How the LDS Church Prepares Its Members for Atheism (Part 1)

Posted on June 4, 2015 by Joshua Valentine

[The following is the first of a five-part essay offered by Mormon Coffee guest contributor Joshua Valentine (aka spartacus). All five parts of this series will be posted in succession, following our regular schedule of new posts appearing each Monday and Thursday.]

Why do so many Mormons become atheists? Whatever the validity of the observation, online discussions of this topic usually only revolve around the answers of not wanting to be fooled again, burnout, and that the same things that deconstruct Mormonism deconstruct all religions. All of these look outside for an answer, but what about Mormonism, itself?  The very doctrines, teachings, and culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not only directs its members toward atheism but actually gives them atheistic beliefs and atheistic perspectives such that, upon exiting the LDS faith, they find themselves closer to atheism on the spectrum of worldviews than to anything else.

PlanetCreationIn fact, it is Mormon doctrine that actually provides much of the content of an atheist worldview. Mormonism is the most materialistic worldview next to atheism. In Mormon doctrine, it is not the Mormon God or Gods, but Matter, itself, which is truly eternal, having existed from everlasting to everlasting.  With Matter are Eternal Laws or Principles as well. These exist before and independently of the Mormon God. In fact, the Mormon God, like all Gods before him, is himself made up of this eternal matter and subject to these eternal laws or principles.  Joseph Smith taught that spirit was actually matter, just a more “fine” form of it. God, according to Mormonism, had to obey these Eternal Principles in order to progress from eternal fine matter, or “intelligence,” to a god. This is in stark contrast to many religions that assume that independence from, and being the source of, all creation is definitive of what it means to be “God” or the “Ultimate.” However, in LDS cosmology, Matter and Eternal Law are the true Ultimate, not God.

Thus, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides its members an understanding of the universe that is nearly identical to that of naturalistic atheism, where matter and its inherent properties that are described by humans as universal physical laws are ultimately all there is. When a member realizes that the Mormon God does not exist, when this deity is removed from the materialist LDS worldview, they are left with a materialist atheist worldview already in place, provided by the LDS Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the Plan of Happiness.  One of the main purposes of the Mormon God is to bring about the eternal life and happiness of mankind.  The LDS Church teaches that traditional family is critical to this happiness. Mormons are known for holding the family in high regard.  Outsiders who study the religion find it difficult not to conclude that Mormons practically deify their family by their devotion to it, and how it plays such a prominent role in the purpose of existence, and the definition of happiness, and even heaven, itself. In fact, the Mormon God is subsumed into the human family as the literal physical father of all spirits.  Mormons are also known for their service to others. With the exalted doctrine of family and the principles of greatest good being service to humans and family, the ex-member has already embraced the highest good in atheist practice – loved ones and humankind.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also teaches that God and humans are of the same kind or species. It teaches that God used to be a regular human and that humans can become Gods.  All Gods and humans started as “intelligences,” or fine spirit matter. By an unknown process, this intelligence is embodied in a spirit body provided by a previous God and Goddess’ reproductive activity. The resultant “spirit child” may eventually obtain a physical body, living on a world as a human.  The human may, upon dying and an unknown number of millennia in the afterlife, attain “exaltation” and become another God, and the process repeats. In this way, the LDS Church teaches that humans are the highest form of life in the universe, and that our development as individuals and the continuation of our posterity are the highest good. This is strongly analogous to the closest thing to purpose in atheism, the development and continuation of species and, the highest form of life in particular, humankind.

The primacy and essentiality of the family in the LDS conception of purpose and eternal happiness does not simply give a sense of idolatry but the “eternal round” of gods making spirit babies, who become humans, who become gods, and repeat endlessly is also a sacralizing of reproduction and genetic continuance. The LDS Church teaches that the glory of God is this eternal increase of his posterity. This increase is also only possible through the most worthy members, those who have overcome the challenges of life and flourished in the LDS gospel of laws and ordinances. One could say that Mormonism is a religion of not only individual evolution from spirit to human to god, but also a religion of the exaltation of the fittest. Upon leaving the LDS Church and relinquishing belief in its transcendent dimensions of god and afterlife, ex-members are by default evolutionary atheists whose highest good and reason for what they do is their own happiness, which in its greatest form is found in benefitting and continuing the human race.

—

How the LDS Church Prepares Its Members for Atheism (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5)

—

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Culture, Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry | Tagged , , , , , , | 28 Comments

Are you ready to engage Mormons for Christ?

Posted on June 1, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

Chip Thompson in evangelistic conversation with MormonThe Mormonism Research Ministry website is filled with resources to help people gain a broader understanding of the Mormon Church, including its doctrines and history. The website also offers resources to help Christians prepare to reach out to Mormons or those investigating Mormonism. Among other things, MRM has prepared pdf files of three “Redi-references” that can be printed out and placed in a Bible or in Mormon books, ready and handy to help you quickly find the verse references or page numbers of issues you would like to discuss with your friends.

The Book of Mormon Redi-reference lists (among other things) several areas in which the Book of Mormon disagrees with current Mormon doctrines, providing “addresses” where these contrary teachings can be found. For example,

The Book of Mormon teaches God is unchangeable, not a former human being-

  • Moroni 7:22 (p.522) God is from everlasting to everlasting
  • Moroni 8:18 (p.526) God is unchangeable from all eternity
  • 3 Nephi 24:6 (p.455) I am the Lord I change not
  • Mormon 9:9,10 (p.485) God is the same yesterday, today, & forever (Heb.13:8)
  • Mormon 9:19 (p.486) God changeth not

The Doctrine and Covenants Redi-reference alphabetically lists over 40 problematic Mormon teachings, false prophecies and contradictions found in this book that Mormons consider scripture. For example,

  • Adam is Ancient of Days (Sec. 27:11;138:38)
  • Bishops and Associates to be paid by the church (Sec. 42:71-73; 52:13,14)
  • Civil War Prophecy (Sec. 87 – Great Britain didn’t call on other nations, slaves did not rise up against their masters, war did not pour out upon all nations)
  • Elijah and Elias two different people (Sec. 110:12,13)
  • Emma Smith to be destroyed if she does not accept polygamy (Sec. 132:54 – She never did and lived to be 74 years old)
  • Oliver Granger Prophecy (Sec. 117:12 – Little is known of this man)

The Miracle of Forgiveness is described by Bill McKeever as “one of the best books written by an LDS general authority that clearly exposes Mormonism as non Christian.” The Miracle of Forgiveness Redi-reference compiles over 30 traditional Mormon teachings found in the book. These can be used to help Mormons understand that the Mormon “gospel” system for forgiveness is really an impossible gospel. For example,

  • Man must perfect himself to become as God – p.2
  • Hope and desire do not translate into works – p.8
  • List of transgressions the Lord condemns – p.25
  • Covenant breakers described as wicked – p.57
  • Trying is not sufficient – Parable of the army officer – p.164
  • Forgiveness canceled upon reversion to sin – p.169
  • Cannot sin again and again and expect repeated forgiveness – pp.170 & 360
  • Salvation by grace alone a fallacious doctrine originated by Satan – p.206

Lest anyone misunderstand, MRM does not provide these Redi-references (or any other information) merely to be argumentative. As Eric Johnson explains,

“The main topic on mrm.org is dealing with the topic of Mormonism from a biblical point of view. It may sound to some that we are ‘anti’ Mormons and hate them. This is not the case. We just don’t believe Mormonism is true, which is why we do our best to present the evidence to support our position. At the same time, our goal is not to get someone to leave Mormonism and then head toward atheism or agnosticism. There really is a Jesus who loves His people very much! He desires a relationship, which is why Jesus came to this earth and became a man so He could die for our sins.”

Though not a Redi-reference, at this MRM webpage Eric lists 10 reasons why a person ought to consider becoming a Christian. Please visit the page and consider these reasons – either for yourself, or to share with and challenge others.

Christians, be ready for every opportunity–and may God be glorified.

Posted in Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price, Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism, Mormon Scripture, Nature of God | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 32 Comments

Cultic Characteristics in Mormonism

Posted on May 28, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom
Roger E. Olson. George W. Truett Theological Seminary - Faculty Environmental Portraits

Roger E. Olson. George W. Truett Theological Seminary – Faculty Environmental Portraits

Though the word “cult” has fallen far out of favor, cults and religious sects still exist. Christian author and theologian Roger E. Olson recently addressed the history of the word and its evolving definition in an article titled, “Criteria for Recognizing a Religious Sect as a ‘Cult.’” Because of the fact that there are difficulties in assigning a universal definition to the word, Dr. Olson explains,

“My preference has become to not speak of ‘cults’ but of ‘cultic characteristics.’ In other words, religious groups are, in my taxonomy, ‘more or less cultic.’ I reserve the word ‘cult’ as a label (especially in public) for those few groups that are clearly a threat to their adherents’ and/or public physical safety. In other words, given the evolution of the term ‘cult’ in public discourse, I only label a religious group a cult publicly insofar as I am convinced it poses a danger to people—beyond their spiritual well-being from my own religious-spiritual-theological perspective…

“On the other hand, at least privately and in classroom settings (whether in the university or the church) I still use the label ‘cult’ for religious groups that display a critical mass of ‘cultic characteristics.’”

Dr. Olson provides his readers with a list of 10 behaviors he considers key “cultic characteristics” to watch for when evaluating “alternate religious groups.” I found it interesting that most (if not all) of these “cultic characteristics” are found in Mormonism. I’ve listed Dr. Olson’s criteria below, along with representative quotes from or about the Mormon Church, that demonstrate how Mormonism fits each characteristic.

  1. Belief that only members of the group are true Christians to the exclusion of all others, or (in the case of non-Christian religious groups) that their spiritual technology (whatever that may be) is the singular path to spiritual fulfillment to the exclusion of all others.

“…for I contend that the Latter-day Saints are the only good and true Christians, that I know anything about in the world. There are a good many people who profess to be Christians, but they are not founded on the foundation that Jesus Christ himself has laid.” (Joseph F. Smith, November 2, 1891, [Stake conference message], Collected Discourses, 2:305. Ellipses mine)

  1. Aggressive proselytizing of people from other religious traditions and groups implying that those other traditions and groups are totally false if not evil.

“I was answered that I must join none of them for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:19)

  1. Joseph Smith with SwordTeaching as core “truths” necessary for salvation (however defined) doctrines radically contrary to their host religion’s (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) orthodoxy broadly defined.

“From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up things of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are — I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:238. See also Search These Commandments, 133)

  1. Use of conscious, intentional deception toward adherents and/or outsiders about the group’s history, doctrines, leadership, etc.

“Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

“A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.” (Gordon B. Hinckley interview with journalist Don Van Biema. See also “Kingdom Come,” Time, August 4, 1997)

  1. Authoritarian, controlling leadership above question or challenge to the degree that adherents who question or challenge are subjected to harsh discipline if not expulsion.

“He [Lucifer] wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against the leaders and do ‘their own thinking.’ He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery…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.” (Ward Teachers’ Message, Improvement Era, June 1945, 354. Ellipses and brackets mine)

  1. Esoteric beliefs known only to core members; levels of initiation and membership with new members required to go through initiations in order to know the higher-order beliefs.
    EndowmentCeremonyBigLove

“Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation.” (Second Lecturer, Post-1990 LDS Endowment Ceremony, Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony 1842-1990, p. 110)

  1. Extreme boundaries between the group and the “outside world” to the extent that adherents are required to sever ties with non-adherent family members and stay within the group most of the time.

“Many of Rosen’s patients fear losing their jobs at Mormon-owned companies, where water cooler chatter revolves around bishops, youth groups and callings. ‘[Ex-Mormons] have to find new peers and new families, so to speak, and sometimes, new places of employment,’ she says. ‘Leaving the church is almost like going into the witness protection program.’” (Newsweek, “When the Saints Go Marching Out,” 1/30/2014. Please note: These “severed ties” as described here are cultural, not “required” by the Mormon Church.)

  1. Teaching that adherents who leave the group automatically thereby become outcasts with all fraternal ties with members of the group severed and enter a state of spiritual destruction.

“Brethren who have been on missions, can you see any difference in this people from the time you went away until your return? [Voices: ‘Yes.’] You can see men and women who are sixty or seventy years of age looking young and handsome; but let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 5:332. Brackets in original)

  1. latter-day-saint-volunteeringHigh demand on adherents’ time and resources such that they have little or no “free time” for self-enrichment (to say nothing of entertainment), relaxation or amusement.

“Of course, much of Latter-day Saint volunteerism is religious in nature; for example, congregants volunteer time to teach youth scripture classes or help prepare the chapel for Sunday worship, among other things. Yet, as the study points out, active Church members also dedicate 151.9 hours annually to serving in the Church’s social and community initiatives, such as Boy Scouts of America or the Church’s worldwide welfare and humanitarian aid programs. Aside from these efforts, the study found that individual members give an additional 34 hours annually to other social causes unrelated to the Church.” (“Mormon Volunteerism Highlighted in New Study,” Mormon Newsroom website)

[A Mormon Infographic on Latter-day Saint Volunteering breaks down the 472.9 volunteer hours per member per year as: 34 hours for non-Church affiliate charitable causes; 55.7 hours for Church sponsored community social care efforts; 96.2 hours for Church sponsored congregational care efforts; 242 hours for religious duties for the Church.]

  1. Details of life controlled by the group’s leaders in order to demonstrate the leaders’ authority.

“Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible. Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. When two-piece garments are used, both pieces should always be worn. The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect at all times. Members should keep their garments clean and mended. They should not alter the garment from its authorized design. Nor should they display it or expose it to the view of those who do not understand its significance.” (Church Handbook of Instructions, 1998, 68)

In his article, Dr. Olson notes that all sorts of religious organizations may exhibit some “cultic characteristics” some of the time, but he makes distinctions between those that are “more or less cultic.” Dr. Olson has advice for people in religious groups that fall on the more cultic side of the spectrum; that is, those that “display a critical mass of ‘cultic characteristics’”:

“My recommendation to people caught in such abusive religious environments is to leave as quickly as possible.”

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Galatians and Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: Why the BYU Religion Department Should Make Your Blood Boil

Posted on May 25, 2015 by Aaron Shafovaloff

Remember, the Judaizers to which Paul was responding in Galatians were not crass perfectionists. They would have confessed that God’s grace was sufficient. They would have confessed the centrality of the atonement. They would have rejected explicit requirements of perfection. But they still insisted on just a few key teachings of the Law (distinctive boundary markers like circumcision, kosher eating, festivals, etc).

In other words, the harshness of Paul was NOT directly toward the Spencer Kimballs of the world. It was to the Robert Millets and Stephen Robinsons and Brad Wilcoxes of the world. Galatians is not directly written against a book like Miracle of Forgiveness, it is rather written against a book like Believing Christ. The compassionate rage of Paul in Galatians is against the subtlety of neo-orthodoxy.

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments

How was Joseph Smith’s seer stone like a smart phone?

Posted on May 21, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

I know the headline sounds like a lead-in to a joke, but in fact, Mormon apologist Daniel Peterson wrote a “Defending the Faith” column for Deseret News in which he suggested that, though “some critics of Joseph Smith mock the fact that part of the Book of Mormon translation process apparently involved dictating while looking at a stone that he’d placed within a hat…far from being damaging evidence against his claims and against the Book of Mormon, this fact may strongly support their plausibility.”

Dr. Peterson asks his readers to “consider a smartphone or e-reader, for instance. Their screens are very difficult to read out in the sunlight and need to be shaded. Or consider your personal computer. You probably don’t place it directly in front of a window where bright light will be streaming into your face.” So too, he says, did Joseph Smith need to place his seer stone in a hat in order to better see the words on it, and to reduce eye strain.

Dr. Peterson argues that the fact that Joseph put his face in a hat while dictating the Book of Mormon has “intriguing” implications. Referring to a common charge by critic’s that Joseph Smith may have plagiarized existing documents to write the Book of Mormon, Dr. Peterson points out: “A manuscript hidden in the bottom of a hat would be difficult if not impossible to read.”

The question, of course, is why Joseph Smith needed to look at a stone in a hat in the first place. As the story goes, Joseph had been given tangible metal plates covered with the writings of ancient prophets written in “Reformed Egyptian.” God had supplied Joseph with “interpreters” — two stones in silver bows, called the Urim and Thummim — to enable him to translate the characters into English. But he set the plates and the interpreters aside and resorted to a stone in a hat.

The fact that he used a hat, according to Daniel Peterson, “strongly supports” Joseph Smith’s claims and the validity of the Book of Mormon. But if, in fact, the hat really does powerfully substantiate the plausibility of Mormonism’s claims, why has the Mormon Church largely neglected to include it in its official narratives regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon?

Despite Dr. Peterson’s apologetic, I’m afraid I remain unconvinced.

Listen to today’s Viewpoint on Mormonism where Bill and Eric discuss this particular defense of the Mormon faith as argued by Daniel Peterson.

Posted in Book of Mormon, Early Mormonism, LDS Church, Mormon History | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Do Mormons Have Faith in the Bible?

Posted on May 18, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

The Bible and the Book of MormonThe Mormon Church recognizes four books as scripture: The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible. And yet, as noted at the MRM website,

Joseph Smith said [of the Bible], “Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 327). The First Presidency confirmed this idea in 1992 when they wrote, “The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts” (Presidents Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas Monson, “Letter Reaffirms Use of King James Version of Bible,” Church News, June 20, 1992, 3). [A] BYU Professor explained that “the Bible is not, and was never intended to be, our sole guide, our template, our standard against which we measure what we teach or believe” (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 6:1, 198-199).

And though Mormons periodically use the Bible as their course of study in Sunday School as the curriculum rotates through the different volumes of Mormon scripture, in practice many Mormons do not give the Bible its due.

Love the BibleWhen visiting the Mormon Payson Temple during its open house in May 2015, Eric Johnson and I spoke with an LDS missionary who was staffing the open house’s hospitality tent (where visitors were ushered after their tours). As we discussed Mormon temples and how they differ from the biblical temple, and as we discussed the concept of Mormon exaltation and how it differs from biblical teachings on salvation and Heaven, the LDS missionary told us several times that she wasn’t very familiar with the Bible or its teachings.

Later, as Eric and I delivered newspapers to the homes surrounding the temple grounds, we enjoyed a long conversation with a life-long LDS woman. She told us that she wanted to get to know Christ better — that she wanted to understand Him more. She believed she would learn many things about Jesus in the Bible — a book, she said, that she hadn’t read much in her 70+ years. After admitting that she had some trouble understanding the language of the King James Version (the Bible the Mormon Church authorizes its members to use), Eric offered to give her a gift of a Bible in a more modern translation. The Mormon woman was hesitant to accept the gift. When asked if she would agree to read it, she said, “I won’t promise to read it, but I will promise to pray about whether I should read it.”

Mormonism builds reluctance in Latter-day Saints toward trusting – and using – the Bible. Mormons don’t know how accurate the Bible is, and they don’t know how much evidence exists for its historicity.

To borrow from and repurpose Joseph Smith—History 1:19, Mormonism draws near to the Bible with its lips, but its heart is far from it.

For Mormons (and others) who don’t know that the Bible can be trusted, here’s a short video (under 4 minutes) that presents a few reasons why Christians confidently place their trust in the Bible and embrace it wholeheartedly as the Word of God.

Posted in Bible, Mormon Scripture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 40 Comments

LDS Church on the Marriage(s) of Jesus

Posted on May 14, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

ThrowbackThursIt’s Throwback Thursday! The following blog article originally posted at Mormon Coffee on May 19, 2006. Though The Da Vinci Code is now old news, being nine years after the movie’s release, I just received an email last week that addressed the issue of a married Jesus. A Mormon woman wrote, “On this topic, we are told that, indeed, Jesus did marry. In order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, you must get married in the temple, and get baptized. Jesus was baptized to set an example unto us. To show that even the most perfect of men need to get baptized, so even the most perfect men need to get married, but not only that [–] Jesus also had to be baptized and married to live in the Celestial Kingdom.” Since this remains a current topic, it seems timely to use “LDS Church on the Marriage(s) of Jesus” as a Throwback Thursday Mormon Coffee post.

Today The Da Vinci Code opens in U.S. theatres. There’s a lot of buzzing going on, including some from the LDS Church. Wednesday’s online Deseret News ran a short article titled “LDS do not endorse claims in ‘Da Vinci'” quoted here in part:

LDS doctrine does not endorse claims made in a popular book and movie that Jesus Christ was married…

Dale Bills, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement released Tuesday:

“The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine.”

I don’t know quite how to take Mr. Bills’ claim. Two weeks ago here on Mormon Coffee I included a quote from Salt Lake Tribune journalist Pat Bagley:

Growing up in the church in California, I dutifully got up every morning during high school at 5:30 a.m. to attend seminary. It was there I first learned that the marriage attended by Jesus in Cana, where he famously turned water into grape juice, was probably his own.

If it’s taught in LDS seminary, isn’t it taught by the LDS Church? I suppose it might be an issue of where the seminary instructor got the idea in the first place. Was it just his or her speculation? If so, that teacher should have been replaced, but quick.

We don’t know where the teacher got his information, but quite possibly it could have come from LDS authorities. Consider this teaching from LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

We will turn over to the account of the marriage in Cana of Galilee…

Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do.

Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell me who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified. (Journal of Discourses 2:82. “A lecture by President Orson Hyde, delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.”)

As a side note, I’m not able to tell President Hyde who was married at the wedding of Cana, but I can tell him who wasn’t; John 2:2 says that both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. Grooms are not invited to their own weddings, they actually do the inviting. Jesus was not married at this wedding in Cana.

At any rate, if the President of the Twelve Apostles, speaking at General Conference, in his official capacity as an Apostle, said Jesus was married–and was never reprimanded for it–wouldn’t that indicate that the Church both taught and sanctioned the doctrine?

There was some fallout for Mr. Hyde, but not from the Church. In a sermon delivered five months later Mr. Hyde said,

I discovered that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this–they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough “to fulfil all righteousness;” not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law “to multiply and replenish the earth.” Startle not at this! (Journal of Discourses 2:210. “A sermon by President Orson Hyde, delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, March 18, 1855.” Spelling retained.)

Mr. Hyde was still teaching this doctrine in 1857 (see Journal of Discourses 4:260). He was not the only LDS leader to teach that Jesus was married. LDS Apostle Orson Pratt taught:

One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus–such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene;…now it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives. (The Seer, Washington D.C. edition, October 1853, page 159)

We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many honorable Wives were to be married. We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time; ..And then it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, Jesus and his honorable wives. all eating occasionally at the same table… (The Seer, Washington D.C. edition, November 1853, page 172)

The index of the Journal of Discourses says the marriage of Jesus was implied by Jedediah M. Grant. Eight months before being made an apostle Mr. Grant said:

…and what does [ancient philosopher Celsus] say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, “The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him.”

A belief in the doctrine of the plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were “Mormons.” (Journal of Discourses 1:345-346. “A discourse by Elder Jedediah M. Grant, delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, Aug. 7, 1853.”)

There’s a more modern source for this teaching that may have been used by the seminary instructor who taught Mr. Bagley. LDS Seventy Milton R. Hunter wrote The Gospel Through the Ages in 1945. The preface states,

This book is designed primarily for a course of study in the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums of the Church. It is to be used by all high priests’, seventies’, and elders’ classes in their weekly meetings, beginning January 1, 1946….The volume has been written and published under the direction of the General Authorities.

As an authoritative course of study published under the direction of the General Authorities of the Church it seems that there should be no disputing that what it teaches is “official” and “sanctioned” by the Church. The book says,

Operating in addition to and as part of natural laws are the Gospel ordinances. They were instituted by God the Eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ before man was placed on this earth, for the purpose of assisting in bringing the sons and daughters of God back into Their presence. Such ordinances as baptism, confirmation, temple ordinances, priesthood ordinations, marriage, and others, are all part of the Gospel plan of salvation. All of these principles and ordinances of the Gospel are eternal. They were instituted before man was placed on the earth and are applicable to all human beings that live here…

Jesus Christ, the only perfect man who has lived on this earth, was perfect because He obeyed all the principles and ordinances of the Gospel in order that He “might fulfill all righteousness.” He thereby set a pattern of life for all mortals to follow. If they obey all the principles and ordinances of the Gospel, as did the Master, their growth will continue until they attain eternal life in the Kingdom of God. (pages 18-19. Emphasis mine.)

So I really don’t understand Mr. Bills and his statement on behalf of the LDS Church. Clearly, he is spinning the truth.

Posted in Jesus Christ, Marriage and Singlehood | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

The Pattern of Mormon Temples

Posted on May 11, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

Payson TempleLast week I returned from a visit to Utah. While there, I took a tour of the Mormon Church’s newly completed Payson Temple. As is the normal practice for temple open houses, the tour began with a video about Mormon temples. And as is usual for the temple open house videos, the claim is made that Mormon temples are a restoration of ancient biblical temples. I don’t have an exact quote from the video, but the idea it expressed is reflected in a comment recently made by a Mormon Seventy:

“Temples are patterned after Solomon’s temple and honor the Lord and express our gratitude.” (Kent R. Richards (Director of the LDS Church’s Temple Department), Payson LDS Temple: A Special Edition of the Daily Herald, April 15 2015, 14)

Mr. Richards’ remark is right in line with — or, one might say “patterned after” — information found in an older pamphlet produced by the Mormon Church:

“In Biblical times sacred ordinances were administered in holy edifices for the spiritual salvation of ancient Israel. The buildings thus used were not synagogues, nor any other ordinary places of worship. They were specially constructed for this particular purpose…. Following the pattern of Biblical days, the Lord again in our day has provided these ordinances for all who will believe, and directs that temples be built in which to perform those sacred rites.” (Mark E. Petersen, Why Mormons Build Temples, 3. Ellipses mine)

My tour of the Payson temple took me through many rooms on several floors of a very large building (96,630 square feet). I saw:

  • A reception area/recommend desk
  • A baptism clothing/towel rental area
  • A baptismal font
  • Locker rooms
  • Waiting rooms
  • Initiatory rooms
  • Ordinance rooms
  • Sealing rooms
  • Grand staircases
  • Upholstered furniture
  • Crystal chandeliers
  • And more…

This is the floor plan of one floor of a typical Mormon Temple:

LDSTempleFloor Plan

This is the floor plan of Solomon’s Temple as described in the Bible (see 1 Kings 6-7):

SolomonTempleFloorPlan

The Mormon Church may claim its temples are “patterned after” Solomon’s Temple, but in reality, there is nothing common to both other than the fact that they are both structures that are called “temples.” Neither the buildings themselves, nor those things that take/took place within them correspond to one another. King Solomon explained,

“Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the LORD my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense of sweet spices before him, and for the regular arrangement of the showbread, and for burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths and the new moons and the appointed feasts of the LORD our God…” (2 Chronicles 2:4)

Solomon understood that the temple was for a very specific purpose:

“Who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?” (2 Chronicles 2:6, KJV)

The biblical temple was for offering sacrifices as temporary atonement for sin. It pointed to Christ as the full, final, and sufficient sacrifice. As Christian theologian John Piper noted,

“But all the Old Testament believers knew that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). They pointed beyond themselves to Christ, who was the final sacrifice for sin. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:7, ‘Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.’ That was the final sacrifice for sin, because it was perfect and sufficient for all who believe. Most clearly of all Hebrews 10:12 says, ‘When Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.’ So Christ brought to an end the Old Testament sacrifices for sin. He finished the great work of atonement. His death cannot be improved on. All we have to do now is trust him for that great work. We do not add to it.”

Mormon temples, on the other hand, are built for these purposes:

“These two great purposes – eternal marriage (binding the family for time and eternity), and opening the door of the kingdom for those who have died without an adequate opportunity to accept the [restored] Gospel of Jesus Christ and its essential ordinances [i.e., baptism for the dead, etc.]…

“In addition there is the Temple ‘endowment,’ which is also an ordinance pertaining to man’s eternal journey and limitless possibilities and progress…

“This is why Temples are built.” (President David O. McKay, “The Purpose of the Temple,” pamphlet published by the LDS Church, 1974, 10-11)

The Mormon Church has every right to build temples according to any design and for any purpose it pleases, but here’s the problem. The Church proclaims that Mormon temples are “patterned after” Solomon’s temple, and that Mormon temples are a restoration of ancient biblical temples, built for the performance of biblical ordinances. These assertions are completely untrue. And considering the fact that every detail of the biblical temple is clearly presented in the Bible, the Mormon Church knows its assertions are untrue. Which means the Church is willfully deceiving people about Mormon temples.

And so I believe these temples accomplish the opposite of the claim made by Kent Richards. Mormon temples do not “honor the Lord”; they dishonor the Lord through deception.

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Temple | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 30 Comments

Mormon Church Essay on Priesthood Ban Banned From Church Classroom

Posted on May 7, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

ClassroomAn interesting thing happened to Mormon Sunday school teacher Brian Dawson. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that a student in Mr. Dawson’s youth Sunday school class asked him why his Nigerian wife joined a church that had at one time excluded blacks from the priesthood and Mormon temples. The student wondered where the priesthood ban came from so Mr. Dawson agreed to discuss it with the class:

“You know, he began, we could rely on the personal witness of believing black members, but there is also a church-approved document the class could read together. It’s called ‘Race and the Priesthood’ and was published in December 2013 on the faith’s own website.

“The students eagerly agreed, so the following week Dawson arrived, armed with the essay and several articles from the church’s official Ensign magazine about early black Mormons, including Elijah Abel, Jane Manning James and Green Flake…

“The essay noted the priesthood ban was rooted more in earthly racism during Brigham Young’s era than heavenly revelation.

“Pointing that out — and that future missionaries should understand this history — was where Dawson’s troubles began.” (Peggy Fletcher Stack, “This Mormon Sunday school teacher was dismissed for using church’s own race essay in lesson,” May 5, 2015)

Mr. Dawson was later contacted by his bishop and told, “Anything regarding black history before 1978 is irrelevant and a moot point,” according to The Salt Lake Tribune. The bishop “insisted that Dawson agree never again to bring up the essay or discuss ‘black Mormon history’ in the class.” Mr. Dawson countered,

“‘If the [Holy] Spirit guides me in a way that involves these multitude of documents,’ he asked the bishop, ‘who am I to resist the enticing of the Spirit?’

“The bishop replied, according to Dawson, ‘The Spirit is telling me to tell you not to use those documents.’”

wagging_fingerIt’s natural to wonder why the Spirit would tell Mr. Dawson one thing while giving his bishop an opposite message. I don’t know if Mr. Dawson entertained this question, but he chose not to submit to his bishop’s demands and was released from his position as teacher.

The Dawsons then appealed to a higher authority in the Church. The Salt Lake Tribune says,

“Eventually, their local LDS leaders agreed that Dawson’s materials were legitimate but decided he shouldn’t teach them anyway.

“It was too much for the kids, they argued, and church was not the right venue for the discussion.”

The Dawsons are reportedly baffled by all of this. The point of the Mormon Church essays on controversial aspects of Mormon history was explained in 2014 to journalist Laurie Goodstein:

“There is so much out there on the Internet that we felt we owed our members a safe place where they could go to get reliable, faith-promoting information that was true about some of these more difficult aspects of our history.” (Steven E. Snow, quoted in The New York Times, “It’s Official: Mormon Founder Had Up to 40 Wives,” November 10, 2014)

On its website, the Mormon Church urges all people to “read the essays as written” and “encourages members to study” them (“Gospel Topics” introduction).

But don’t talk about them at church. Don’t teach them at church. Don’t confuse teenage LDS members with the “reliable, faith-promoting information” they contain.

In her interview for this Salt Lake Tribune article, Mormon author Tamu Smith notes that even though the LDS Church essay on Race and the Priesthood has been announced to church leadership and is included in the newest curriculum for high school and college students,

“‘many seminary teachers [for high school], institute [college] teachers, and even some people teaching at Brigham Young University are blind to it — even when you point things out to them.’

“It’s ‘great’ that the essay is on the church website, Smith says, ‘but people don’t believe it.’”

I almost think the Mormon Church would like it to stay that way.

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, LDS Church, Mormon History | Tagged , , , , , , , | 35 Comments

How “official” is the Mormon First Presidency?

Posted on May 4, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

In 1973, five years before the Mormon Church lifted its ban on Blacks holding the LDS priesthood and participating in Mormon temple ordinances, Wendell J. Ashton, the Mormon Church’s director of Public Affairs, appeared on “1973 Special News Report: When the Latter-day Saints Go Marching In.”

Using an official statement on the matter issued by the First Presidency of the Church in 1969, Mr. Ashton explained that only God knew why the priesthood was denied to people of African descent at that time. The First Presidency Statement of which Mr. Ashton quoted a small part also says,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation…

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God…Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

And, according to Mr. Ashton, revelation “from the Lord” would be required for any change to “the seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro.”

Pre-dating the 1969 First Presidency Statement was a similar statement issued twenty years earlier. But the 1949 First Presidency Statement took a stronger stance on the reason for the priesthood ban. In addition to being in agreement with the 1969 statement regarding the fact that the ban was a consequence of revelation (“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization…”), the 1949 First Presidency explained,

The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

Somehow, “the attitude of the Church…as it has always been” changed by December 2013. Though not as authoritative as a First Presidency Statement, the Mormon Church published an essay that was meant to explain and clear up misconceptions surrounding this aspect of Mormon history.

The essay says,

“There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.”

But if the priesthood ban “goes back into the beginning with God,” “antedates man’s mortal existence,” and was a “direct commandment from the Lord,” did Joseph Smith disobey God if he did not deny the priesthood to black men?

The essay says,

“Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.”

Since the Church’s First Presidency issued an official statement explaining the priesthood and temple restrictions were “in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God” and somehow a result of “the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence,” does the Mormon Church now reject the official First Presidency Statement?

The essay says,

“…the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life;…”

So does this mean that the Church today demotes an earlier official First Presidency Statement to the level of a “theory,” and washes its hands of the official proclamations of early Church prophets, seers and revelators?

What are we to make of this? Current LDS doctrine, as outlined in the Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual, Religion 333, is this:

“What the First Presidency Says Is Scripture

“President Marion G. Romney (1897-1988) of the First Presidency taught that the First Presidency speaks the words Jesus Christ would declare if He were here in person:

“ ‘…what the presidency say as a presidency is what the Lord would say if he were here, and it is scripture. It should be studied, understood, and followed, even as the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and other scriptures. Those who follow this course will not interpret what they say as being inspired by political bias or selfishness; neither will they say that the brethren are uninformed as to the circumstances of those affected by their counsel; or that their counsels cannot be accepted because they are not prefaced by the quotation, “Thus saith the Lord.”’” (Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual, Religion 333, 2010, 52-53)

Sadly, Mormons don’t seem to be troubled by their leaders’ contradictory teachings. In fact, Mormons have been fond of misappropriating and quoting 1 Corinthians 14:33 in an effort to disparage Christianity: “For God is not a God of confusion.” Yet Mormonism is so confusing and contradictory that Latter-day Saints can’t know who or what they are supposed to believe. Do prophets speak for God – or not? Is what the First Presidency say Scripture – or not? Is the Church safe from being led astray – or not?

I implore everyone everywhere: do not listen to false prophets who claim to speak for God, yet who demonstrate through their contradictions and confusing messages that they “follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!” (Ezekiel 13:1-4). Instead, look to God Himself – “the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17). His written Word — available to all — His Word is truth (John 17:17).

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, LDS Church, Mormon History, Mormon Leaders, Mormon Scripture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 34 Comments