washed.’” A couple of Mrs. Jessop’s arguments sound somewhat familiar to me. Consider this:

“I have never been guilty of intentionally breaking the law, never been in a courtroom, never even spoken to an attorney.

“In the face of the holocaust going on, most people want to know the truth, right? Well, do you get truth from liars? Come on, John Doe-Head, do you revel in crude and erroneous sensationalism? What kind of a person are you, anyway? Isn’t it better to get the truth from those who really know?

“…I have broken no law. I have never abused my children. I have injured no one in the choices I have made.”

I’d like to mention two observations regarding Mrs. Jessop’s article. The first is her interesting claim of being innocent of intentionally breaking the law. Though illegal activities allegedly take place regularly in the FLDS community (”spiritual” marriage of young girls to older men, sexual assault of children, polygamy, etc.), as a representative of FLDS women, Mrs. Jessop suggests they are, nevertheless, guiltless. This reminds me of an 1844 public declaration by LDS Prophet Joseph Smith, then husband of thirty-four women:

“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

“I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them [his accusers] all perjurers” (History of the Church 6:411).

Another observation about Mrs. Jessop’s article has to do with her assertion that the only place to get accurate information about the FLDS is from the FLDS themselves. I can almost hear her say, as I so often hear Latter-day Saints say, “You wouldn’t go to a Chevy dealer to get accurate information about a Ford, would you?”

I find this type of cultural similarity between the FLDS and the LDS intriguing. Are Latter-day Saints able to see the parallels? If so, does it cause them to ponder these things in their hearts and minds?

I’m saddened to think that Mormons probably can’t see themselves at all in the FLDS story. They are too distracted by a concentrated effort to make sure nobody draws any comparison between LDS and FLDS — which brings me to the Deseret News.

Joseph A. Cannon wrote a Deseret News editorial for Sunday (May 11, 2008) titled, “Adoption of FLDS name is akin to identity theft.” Here Mr. Cannon argues that it is not only improper to join the word “Mormon” to “Fundamentalist,” but that is also wrong to join “Fundamentalist” to “Latter Day Saint.” He writes,

“…much misidentification simply results from the confusion between the terms LDS and FLDS.

“Not only are many of the FLDS teachings in conflict with, and repugnant to, the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but, in fact, a person who believes in or practices the teachings of the fundamentalists would be excommunicated from the LDS Church.

“While not strictly speaking identity theft, the adoption of FLDS by this group at best is confusing and at worst undermines the credibility of the Latter-day Saints and tarnishes the LDS ‘brand.’ Sometimes damage to a brand or a trademark has been called attempted identity theft at the corporate level.”

After providing an analogy to illustrate his argument, Mr. Cannon attempts to further distance the LDS Church from the FLDS Church by subtly questioning the latter latter-day church’s true origin:

“Similarly, this group which claims to be a break-off of the LDS Church is, as noted, utterly different in its beliefs and practices.” (emphasis mine)

Finally, Mr. Cannon concludes,

“Whatever their motivation, the consequence of this group’s adoption of the name FLDS has damaged the LDS Church’s identity, brand name and reputation.”

Okay. If use of the terms “Fundamentalist Mormon” or “Polygamist Mormon” generate too much confusion, and we can’t use the FLDS’ own name or initials without thoughtlessly damaging the LDS brand name, what should we call the FLDS? In his editorial Mr. Cannon provides no alternative suggestions. Maybe you folks reading Mormon Coffee have some ideas…

Catholic News Service (CNS) reported last week on an April 2008 Vatican directive sent to Catholic dioceses throughout the world. In the letter, Catholic bishops are instructed to prohibit Latter-day Saints from microfilming and digitizing information contained in parish registers. CNS explained:

“Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said the step was taken to prevent the Latter-day Saints from using records — such as baptismal documentation — to posthumously baptize by proxy the ancestors of church members.”

The Vatican directive says the purpose of this policy is to:

“ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in [each bishop's] territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Father Massa commented that the directive has the potential to strain relations between the Catholic Church and Latter-day Saints,

“but I would also say that the purpose of interreligious dialogue is not to only identify agreements, but also to understand our differences. As Catholics, we have to make very clear to them their practice of so-called rebaptism is unacceptable from the standpoint of Catholic truth.”

On Sunday (May 5, 2008) LDS-owned Deseret News reported on the Vatican directive, logging many comments from readers. Through these comments, the Catholic Church is accused of bigotry, secrecy, stinginess, closed-mindedness, being pawns of the devil, etc. Many Mormon comments include disbelief and the question of why the Catholic Church would even care about LDS proxy baptisms if it doesn’t recognize that rite as efficacious anyway.

A fascinating theme repeated over and over by Latter-day Saints on this forum is this: The fact that the Catholic Church has decided to deny the LDS Church microfilming and digitizing access to Catholic parish records proves that the LDS Church is true. And not only that; it also proves the Catholic Church knows the LDS Church is true.

Though the Vatican says that the LDS practice of baptism for the dead is understood within Catholicism to be “detrimental,” “erroneous,” “unacceptable,” and outside the boundaries of “Catholic truth,” according to these Mormons, Rome’s actions speak louder than words. Consider a few comment excerpts:

“Strange that the boys in Rome are concerned with what they say [is] erroneous doctrine. Perhaps they are slowly realizing that Joseph Smith is indeed a prophet and they see a threat to their man-based religion with all its wealth. More confirmation that the gospel has been restored…”

“I don’t understand why the Catholic church would withhold family information from people of all denominations, who are trying to make links with their ancestors, unless the Catholic church believes that there just might be some credibility to the work done for the dead in LDS temples.”

“It makes the Catholic Church sound as if it is afraid LDS doctine might be correct! If the doctrine is wrong, what difference does it make? If it is correct, do you really want to put yourslf in direct opposition to God’s will? This makes the Catholic Church appear unsure of its doctrine.”

“… perhaps they consider the possibility that mormons are right but don’t want to admit it.”

“Like the Jews, apparently he [the Pope] must believe in the LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead and sealings of families or there would be no reason to fear how these records might be used by the church.”

The Catholic Church has plainly stated that it does not want to “cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in regards to proxy baptism. Is it possible that this is the real reason for the Vatican’s directive? Could it be that the Catholic Church has read and taken to heart God’s Word where it teaches that cooperation is sometimes equal to participation (2 John 1:10-11; 1 Timothy 5:22)? Perhaps the Catholic Church finds these words appropriate in the current situation:

“…the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore, do not become partners with them… Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness…” (Ephesians 5:6-11).

What if that’s the motivation behind this directive after all?

—

Of related interest:
Mormons Should Try Walking in Jewish Shoes
Will Pope Benedict become a Mormon after he dies?

“U.S. Muslims and Mormons share deepening ties” states a headline from an April 2, 2008 article in the L.A. Times. The article discusses a bond between Mormons and Muslims that springs from their corresponding history of alienation and shared values. The article focuses on the similarities between the two religious groups and the ways in which Mormons and Muslims support each other.

BYU history professor Arnold Green recounts the unwelcome comparison of Mormonism to Islam in the 19th century, but notes that things have changed over time:

“As the church grew into a global faith,” Green wrote in a 2001 essay, “its posture toward Islam became . . . more positive” until, today, “the two faiths have become associated in several ways, including Mormonism’s being called the Islam of America.”

A comment by a Mormon identified in the article as Steve Young caught my attention. He said,

“A Mormon living in an Islamic society would be very comfortable.”

This is a surprising statement. Last month CBNnews.com ran an article about Mohammed Hijazi and his family. Raised as a Muslim in Egypt, Mr. Hijazi converted to Christianity three years ago. Now he is running for his life. His father told a local newspaper,

“I am going to try to talk to my son and convince him to return to Islam. If he refuses, I am going to kill him with my own hands.”

Furthermore, according to CBN,

An Islamic council issued a Muslim edict called a “fatwa” back in 1978 that still stands today.

It condemns Mohammed and [his wife] Christina to death for becoming believers.

Where does that leave their little daughter Miriam?

“I don’t think that God is asking you to make your granddaughter an orphan by killing her dad,” said Mohammed [in a written response to his parents].

But under the same fatwa, Miriam will be killed anyway at the age of 10 if she does not choose Islam.

Mormons would be “very comfortable living in an Islamic society”? BYU professor Noel Reynolds apparently agrees as evidenced by this comment:

“…there are many important elements of Mormon thought in which we feel closer to the followers of Muhammad than to the contemporary Christian culture in which we have been located since our beginning” (Reynolds quoted by Spencer Palmer, Mormons and Muslims, 8).

To me this is quite puzzling. It’s hard to understand how members of a religion claiming to be focused first and foremost on Jesus Christ feel such a strong bond with members of a religion that denies a cardinal truth about Jesus: that He is the very Son of God.

I found another statement in the LA Times article just as puzzling as those above:

“When I go to a Mormon church I feel at ease,” said Haitham Bundakji, former chairman of the Islamic Society of Orange County. “When I heard the president [of LDS] speak a few years ago, if I’d closed my eyes I’d have thought he was an imam.”

It was likely unintentional, but behind the scenes the LA Times created a fitting appellation for this Mormon/Muslim phenomenon. It ’s found in the article’s URL: Morlims.