Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration

Posted on April 30, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

ThrowbackThursIt’s Throwback Thursday! The following blog article originally posted at Mormon Coffee on May 3, 2006. This year, 2015, marks the 10th anniversary of the original release of the Mormon Church-produced film discussed in this post. Please note: the original film was heavily edited in 2011 (“The revised version is five minutes shorter than the original and about 40 percent of the movie is new”). Some of the parallels noted in this blog post, which appeared in the original film, no longer exist in the current (revised) version.

——————

I’ve spent the last 4 days in Nauvoo, Illinois, the historic town used by the Mormon Church for faith-promotion and proselytizing. On Sunday, at the LDS Visitors Center (pictured at left), a friend and I viewed the movie, Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration. Produced as part of last year’s celebration of the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith’s birth, this hour-long film is meant to depict the life and mission of Joseph Smith, the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As with all films produced by the Mormon Church, this one relies on manipulation of the viewers’ emotions at the expense of accurate history. I expected this; but I was surprised — and deeply offended — by the blatant near-deification of Joseph Smith. Though this comment may seem severe, it does not even begin to convey the blasphemous nature of the film’s portrayal of Joseph Smith’s life. Let me explain.

Near the beginning of the movie, during the scene of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, my friend leaned over to me and said, “Does this remind you of The Passion of the Christ?” And indeed it did. Joseph was portrayed in the Sacred Grove in torment as he prayed for wisdom. Nearly prostrate on the ground, he trembled and he sweat and he agonized as evil forces swirled around him. The scene immediately brought Christ’s struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane to mind.

As the film continued we were struck time and again by the way it portrayed Joseph’s life in seeming parallel with the life of Christ. It was almost as if the script writers had taken the story of Jesus and mapped Joseph’s life onto it. Though the details and sequence of events differed, in discussing it after the film we recalled these corresponding scenes between this portrayal of Joseph’s life and the life of Christ (listed here in no particular order):

  • The Garden of Gethsemane
  • Jesus crying, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
  • Scourging and mocking at the hands of soldiers
  • Judas’ betrayal
  • Jesus’ arrest
  • Peter’s denial
  • Pilate’s declaration, “This man is innocent.”
  • Jesus washing the disciples’ feet
  • Healing the sick
  • Raising Jairus’ daughter to life

Throughout the entire film Joseph was abused and mistreated continually; he received this treatment for no reason at all. He was portrayed as being wholly innocent and righteous in all his ways. In the words of an LDS woman, the Prophet of the Restoration was depicted as being perfectly and unreservedly “Christlike.”

After the film a Mormon missionary asked me if I liked it. When I told her I had been offended and thought the film did a grave disservice to my Lord and Savior, she replied, “I’m sorry, but it’s history.”

Of course, it’s not accurate history, but that’s not the point I’m making here. To me, the film sought to elevate Joseph Smith to the level of someone worthy — not just of reverence — but of worship. In portraying the story of Jesus Christ in the person of Joseph Smith the film crossed the line from propaganda to blasphemy.

My friend believes the film reveals that within Mormonism there is no need for Jesus; Joseph is enough. As it happened, we later spoke with another LDS missionary and my friend asked, “In this church, if you have a testimony of Joseph Smith, do you need a testimony of Jesus Christ?” The missionary and his wife both answered no; that a testimony of Joseph and a testimony of Jesus are “one and the same.” As we toured the historic LDS sites on Sunday, at each place we stopped and listened to the scripted tours, we were treated to the missionaries’ “testimony of Joseph.” Not once did a Mormon missionary share a testimony of Jesus.

Now that I’ve had a few days’ distance from my encounter with Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration my indignation has settled into a deep sorrow over the spiritual state of the Mormon people. They have been so conditioned that they cannot see a significant difference between Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ. They watch The Prophet of the Restoration and dab tears from their eyes — tears shed in gratitude for what the Prophet has done for them.

As I walked around Nauvoo and talked to the Mormon missionaries there I was saddened by their apparent willingness to sacrifice Christ’s offer of reconciliation with God in Him, in favor of maintaining their own love of Church and devotion to Joseph Smith. I thought of Christ’s words, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,…How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37).

Yet even now Jesus stands at the door and knocks. If anyone hears His voice and opens the door, He “will come in to him” (Revelation 3:30). May God, in His mercy, give them ears to hear.

Posted in Early Mormonism, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, LDS Church, Mormon Culture, Mormon History, Mormon Missionaries, Nauvoo, Prophets | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 33 Comments

“As Mormons, we worship…?”

Posted on April 27, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

At the Mormon.org website, visitors can learn about Joseph Smith and what he means to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Under the sub-heading, “A Martyr of the Restored Gospel,” the site says,

“Joseph Smith gave his life for the cause of truth.

“Some people mistakenly believe Mormons worship Joseph Smith. This is false; we worship God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Joseph was not a perfect person, nor a deity. He was a man of virtue who fulfilled an extraordinary calling.”

Death of Joseph SmithIt’s a curious thing that “some people mistakenly believe Mormons worship Joseph Smith.” But perhaps there is a reason some get that idea.

Consider Mormon apostle Stephen L. Richards who, in 1941, commented that

“the day will come when the righteous of the earth will look to [Carthage Jail] and make their pilgrimages to it in worshipful veneration of the ‘man who communed with Jehovah.’” (Quoted in Brian Q. Cannon, “ ‘Long Shall His Blood…Stain Illinois’: Carthage Jail in Mormon Memory, 10. [pdf] Cannon citation: Journal History, October 31, 1953, 6; August 30, 1941, 2–3)

Indeed. Peoria’s Journal Star reported in 1988,

“The Old Carthage Jail, where Mormon founder Joseph Smith was murdered in 1844, holds the same significance to his approximately 6.5 million followers as Calvary holds for Christians all over the world.

“That’s the comparison made by Ted Cannon, director of the Mormon Visitor Centers at Carthage and Nauvoo.” (Doug Schorpp, “Mormons to renovate Carthage Jail,” Journal Star, June 26, 1988, D3)

These Mormon men were apparently mistaken in what they said, for Mormons do not worship Joseph Smith. Nevertheless, it seems there has been plenty of confusion throughout the history of Mormonism regarding who Mormons do worship. In Mormonism, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three deities – three Gods (see the LDS Bible Dictionary, “God”). The question is, are they supposed to worship only one of these Gods, or are they to worship two, or perhaps all three of them? Members of the Mormon Church remain confused over the issue. Contradictory authoritative teaching in the Church is likely the reason why.

In 1912, in an effort to correct a mistaken Mormon belief resulting from doctrine taught by Brigham Young that the first human being, Adam, was God the Father, the Mormon Church’s First Presidency clarified,

“While, as Paul puts it, ‘there be gods many and Lords many (whether in heaven or in earth), unto us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Jesus Christ by whom are all things.’ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worships Him, and Him alone, who is the Father of Jesus Christ, whom He worshiped, whom Adam worshiped, and who is God the Eternal Father of us all.

“Your brethren, (signed) JOSEPH F. SMITH, ANTHON H. LUND, CHARLES W. PENROSE, First Presidency.” (Messages of the First Presidency, “Identity and career of Adam; February 20, 1912,” 4:267)

LDS Godhead (two of three)Mormons were not to worship Adam or Jesus, but were to worship Heavenly Father alone. Half a century later, in 1966, Mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie believed something different. He explained that Mormons worship three deities:

“Three separate personages – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, 576. Italics in original)

Then, in 2002, Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley clarified in the Church’s General Conference,

“He [Jesus Christ] is the central focus of our worship.” (“We Look to Christ,” Ensign, May 2002, 90)

Today, the lds.org website says,

“Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son.” (“Godhead”)

Perhaps there is a difference between “the central focus” and “the ultimate object” of a Mormon’s worship; yet in the most recent quote above, there seems to be a distinction between worshiping the Father while acknowledging the Son and Holy Spirit.

In light of this, I don’t know if the December 2012 Ensign magazine actually clarified which God/Gods Mormons are to worship when it seemed to disagree with the lds.org website:

“While we believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, we worship our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.” (“What We Believe,” Ensign, December 2012, 8)

I’m inclined to think that the Ensign statement just muddied the waters because lds.org also says this:

“To worship God is to give Him our love, reverence, service, and devotion. The Lord commanded Moses, “Worship God, for him only shalt thou serve” (Moses 1:15)…

“Prayer is one way to worship Heavenly Father…

“Another way to worship Heavenly Father is to join in fellowship with others who worship Him…

“Participation in priesthood ordinances is also part of worship. As we reverently partake of the sacrament and attend the temple, we remember and worship our Heavenly Father and express our gratitude for His Son, Jesus Christ.” (“Worship”)

And this:

“Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have always worshipped God the Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ…

“ ‘We testify that He will someday return to earth. ‘And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together’ ( Isaiah 40:5). He will rule as King of Kings and reign as Lord of Lords, and every knee shall bend and every tongue shall speak in worship before Him.’” (“Jesus Christ”)

I don’t know exactly what it means that every tongue will “speak in worship,” but I do know that these entries at lds.org (as well as the entry titled “Holy Ghost”) say nothing about Mormons today actually worshiping either the Son or the Spirit; they only speak of worshiping the Father.

So while it’s pretty clear that Mormons do not worship Joseph Smith, the identification of which of the Mormon Gods they are supposed to worship remains a bit fuzzy.

Posted in God the Father, Jesus Christ, LDS Church, Mormon Culture, Mormon History | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 30 Comments

What I Learned on My Visit to Old Mormon Nauvoo

Posted on April 23, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

A few weeks ago I visited The City of Joseph: Nauvoo, Illinois. It was quick trip; I was only able to spend two days in the area, hurrying from place to place in an effort to do some primary source research. I had little success regarding the event on which I sought information, but I did learn a few unrelated things.

BrowningNauvooMy travelling companion and research assistant was a former Mormon who was visiting these sites for the first time as a Christian. I daresay she learned more than I did at the Land and Records Office as she came face-to-face with the truth of Nauvoo polygamy — a very different story than she had been taught as a Mormon.

I have been to Nauvoo and visited these sites so often that it is rare for me now to hear anything new. But on this trip…

At the Carthage Jail Visitors Center I learned:

• Following the shootings of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, 300-pound Willard Richards, knowing he would be killed, placed his considerable bulk in the doorway of the “martyrdom room” to protect the body of Hyrum from would-be body-snatchers. (Apostle Richards was not killed and the body snatchers never materialized.)

• A missing piece of the original door to the “martyrdom room,” significant for containing the bullet holes from the first shots fired in the 1844 attack, was discovered in a shed after the Mormon Church purchased the Jail building in 1903. God had miraculously preserved it to one day stand as a witness to the martyrdom.

• My honest answer (“No.”) to the question, “Do you feel the Spirit here?” at the end of the Jail tour was unacceptable. The LDS missionary guide made it clear that the Spirit most certainly was there, and my inability to feel it was my own fault.

At the LDS Land and Records Office I learned:

• In 1840s Nauvoo, Mormons did proxy work (for the dead) for those of the proxy’s own gender, and surprisingly, also for the dead of the opposite gender.

• My former Mormon companion learned that some Mormon women in Nauvoo were married to more than one living man at a time. (Even after 20 years of active membership in the Mormon Church, this information was a genuine shock to her.)

• One of the stone carvers for the original Nauvoo Temple, David Clark, was baptized in Nauvoo by Joseph Smith and later went west with the main body of Latter-day Saints. While living in Utah Territory he left Mormonism and converted to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (now named Community of Christ). David stayed in Utah and, upon his death, was buried in Lehi.

Leaving the Land and Records Office, I went across the field to the Joseph Smith Historic Site Visitor Center (Community of Christ) where I learned:

• The missionary guide on duty there was a descendent of the aforementioned David Clark. (Insert Twilight Zone theme song here.) The Community of Christ guide liked to think that Joseph Smith’s son, David Hyrum, might have converted his ancestor from the LDS Church to the True Church during David’s 1869 mission trip to Utah.

• The actual reason Emma Smith staged a mock public burial of Joseph and Hyrum while hiding their real bodies, was so that Brigham Young could not get his hands on them; the claim that she was worried about the graves being desecrated was merely a handy excuse.

HeberKimballNauvoo

Heber C. Kimball Home, Nauvoo

While all of this was interesting to learn, the new information that made the strongest impression on me was that presented at the Heber C. Kimball Home historic site. As we took the tour of this site, led by a senior sister missionary from the Mormon Church, I learned:

• Though the Church has officially published information about Nauvoo polygamy in its online essay, the approved scripts for the historic tours in Nauvoo have not changed. The tours still shun any mention of plural marriage, even though polygamy was practiced at many of these sites in the 1840s. (Some of the tour guides will talk about it if asked directly, depending on how comfortable they are with going off-script.)

• Heber C. Kimball hated the idea of polygamy and vigorously resisted it due to his great love for his legal wife, Vilate. (Yet this Mormon apostle married 36 plural wives during a 4-year span in Nauvoo, and gave his 14-year-old daughter, Helen Mar Kimball, to Joseph Smith as the Prophet’s 25th plural wife. Eventually, Heber Kimball’s number of wives reached 44.)

• Many Mormons are troubled by the Church’s history of polygamy. But all one must do is remember the Book of Mormon is true and put the issue of polygamy “on the shelf.”

• Heavenly Father was once mortal, and this fact is what gives Mormons hope.

• Heavenly Father has many wives, proven by the fact that there are so many different races in the world.

Most of what I learned on my short visit to Nauvoo would not be embraced by Mormons as “official” doctrine or teachings, and I would agree that no religion should be judged solely by anecdotal accounts. Even so, there is surely some reason these people believe what they are telling visitors to these historic Mormon sites, and some reason they believe these things are important enough to share. Therefore, it seems that no matter how many times I visit Nauvoo, I will always learn something new.

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon History, Mormon Missionaries, Nauvoo | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 20 Comments

Looking at the April 2015 Mormon General Conference

Posted on April 20, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

The LDS Church’s most recent General Conference was held April 4-5, 2015. A couple of interesting graphics have been produced as a result.

Over at MormonChannel.org’s Facebook page visitors were asked to fill in the blank: “Because of #ldsconf I will __________________.” A few days later Mormon Channel posted this word cloud created with the answers they received.

April15GCWordCloud

This, then, focuses the Mormon’s take-away from General Conference, anchored with “be better,” “try harder,” and “do my best.” It’s interesting that the essence of President Uchtdorf’s widely acclaimed talk, “The Gift of Grace,” didn’t garner an honorable mention.

Another interesting General Conference graphic comes in the form of a chart. This graph displays the number of times the name of Joseph Smith was mentioned in General Conference. It includes data from 10 years: October 2005 – April 2015.

The exceptionally high number of references to Joseph Smith in the October 2005 conference was due to that year’s celebration of the 200th anniversary of the Prophet’s birth. Apart from that, Joseph Smith has been mentioned regularly during general conferences over the past decade at an average frequency of 29.6 times per conference. Until April 2015, that is, when Joseph Smith was mentioned only 4 times.

A year ago MRM’s Eric Johnson posted an April Fools Day blog titled, “New church essay distances LDS Church from Joseph Smith.” In his spoof Eric wrote,

“[A new Church essay] Titled ‘Distancing the Church from Joseph Smith,’ church authorities indicate that the LDS Church wants nothing more to do with the legacy of Joseph Smith… Among other issues, the [Salt Lake Tribune] article cited Smith’s polygamous ways with 34 women as ‘irresponsible, especially when it is considered that a third of his wives were teenagers and another third married to other men’s wives.’”

Was Eric’s joke prophetic? Is the LDS Church purposefully beginning to distance itself from Joseph Smith and his controversial history? While nobody seems to know what has caused this startling drop in the use of the Prophet’s name at General Conference, theories abound. What’s your theory?

Posted in General Conference, Joseph Smith, LDS Church, Mormon Culture | Tagged , , , , , , | 17 Comments

A Mormon “Detective Story”

Posted on April 16, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

[The following is a guest post written by a friend of Mormonism Research Ministry – a former Mormon who wishes to remain anonymous to keep family peace.]

I’m submitting for your consideration a “detective story” from my family history that raises more serious questions about Joseph Smith and polygamy.

SHolmesIt starts with my uncles – devout Mormons – doing their Church-mandated genealogy and discovering that one of our ancestors was Joseph Ellis Johnson, a close friend of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and brother to two of Joseph Smith’s polygamous wives, Delcena and Almera Johnson.  The Johnson family was considered Mormon royalty in the 1800s and still is today.  My family proudly announced the fact, although discreetly because up until last year Joseph Smith’s polygamy was still being denied by Church leaders.  Nevertheless, members of their ward spread the word of our lineage in hushed tones and more than a little envy.  We were proud.

After a couple years, our family history quickly descended from pride to one shocking discovery after another.  First, one of the uncles discovered that Joseph Ellis Johnson admitted to a church court presided over by Brigham Young that he had committed adultery with one of the wives of future church prophet Lorenzo Snow and fathered her child.  Surprisingly, both Lorenzo Snow and Brigham Young forgave him, and Snow released his wife from her vows so that she could marry Johnson.  It’s something of a “Camelot” story, with Snow as King Arthur, Johnson as Lancelot, Hannah Goddard as Queen Guinevere, and Brigham Young as Merlin the Great.  It was interesting, even poetic, but for us it was humiliating, too. [1] Those of us who knew about it kept it to ourselves.

This was shocking enough for my family, but their next discovery threatened to unravel not only the family but also the LDS Church itself.  The family has tried – successfully, so far – to keep it somewhat confidential, or, as they say, sacred.

Johnson stated during his church court hearing that he had witnessed Joseph Smith having sex with his mother-in-law Mary Heron Snider.  At first, my uncles assumed this to be just another of Joseph Smith’s plural brides, shocking enough at the time, but then they discovered that there is no LDS Church record whatsoever of Joseph Smith having ever married Mary Snider.  That terrible word, adultery, almost paralyzed them with fear.  Worse, they read that [during the hearing] neither Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, nor Ezra T. Benson registered any surprise or indignation, nor did they deny it or strike it from the record.  They simply forgave Johnson his adultery and ordered his re-baptism.   My uncles could see the high moral ground claimed by Joseph Smith disintegrating before them, possibly damaging the Church’s truth claims, and all because of our esteemed ancestor – a Johnson.

This changed everything.  Our genealogy became a “DaVinci Code” cluster of conspiratorial secrets; we all waited with bated breath to see if our discovery would become widely known; and worse, we wondered if the Church would be damaged by the disclosure that Joseph Smith was having sex not just with his plural wives but with other women, too.

Nothing for several years. Just a few obscure references.  So far so good.  Then it happened.  Wikitree published the story of Joseph Ellis Johnson committing adultery with Lorenzo Snow’s wife, with Brigham Young forgiving him and ordering his re-baptism.  Wikipedia published the story of Joseph Smith secretly committing adultery with Mary Heron Snider, who was not one of his plural wives. [2]   

Our terrible secrets were out.  Most of the family kept silent.  No longer did anyone boast about our royal Mormon heritage.  A few no longer bore their testimony about the divine mission of Joseph Smith. A few started reading non-Mormon blogs to see if the word would spread.  And none of us did any more genealogy.

Footnotes:

1. “O. Hyde [speaking] there is a matter of bro: Johnson to be laid before the Council—this matter was brot before Council in Kanesville  his Priesthood was required to be laid down until he came here – a Miss Goddard wife of Lorenzo Snow became in a family way by Bro Johnson – she was living in his house – we deemed it improper for her to be there –  he sent her away to a retired place – she was delivered of a child – she is again living at his house in Kanesville – he wishes to retain his fellowship in the Church.  He says he has   bro: Snow & he was satisfied.

“Joseph E. Johnson [speaking] – I am come purposely if possible to get the matter settled & atone for the wrong I av done – I av neglected to lay it before you before this – bro Hydes statements r all correct – true – all I can do is beg for mercy – I became acquainted with the girl, & the consequences r as the r – I saw bro. Snow at Kanesville & he was satisfied – I am come here to atone for the wrong I av done.”

According to Johnson, he met with Apostle Snow to discuss the matter and says the Apostle (and future Prophet) “was satisfied.”  It goes beyond that, though, suggesting that this may have been a true Mormon pioneer love story that ended well.  Reports state that Lorenzo Snow relinquished his earthly claim on the pregnant Hannah Goddard and allowed her to marry her true love Joseph Johnson.   Joseph Ellis Johnson died on 17 December 1882 after an illness. He left behind three wives — Harriet Snider, Eliza Saunders, and his beloved Hannah Goddard.  He was the father of twenty-eight children.   At the time of the events in 1845, Hannah Goddard was 17; Joseph Ellis Johnson was 28; Lorenzo Snow was 31; and Brigham Young was 44.

Inventory of the Joseph Ellis Johnson papers, 1831-1964.

Misc Minutes, Brigham Young Collection, d 1234, CHL, Sept. 2, 1850, restricted; excerpts transcribed by D. Michael Quinn, bx 3 fd 2, Quinn Collection, Yale Library. This document is available on Richard E. Turley, Jr., Selected Collections from the Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Provo, Utah: BYU Press, vol. 1, DVD #18.

Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power.  Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997, p. 701.

2. From Wikipedia:

Johnson was a colorful figure in the early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In response to a presentation on plural marriage given by Brian Hales at a FAIR Conference in 2012, D. Michael Quinn wrote:

“Using a slang vulgarity for sexual intercourse, her [Mary Heron Snider’s] son-in-law Joseph E. Johnson privately told a group of devout Mormons in 1850: ‘He was familiar with the first frigging that was done in his house with his mother in law by Joseph.’ Johnson said this during a council meeting that was deciding whether to excommunicate him for impregnating one of Apostle Lorenzo Snow’s plural wives whom Johnson now wanted to marry. She loved him, not the apostle. A Church court in Kanesville, Iowa, had already decided that ‘his priesthood was required to be laid down [i.e., he was disfellowshipped] until he came here’ to Salt Lake City. I cannot take seriously the suggestion by Hales that this Church court’s official minutes misquoted Johnson’s words. First, by any reasonable logic, who would assume that any LDS clerk introduced a crudely sexual term into a non-sexual remark or into a remark that only implied sex? Second, by 1850, the LDS Church’s clerks routinely used stenographic shorthand to accurately record such meetings, especially when Brigham Young participated (as he did in this one).” [Read Quinn’s full response (pdf) here.]

Hales stated that he believes the Johnson account:

“I think he’s telling the truth. I believe it. I’m willing to make this assumption. But, the next assumptions you are willing to make are very important. Because if you assume there was no plural sealing, that Joseph is just involved with Mary Heron, without any kind of a marriage, then it’s adultery. If you want to assume there was a plural sealing and that she was also having conjugal relations with her legal husband, then it’s sexual polyandry and this is what Michael Quinn is promoting and believes happened.”

Posted in Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Mormon History, Polygamy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

“Utter Nonsense” Presented at the April 2015 Mormon General Conference

Posted on April 13, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

Dieter UchtdorfIt’s like an April Fools joke, but nobody’s laughing. Instead, people are scratching their heads.

During the April 2015 Sunday morning General Conference session, Mormon Apostle Dieter F. Uchtdorf (of the First Presidency) gave a talk that just a few decades ago would have been described by LDS Church leaders as one of “such utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one’s salvation” (“What the Mormons Think of Christ,” pamphlet published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982, 19).

In the talk titled, “The Gift of Grace,” Mr. Uchtdorf presented what sounded for all the world like a Christian gospel message. As one blogger noted, “It’s like someone snuck an Evangelical pastor into General Conference.”

“…Jesus the Christ brought salvation to all those who shall believe in His name… We cannot earn our way into heaven. The demands of justice stand as a barrier which we are powerless to overcome on our own. But all is not lost. The grace of God is our great and everlasting hope.” (2:46-5:44)

He continued,

“Salvation cannot be bought with the currency of obedience; it is purchased with the blood of the Son of God…If grace is a gift of God, why then is obedience to God’s commandments so important?…We obey the commandments of God out of love for Him…our obedience to God’s commandments comes as a natural outgrowth of our endless love and gratitude for the goodness of God.” (12:20-14:24)

Mr. Uchtdorf appeared to be teaching salvation by grace, though faith, not of works (see Ephesians 2:8-10) – a doctrine labeled by at least three LDS Church leaders (9th Mormon President David O. McKay, 10th Mormon President Joseph Fielding Smith, and Mormon Apostle James Talmage) as “pernicious.”

“FAITH, GRACE, AND WORKS. The fallacy that Jesus has done all for us, and live as we may, if on our deathbed, we only believe, we shall be saved in his glorious presence, is most pernicious. Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, has given us the means whereby man may obtain eternal happiness and peace in the kingdom of our Father, but man must work out his own salvation through obedience to the eternal principles and ordinances of the gospel. For centuries men have been blinded by the false teaching of ‘belief alone sufficient’; and today there is manifest on every hand the sorry plight into which this and other perverse doctrines have thrown the pseudo-Christian sects. The world is in sore need at the present time of the gospel of individual effort—the gospel of faith and works. He who will not grasp this means provided him, will sink beneath the waves of sin and falsehood.” (David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, 8)

“One of the most pernicious doctrines ever advocated by man, is the doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone,’ which has entered into, the hearts of millions since the days of the so-called ‘reformation..’” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Restoration of All Things, 1964, 192)

“The Sectarian Dogma of Justification by Faith Alone has exercised an influence for evil. The idea upon which this pernicious doctrine was founded was at first associated with that of an absolute predestination, by which man was foredoomed to destruction, or to an undeserved salvation.” (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, 1984, 432).

ThumbsDownAnother Mormon leader insisted,

“One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, 206. See also The Book of Mormon Student Manual Religion 121 and 122, 1989, 36).

And another did not mince words when he said salvation by grace alone is a “false doctrine” and “the second greatest heresy in Christendom.” (Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, respectively, The Joseph Smith Translation, 13; The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man, 77)

Mr. Uchtdorf went on in his talk to explain,

“ ‘…for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.’ However, I wonder if sometimes we misinterpret the phrase ‘after all we can do.’ We must understand that ‘after’ does not equal ‘because.’ We are not saved ‘because’ of all that we can do. Have any of us done all that we can do? Does God wait until we have expended every effort before he will intervene in our lives with His saving grace?… Nephi labored so diligently to persuade his children and brethren ‘to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God.’ After all, that is what we can do. And that is our task in mortality.” (15:55-17:36)

Here, again, this current Mormon apostle’s General Conference teaching was at odds with the teachings of other Church leaders. Consider the words of the 11th President of the Mormon Church, Harold B. Lee:

“The Lord will bless us to the degree to which we keep His commandments. Nephi put this principle in a tremendous orbit when he said: ‘For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.’ (2 Nephi 25:23.) The Savior’s blood, His atonement, will save us, but only after we have done all we can to save ourselves by keeping His commandments.” (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in the Holy Places, 246. See also Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, 24).

Or 13th Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson:

“What is meant by ‘after all we can do’? ‘After all we can do’ includes extending our best effort. ‘After all we can do’ includes living His commandments. ‘After all we can do’ includes loving our fellowmen and praying for those who regard us as their adversary. ‘After all we can do’ means clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and giving ‘succor [to] those who stand in need of [our] succor’ (Mosiah 4:15)-remembering that what we do unto one of the least of God’s children, we do unto Him (see Matthew 25:34-40; D&C 42:38). ‘After all we can do’ means leading chaste, clean, pure lives, being scrupulously honest in all our dealings and treating others the way we would want to be treated.” (“After All We Can Do,” Christmas Devotional, Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 December 1982. Quoted in The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 354)

Or previous member of the LDS First Presidency Marion G. Romney:

“The truth is that we are saved by grace only after all we ourselves can do. (See 2 Ne. 25:23.) There will be no government dole which can get us through the pearly gates. Nor will anybody go into the celestial kingdom who wants to go there on the works of someone else. Every man must go through on his own merits. We might just as well learn this here and now.” (“In Mine Own Way,” Ensign, November 1976, 123)

Or current Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks:

“Because of what He accomplished by His atoning sacrifice, Jesus Christ has the power to prescribe the conditions we must fulfill to qualify for the blessings of His Atonement. That is why we have commandments and ordinances. That is why we make covenants. That is how we qualify for the promised blessings. They all come through the mercy and grace of the Holy One of Israel, ‘after all we can do’ (2 Nephi 25:23).” (“Two Lines of Communication,” Ensign, November 2010, 84)

Mormons will need to determine whether Mr. Uchtdorf’s teaching signals an about-face in Mormon doctrine, or is merely customary Mormon Church double-speak. While I want with all my heart to believe that LDS leaders have come to recognize the biblical truth of God’s grace and are now engaged in pouring this truth out and over parched and exhausted Mormons who thirst desperately for this Living Water, I fear that Mr. Uchtdorf has just repackaged and rephrased Mormonism’s grace-plus-works gospel.

As I listened to his talk, keeping in mind the different ways Mormonism defines biblical words (e.g., six different definitions for the words “saved” and “salvation”; three different “heavens”; six steps leading to “true repentance”; etc.), I became convinced that nothing has changed in Mormonism. The canonized Articles of Faith remain the same, teaching that “mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel” (Article of Faith 3). The Book of Mormon still says, “…if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you…” (Moroni 10:32). And the living prophet of the Mormon Church has not recanted his teaching, “It is the celestial glory which we seek. It is in the presence of God we desire to dwell. It is a forever family in which we want membership. Such blessings must be earned” (“An Invitation to Exaltation,” Ensign, May 1988, 53).

In the end, it should be noted that Mr. Uchtdorf defined “grace” in keeping with the standard Mormon definition of “an enabling power” (LDS Bible Dictionary, “Grace”). He said God’s grace is “the divine assistance and endowment of strength by which we grow from the flawed and limited beings we are now, into exalted beings of truth and light.” (3:30). He explained that our gratitude resulting in obedience will “merge our works with God’s grace” (14:16). And perhaps most significantly, Mr. Uchtdorf said, “Jesus Christ has cleared the way for us to ascend to heights incomprehensible to mortal minds” (18:20).

one-way-jesus-2Friends, Jesus hasn’t cleared the way, He is the way – the only way (John 14:6). Until this truth – this Savior — is fully embraced and proclaimed by the LDS Church, all the Church’s messengers have to offer is “smooth” speech by which “they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting” (Romans 16:18 NASB).

If you are interested in additional analyses related to Dieter Uchtdorf’s talk, check out “Sunday Morning Talk on Grace Review” by Bobby Gilpin and/or “The Ticket or The Airline: Salvation vs Exaltation in Mormon Soteriology” by Thinker of Thoughts.

Posted in General Conference, Grace, Salvation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 26 Comments

Mormonism’s “different Jesus”

Posted on April 9, 2015 by Sharon Lindbloom

On Monday I blogged about my disagreement with Mormon bishop Nate Sharp’s implication that because there is “one and only one Jesus Christ” the idea that Mormons believe in a “different Jesus” is a myth. Today I want to look again at his blog article and very briefly examine a few of the attributes Dr. Sharp attributed to the Jesus he said Mormons believe in. In his recent article titled “Dispelling 5 More Myths About Mormons,” Dr. Sharp stated,

Christus Statue“Myth #1: Mormons believe in a ‘different Jesus.’

“One myth about Mormons is the notion that we believe in a ‘different Jesus.’ In reality, of course, there is one and only one Jesus Christ. Jesus of Nazareth, whose life, ministry, Atonement, death, and resurrection are recounted in the New Testament, is the center of our faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons worship and accept Jesus Christ as King of kings, Lord of lords, Creator of the universe, the promised Messiah, the Son of God, and the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind. Jesus is the ‘author and finisher of our faith’ (Hebrews 12:2) and ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6). We believe His is the only name under heaven whereby mankind can be saved.”

Dr. Sharp’s description of Mormonism’s view of Jesus Christ is filled with biblical words and quotes, giving the impression that Mormonism’s “different Jesus” is the same Jesus that is revealed in the New Testament. But in fact, such a conclusion would be a myth. Consider the following.

Dr. Sharp wrote, “Mormons worship and accept Jesus Christ as King of kings, Lord of lords.” Yet an article in Ensign magazine said that, “what we can hope for regarding the consummation of the latter-day work that the Lord began through Joseph Smith…[is that] Jesus Christ will become the King of Kings…” (Gerald N. Lund, “A Prophet for the Fulness of Times,” January 1997, 54. Emphasis added). The biblical Jesus is not becoming the King of kings; He is the King of kings (1 Timothy 6:15).

Dr. Sharp wrote, “Mormons worship and accept Jesus Christ as…the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind.” I have to believe that this Jesus offers a limited or partial redemption, because in LDS General Conferences it has been taught that the redemption of all mankind also requires human redeemers: Mormons do temple work “for a purpose, which is to redeem our dead ancestors,” President James Faust said (Ensign, November 2003, 54); and, as quoted by President Thomas Monson, “It is by this [Mormon] priesthood that…[men’s] sins are forgiven, and that they are redeemed” (President Wilford Woodruff, Ensign, November 2000, 47). This is a “different Jesus” because the biblical Jesus Himself provides redemption and forgiveness through His blood (Ephesians 1:7) — not through proxy temple work or the Mormon priesthood.

LDS Christ Pass Along CardDr. Sharp wrote, “Jesus is…‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6).” Yet a Mormon apostle taught in General Conference that “This Church…is the way, the truth, and the life” (Marion G. Romney, 1961, quoted in Book of Mormon Student Manual, 1989, 26. Emphasis added). LDS President Thomas Monson wrote, “Jesus Christ taught… ‘the way, the truth, and the life’” (Ensign, April 2006, 3). And a Mormon Seventy said Jesus “will forever light our way, our truth, and our life (see John 14:6)” (Donald Hallstrom, Ensign, May 2010, 80. Emphasis added). When the biblical apostle Thomas said, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” The biblical Jesus did not say, “The church is the way” or “I will teach you the way” or “I will illuminate your way.” The biblical Jesus said, “I am the way” – the only way — because “No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:3-7). Unlike the “different Jesus” of Mormonism, the biblical Jesus is the only way, the only truth, and the only life.

In reality, nearly every word and phrase used by Dr. Sharp to describe the biblical-sounding attributes of Mormonism’s “different Jesus” represent an unbiblical Jesus Christ. His ministry, his atonement, his creatorship, his sonship (etc.) are all different from the ministry, Atonement, Creatorship and Sonship (etc.) of the biblical Jesus. And because this “different Jesus” of Mormonism is not the true Jesus Christ, Dr. Sharp’s assertion regarding the Mormon belief in his sufficiency rings hollow.

Dr. Sharp wrote, “We believe His is the only name under heaven whereby mankind can be saved.” Yet in an article commemorating the death of Joseph Smith in the LDS Church News, the author wrote,

“In the final analysis – when this dispensation is completed – the salvation and happiness of men and women will be determined on how each of us has responded to the name and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.” (William O. Nelson, “Joseph’s prophetic mission,” Church News, July 16, 1994, 5)

Years later Church News quoted Mormon Seventy Theodore Tuttle who said during a 1971 General Conference,

“Every Man who has lived since the days of Joseph Smith is subject to accepting him as a prophet of God in order to enter into our Heavenly Father’s presence.” (“No greater prophet,” Church News, March 17, 2001, 14)

joseph-smithMormon President Brigham Young taught,

“From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene 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.” (Journal of Discourses 7:289)

And Mormon President Joseph F. Smith explained,

“The day will come—and it is not far distant, either—when the name of the Prophet Joseph Smith will be coupled with the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of God, as his representative, as his agent whom he chose, ordained and set apart to lay anew the foundations of the Church of God in the world, which is indeed the Church of Jesus Christ, possessing all the powers of the gospel, all the rites and privileges, the authority of the Holy Priesthood, and every principle necessary to fit and qualify both the living and the dead to inherit eternal life, and to attain to exaltation in the kingdom of God.” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [1939], 134; quoted in “Joseph Smith: Restorer of Truth,” Ensign, December 2003, 17)

The biblical Jesus does not couple His name with the name of Joseph Smith to bring salvation to His people. The name of the biblical Jesus is the only name whereby we can be saved. Christian theologian John Piper explains,

“The point of saying, ‘There is no other NAME,’ is that we are saved by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus. His name is our entrance into fellowship with God. The way of salvation by faith is a way that brings glory to the name of Jesus. Peter says in Acts 10:43, ‘Every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.’ The name of Jesus is the focus of faith and repentance. In order to believe on Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, you must believe on his name. That is, you must have heard of him and know who he is as a particular man who did a particular saving work and rose from the dead.

“Paul put it this way in Romans 10:13–15: ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. …’ There is salvation in no one else—… Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, apart from him no one comes to the Father (John 14:6).”

Nineteenth century Christian pastor Charles Spurgeon said,

“You must understand that there is only one door to salvation, and that is Christ; there is one way, and that is Christ; one truth, and that is Christ; one life, and that is Christ. Salvation lies in Jesus only…” (read more).

enoughNot Jesus plus. Jesus plus Joseph. Jesus plus the temple. Jesus plus the priesthood. This “different Jesus” of Mormonism is only part of the way and part of the truth. Another way to say this is that this Jesus is insufficient. But the biblical Jesus, the true Jesus Christ, is all sufficient. As John MacArthur notes in his sermon on the sufficiency of Christ, Colossians 2:10 (NKJV) says, “You are complete in Him.”

Mormonism’s “different Jesus” is lacking in many ways. But the biblical Jesus — He is all anyone will ever need.

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ, LDS Church, Misconceptions, Mormon Leaders, Salvation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

46 – Gospel Principles – The Final Judgment

Posted on April 9, 2015 by Bill McKeever

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 14:00 — 12.8MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

Posted in Viewpoint on Mormonism | Tagged | Comments Off on 46 – Gospel Principles – The Final Judgment

45 – Gospel Principles – The Millennium

Posted on April 8, 2015 by Bill McKeever

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 14:00 — 12.8MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

Posted in Viewpoint on Mormonism | Tagged | Comments Off on 45 – Gospel Principles – The Millennium

44 – Gospel Principles – The Second Coming

Posted on April 7, 2015 by Bill McKeever

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 14:00 — 12.8MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

Posted in Viewpoint on Mormonism | Tagged | Comments Off on 44 – Gospel Principles – The Second Coming