Mormon Coffee

The definition of doctrine

Posted on August 14, 2014 by Eric Johnson

It’s only a short article located in the early pages of the July 2014 Ensign magazine, which is the official monthly organ of the LDS Church. But I believe this piece, titled “We Teach by the Power of the Holy Ghost” and found under the unattributed column “What We Believe,” is consistent with what is taught at every general conference.

Before I tell you what this article said, let me provide some background. In recent years, renegade LDS apologists have been claiming in a postmodern fashion that, through personal revelation, individuals can determine correct doctrine. A case in point is Michael R. Ash, who wrote a 2008 book titled Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt published by an LDS apologetics group. In an apparent attempt to ignore certain statements made by LDS teachers over the years, Ash explains how Mormonism does not have “infallible” leaders. In fact, he even says there are times they may teach false doctrine. In his mind, the responsibility to determine truth from error is relegated to individual Latter-day Saints.

On page 20, he writes, “If we obtain our own personal testimonies, and live so that we can receive personal communication from the Father and the confirming testimony from the Holy Spirit, we will not be led astray.” He continued on page 22, “Just because a prophet has the keys to the priesthood and the authority to receive revelations from God for the direction of the church, doesn’t mean that every word spoken by a prophet is infallible, inspired, or factually accurate.”

Then Ash writes the following paragraph in an attempt to explain how a Latter-day Saint can receive doctrine:

“What, then, is official doctrine and what is opinion? Official doctrine will be announced as revelation and the body of the Church will sustain it (D&C 26:2, 1-7:27-31). Likewise, we can know if leaders speak the will of God when we, ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost’ (D&C 68:3-4). The onus is upon us to determine when they speak for the Lord. If we rely solely on the revelations of the prophets, without seeking our own personal confirming revelations, we tend to tacitly accept their revelations as infallible.”

On page 24, he adds, “There is more to being a member of Christ’s church than just marching in step. Our goal should be to receive our own revelations and to become united with Christ.”

Ash’s statements raise several important questions. First of all, how can a Mormon know that his personal revelation comes from the Holy Spirit? I’m guessing those who hold such a position would defer to the standard “burning in the bosom” mantra. Good feelings apparently rule the day. The only way to determine if these good feelings come from the Spirit appears to be a matter of opinion.

Second, doesn’t Ash’s view mean the individual Mormon who realizes the error of a General Authority’s message must be living a more righteous life than his/her leader? Imagine if this particular Mormon felt confident that the time is now right for plural marriage to be restored, regardless of the fact that no LDS leader has recently taught this. If this “faithful” Latter-day Saint decided to go ahead and marry two or more women, who is Ash to say that such a practice is wrong? To refute this person’s belief, Ash will be required to say that his fellow Latter-day Saint is wrong. In essence, every Latter-day Saint becomes his own prophet. The confusion such a possible scenario brings to this religion is immense.

Finally, isn’t the purpose of God providing latter-day prophets so that they will guide His people through these perilous times? If the leadership can’t be trusted, why are they needed in the first place? Ash’s view encourages Mormons to refute the teachings of general authorities by coming up with contradictory personal revelation.

Regardless of Ash’s personal opinion, I have never heard LDS leaders speak in such a way. I believe the July 2014 Ensign magazine is a nail in Ash’s doctrinal coffin. The heart of the article discusses “four principles for effective teaching,” including “love those you teach,” “teach by the Spirit,” and “invite diligent learning.” But the final principle is devastating to Ash’s positon. It reads:

“Teach the doctrine. Approved curriculum materials from the Church, such as scriptures, general conference talks, and manuals, contain doctrine—eternal truths from God.”

Let’s take a closer look at this sentence. The way to understand truth, according to the LDS Church’s own magazine, is using “approved curriculum materials.” What are those materials? This is, we’re told, the standard works, general conference talks, and official church manuals. Let’s suppose Ash’s view is correct. If so, here is the perfect opportunity for the LDS Church to state that “if any particular doctrine doesn’t suit your fancy and you have a valid testimony and live righteously, then counter this teaching and merely disregard what the leaders have said.” No such statement can be found. Does Mormonism allow the possibility for a Mormon to disregard any teaching just because the person may feel it’s not ordained by God? Ask Kate Kelly, who was recently excommunicated from the church because she honestly believed that God wants women to hold the priesthood.

And finally, notice the definition of “doctrine”: “eternal truths from God.” Eternal? Listen carefully. Doctrine in Mormonism is not open for individual or peer review. When the Brethren speak, it’s a done deal.

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, Prophets | Tagged Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Doctrine, LDS Church, Mormon Church, Mormonism | 24 Comments

A Simple Correlation: The Apostle Paul and Mormon General Conference

Posted on August 11, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

As defined at Wikipedia, the Mormon Church’s priesthood correlation program is “a program designed to provide a systematic approach to maintain consistency in its ordinances, doctrines, organizations, meetings, materials, and other programs and activities.” The Church began its correlation efforts in the early 1960s, to bring all aspects of the Church under one large umbrella (so to speak). A few months ago Doug Gibson at The Political Surf noted the effect that correlation has had on Mormon Sunday School lessons. He wrote,

In a concise but detailed 7-page chapter in “The New Testament: The Acts and the Epistles,[”] by Russel B. Swenson, Deseret Sunday School Union Board, 1955, here is one paragraph, not unlike the others in its attention to details. It reads:

“Paul’s answers to the above charges were swift and vigorous. Nowhere does he appear more in anger, not even in Galatians. He does not take time to answer them with a reasoned detailed argument. With sharp biting retorts, ironical sarcasm, bold assertions, which he admits border on extravagant boasting, and an extremely fervent faith in his authority as an apostle, he takes a decisive and resolute stand. Though he admits he does not have a polished rhetoric in speech, he claims he has knowledge. And finally, he is so angered and hurt by the many false charges and attacks against his record and authority that he is led to state specifically what he has suffered for the sake of the gospel. He had been inclined to be too modest and had been ignored and insulted as an insignificant person. Therefore, he felt constrained to enumerate his sacrifices for the gospel, not on account of any personal vanity, but in order to validate his authority and preaching as divinely commissioned. What he tells about himself is of priceless value as history because most of it had been neglected by Luke in his writings of Acts.” [See 2 Corinthians 11]

Now, let’s move 58 years into the future and get an LDS Gospel Doctrine Sunday School summary — for teachers — of Second Corinthians today. At LDS.org, it reads:

“Explain that the book of 2 Corinthians contains prophetic counsel that applies in our day. Paul’s teachings in this letter are similar to the teachings we often hear in general conference. Elder Eyring observed, “When the words of prophets seem repetitive, that should rivet our attention [on them]” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1997, 32; or Ensign, May 1997, 25). Encourage class members to receive the counsel in this lesson and ‘hold it close.‘”

The correlated manual Mr. Gibson spoke of is the New Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual (specifically, Lesson 35: “Be Ye Reconciled to God”). The copyright date on this manual is 2002, but it is the current manual used today (and was last used throughout the entire Church in 2011 Sunday School classes).

Mr. Gibson complained that the correlated Sunday School lessons are “bland” and remind him of the dumbed-down “simple stupid” lessons he taught to investigators while he was on his mission 31 years ago. This may be true, but to me, the post-correlation changes in this lesson are much more than merely bland and basic. The whole emphasis of the lesson has changed.

In the example Mr. Gibson cited from 1955, the lesson focused on the biblical text: how the apostle Paul responded to false apostles — his anger, his rhetoric, his faith, his sacrifices, his authority, and the calling on his life from God; and how Paul’s actions and words fit into a larger biblical context.

The correlated manual Mr. Gibson cited, on the other hand, does not appear to try to help students understand the details and context of God’s Word at all. Rather, its focus is on validating Mormonism.

The newer manual uses 2 Corinthians and the apostle Paul to direct the student toward the Mormon Church’s General Conference and latter-day apostles, without much consideration of what Paul actually says in his second letter to the Corinthians and why he says it. Of course, there is more to the lesson than what’s cited here, but nothing in that lesson even comes close to an exposition of the biblical text. It is indeed “bland” and “basic”; it also misses some very significant aspects of Paul’s teachings.

For example, the correlated manual skips over 2 Corinthians 11:1-21 entirely. Students don’t look at Paul’s warning against accepting another Jesus, a different spirit, or a different gospel (2 Corinthians 11:4). They’re not directed to Paul’s description of false apostles, deceitful workers who fraudulently transform themselves into apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13). The lesson never discusses Paul’s caution that Satan transforms himself into an angel of light and that the devil’s servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).

How unfortunate. This is such important counsel for Mormons (and everyone else) to understand. Wouldn’t you agree?

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, Mormon Leaders, Mormon Scripture | Tagged Apostles, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, General Conference, Mormon Church, Mormon Church Manuals, Mormonism | 6 Comments

Outreach at the Ogden Temple

Posted on August 11, 2014 by Bill McKeever

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 14:01 — 12.8MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

Posted in Viewpoint on Mormonism | Tagged Temple outreach | 3 Comments

“The Law Is Not of Faith”

Posted on August 7, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

There is a difference between seeking justification* before God by faith or by the law. Some think we must combine the two, relying both on faith and individual works of obedience. Is this what God requires? Galatians 3 has the answer.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:10-14)

Believing Versus Doing
From Tabletalk, June 2013

Faith that invests itself wholly and completely in God and His promises alone is the only faith that pleases the Lord. When, in the seventh century BC, Habakkuk could not understand how God could use the evil Babylonians to chastise His people, when it seemed from a human perspective that the Lord’s purposes for Israel had failed and that His faithful servants would not be vindicated, God responded that those He regards as righteous live by faith (Hab. 2:4). That is, those who are righteous in His sight continue trusting Him and do not rely on what they can see from a human perspective or what they can do to vindicate their own righteousness. Dr. R.C. Sproul explains: “Anybody can believe in God. What it means to be a Christian is to trust him when he speaks, which does not require a leap of faith or a crucifixion of the intellect. It requires a crucifixion of pride, because no one is more trustworthy than God” ([Commentary on] Romans, p. 35).

Note Dr. Sproul’s key point that God-pleasing faith means crucifying our pride. This is another way of saying, as Paul does in [Galatians 3:10-14], that we give up trying to attain our own righteousness before the Lord. The righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is ours by faith alone, for it is God’s gift to His people, the result of His saving acts that fulfill His promises to redeem His elect (Rom. 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 4:1-5; 5:12-21). To say that the righteous live by faith does not mean only that God’s people believe in Him but also that those whom the Lord declares to be righteous trust in Him alone. The essence of such faith is believing God in contrast to doing works of obedience. Galatians 3:10-14 contrasts these ways of establishing our relationship with the Father. No one can be declared righteous before God by obeying His law, for the law demands perfect obedience for our justification – our right standing before Him – and no sinner can obey God perfectly. Hoping even a little in our good works of obedience puts us under the Lord’s curse (vv. 10, 12). Our only hope is to trust Christ alone. In so doing, we are redeemed by His death from God’s curse for breaking His law, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to our account, making our standing before the Lord all of grace (vv. 11, 13-14).

Attempting to earn our right standing before God is the stance of pride, the arrogant assertion that our sin-tainted good works can meet His perfect standard. It is not the stance of faith, which rests wholly in Christ alone for His righteousness.

Coram Deo

We can say with certainty that the one temptation that all people have in common is the temptation to believe we can make ourselves right with God, that our efforts, even when done with His help, are good enough; rather, we are to be perfect (Matt. 5:48). That means that only Christ’s perfect righteousness can suffice to put us in a right relationship with the Father. We must trust in Him and Him alone.

From Ligonier Ministries and R.C. Sproul. © Tabletalk magazine. Website: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk. Email: [email protected]. Toll free: 1-800-435-4343.

*Justification: “a forensic (legal) term related to the idea of acquittal, justification refers to the divine act whereby God makes humans, who are sinful and therefore worthy of condemnation, acceptable before a God who is holy and righteous.” (Grenz, Guretzika & Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms)

Posted in Christianity, Forgiveness, Salvation | Tagged Faith, Galatians, Law, Works of the flesh | 110 Comments

Monson’s Wishful Thinking?

Posted on August 4, 2014 by Bill McKeever

In his First Presidency message in the June, 2014 issue of Ensign magazine titled, “Hastening the Work,” Mormon President Thomas S. Monson spoke of the “accelerated rate” at which the Church of Jesus Christ is growing. Monson writes:

“Do you realize that the restored Church was 98 years old before it had 100 stakes? But less than 30 years later, the Church had organized its second 100 stakes. And only eight years after that the Church had more than 300 stakes. Today we are more than 3,000 stakes strong. Why is the growth taking place at an accelerated rate? Is it because we are better known? Is it because we have lovely chapels?”

Monson went on to say that “the reason the Church is growing today is that the Lord indicated it would in the Doctrine and Covenants. He said, ‘behold, I will hasten my work in its time.’”

First of all, an increase in numbers does not necessarily mean a movement, or church, or organization, has received divine approval. While it is expected that the LDS Church will increase in numbers, the percentage of that growth has slipped substantially over the past several years. In fact, it appears that the dramatic growth that Mormons have often boasted about, is now a thing of the past.

In our book Answering Mormons’ Questions, Eric and I discuss this by citing a statement by Brigham Young University professor Daniel C. Peterson. He acknowledged this downturn in recent years, writing,

“Today, we have been allotted tools for sharing the gospel of which [Book of Mormon prophet] Alma could never have dreamed. But we may have become complacent. Don’t we send out full-time missionaries? Isn’t that enough? Aren’t we ‘the fastest growing religion’? Actually, we’re not. Church growth has been falling for many years, and our current rate of missionary success is the lowest it’s been for decades. The harvest is great, but the laborers are still too few” (“The Internet Aids Missionary Effort,” Mormon Times, April 7, 2011).

While I certainly agree with Dr. Peterson that church growth has been falling for many years (convert baptisms peaked way back in 1990), I don’t personally attribute this phenomenon with complacency or even a lack of laborers. LDS leaders are firmly aware that people are leaving the LDS Church in record numbers, and they have implemented a number of new programs to improve this situation. For example, the leadership has encouraged members to be more active in social media and many have responded to the call. However, attempts to defend the faith in this arena can be very risky since it allows people to respond to some of the bad arguments Mormons post on Facebook or blog sites.

Consider also that the LDS Church substantially increased its number of full-time missionaries when it lowered the eligible age for service among males to 18 and females to 19. In an April 26, 2014 Salt Lake Tribune article titled, “Mormon conversions lag behind huge missionary growth,” Peggy Fletcher Stack wrote,

“The stats are staggering. In the year and a half since the LDS Church lowered the minimum age for full-time missionary service, the Utah-based faith has seen its proselytizing force swell from 58,500 to more than 83,000. That’s a 42 percent leap. The number of convert baptisms last year grew to 282,945, up from 272,330 in 2012. That’s an increase of — less than 4 percent.”

That 4 percent increase doesn’t seem that encouraging when you consider that 12 years ago, 283,138 people converted to Mormonism. In 2002 the missionary force totaled 36,196.

Numerous suggestions have been offered as to why the LDS church has been struggling. The secularization of the western world is certainly a plausible explanation. However, I maintain that as many more people have the opportunity to seriously examine the history and doctrinal claims of the LDS church, Mormonism will find fewer people interested in what it offers. To put this in marketing terms, potential “customers” who have become “product savvy” are finding Mormonism to be an inferior product. It only makes sense that the free flow of information on the Internet will continue to shrink Mormonism’s potential “customer base.”

The Mormon church is between a rock and a hard place. It can no longer hide or ignore its past so it is forced to explain the dubious behavior of its founder and the myriad of contradicting teachings among its leadership. In recent months it has been trying to meet this challenge via a series of “Gospel Topic” essays posted on lds.org, but when you have a bad product, how will this new transparency help when it appears that the LDS church is now admitting that its critics were telling the truth all along?

While we are extremely pleased that efforts to expose the error of Mormonism are having a positive effect, this is only phase one in trying to reach the millions of people who are still members of the LDS church. Phase two can, and often is, much more difficult as we attempt to convince disaffected members that the truth claims of Jesus are still worth considering, despite the fact that they were deceived by Joseph Smith.

Even if the LDS church collapsed tomorrow, our missionary efforts will be far from over as we will find ourselves much more engaged in convincing those who erroneously believed the oft-quoted claim that, “if the LDS church isn’t true, nothing is.”

—

This article is reprinted from the July-August 2014 issue of Mormonism Researched.

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Missionaries | Tagged LDS Church, Mormon Church growth, Mormon Missionaries, Thomas S. Monson | 29 Comments

“Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests…”

Posted on July 31, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Mormonism’s founding prophet Joseph Smith taught that “Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests” altered the ancient biblical text (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 327). Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, looks at this idea and the state of the biblical text we have today.

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Joseph Smith | Tagged Bible, biblical reliability, Daniel B. Wallace, Joseph Smith, New Testament | 11 Comments

Mormonism and the “Great Machine”

Posted on July 28, 2014 by Aaron Shafovaloff

Mormonism’s “eternal law” is the creed of multiverse.

Transcending all gods. Governed by no ultimate Persons. Impersonal. Cold. “Without body, parts, passions.” Incromprehensible. “Unknown and unknowable—formless, passionless, elusive, ethereal, simultaneously everywhere and nowhere.”

All the gods must submit to it, abide by it, conform to it.

“We were there and then (say) born in the express image and likeness of him by whom we received our spiritual birth possessing the same faculties & powers but in their infantile state yet susceptable of an elevation equal to that of those possessed by our Spiritual Father But in order to effect this we must needs be planted in a material tabernacle. Accordingly the great machine was set in motion whereby bodies for the immortal sons and daughters of God came into being…” (Lorenzo Snow, Feb. 14, 1842. Quoted by Van Hale)

Is the idea of the Great Machine more eternal than God’s godness?

Do you think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?

– If You Could Hie to Kolob

If a religion’s God is what it holds up as Ultimate and Original, then:

– Mormonism’s God is not Heavenly Father, but the eternal law that governs all the Heavenly Fathers.

– Christianity’s God is a Triune, Personal Being. Three happy persons in eternal relationship. Father, Son, and Spirit.

Posted in God the Father, Nature of God | Tagged Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Eternal law, God, Lorenzo Snow, Mormonism | 81 Comments

The Book of Abraham: A Mormon Conundrum

Posted on July 24, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

In early July (2014) the Mormon Church released a Gospel Topics essay on the translation and historicity of its controversial book of scripture known as the Book of Abraham. The essay has done nothing to quiet the controversy. At issue is the question of Joseph Smith’s translation of some ancient Egyptian papyri that resulted in the Book of Abraham.

In the pre-2013 Introductory Note to the Pearl of Great Price (where the Book of Abraham resides in the Mormon canon of scripture) the Mormon Church explained the book in this way:

“The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.”

In the current edition of the Mormon Church’s scripture the Introductory Note reads:

“The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

The new wording side steps the issue of Joseph’s traditional/literal translation of the text. Whereas the Church used to promote the idea that Joseph translated the writing that was on the papyri (that is, he rendered the Egyptian characters into English), the revised explanation takes the resulting text of the Book of Abraham and removes it from the content of the papyri.

This is no wonder since a major controversy surrounding the Book of Abraham following the 1967 discovery of Joseph’s long-lost papyri is the fact that Joseph’s translation is not supported in any way by the Egyptian – he got it all wrong.

The new Gospel Topics essay continues the effort to rescue Joseph Smith’s groundless “translation” from the harsh reality of informed scholarship. The essay admits, “Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the [papyri] fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham,” then goes on to state, “The relationship between those fragments and the text we have today is largely a matter of conjecture.” In other words, the Mormon Church does not know what role the Egyptian papyri played in Joseph Smith’s rendering of the Book of Abraham. (Please see Rob Bowman’s excellent discussion of this topic at “What Kind of a Translation Is the Book of Abraham? A Multiple-Choice Question.”)

The Gospel Topics essay on the Book of Abraham has created a conundrum for Mormons. As Utah Lighthouse Ministry’s Sandra Tanner asked elsewhere, which of the following two statements made by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is accurate?

1. The canonized (current) heading on the Book of Abraham: “A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”

Or,

2. An alternative suggested in the Gospel Topics essay statement found on the LDS Church’s website: “Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.”

Does a faithful Mormon choose to believe the canonized explanation? Or does he choose to believe an explanation provided by a nameless group of scholars (approved, no doubt, by someone in authority at Church headquarters)? Perhaps no choice is required of Church members since the Church itself is not troubled by the incongruity.

Rob Bowman notes,

“After all this time, the LDS Church is no closer to an answer. Was the Book of Abraham actually written in Egyptian on the papyri? They don’t know. The ‘only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth’ (D&C 1:30), led by a series of presidents each of whom has been ‘a prophet, seer, and revelator (D&C 21:1; 107:91-92),’ has no idea how to explain the relationship between the book and the papyri.”

Perhaps this is because there is no relationship between them. It’s hard to conclude anything other than that the Book of Abraham is naught but a fabrication (at best), or a falsehood, perpetrated by Joseph Smith, the Prophet of this so-called Restoration.

Posted in Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, LDS Church, Mormon History, Pearl of Great Price | Tagged Book of Abraham, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Topics, LDS Church, Mormon Church, Mormon Scripture, Mormonism, Pearl of Great Price | 22 Comments

Helpful, but not true?

Posted on July 21, 2014 by Aaron Shafovaloff

Posted in Christianity | Tagged C.S. Lewis, Worthiness | 9 Comments

A History Tour of Brigham Young’s Beehive House

Posted on July 17, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

On June 19, 2014 I visited Utah and took a tour of the Beehive House, Brigham Young’s principal residence in Salt Lake City. Guided through the 1854 home by two young sister missionaries, I learned a lot about the comfortable pioneer life enjoyed by Mormonism’s “Lion of the Lord” during the second half of the 19^th century. However, much of what I learned was not true. For example, I was told that:

Lucy Decker Young was the only wife of Brigham Young that ever lived in the Beehive House. [Actually, Mary Ann Angell Young (Brigham’s only legal wife) also lived there until she opted for quieter surroundings, moving to another home in 1860 (see John G. Turner, Brigham Young Pioneer Prophet, 236, 377).]

The famous Lion House, located next door to the Beehive House, was built as a storehouse; no wives or women ever lived there. [Actually, the Lion House was built in 1856 to house Brigham Young’s growing family. In that year a “large number” of Brigham’s wives began living next door to him (Turner, 236).]

The only reason Mormons practiced polygamy in Utah was to care for the many women who lost their husbands back east because of persecution; legally, these widows were not allowed to keep their property or children. Mormon men married them in order to provide for their needs. [Actually, women had strong property rights as individuals in the 19^th century. They did not need husbands to retain property or keep their children. And very few women became widows because of persecution. Additionally, there were more men than women in Utah Territory; why wouldn’t single men have married and cared for any needy women? This whole explanation made me wonder why, if Mormons were so committed to obeying the supposed laws regarding property rights, they did not feel constrained to obey the marriage law that said polygamy was illegal.]

A very small number of people practiced polygamy in Utah. [Actually, an average of 20-30% of Mormons lived in polygamy between 1850 and 1890, amounting to tens of thousands of people.]

Brigham Young with some of his 55 wives

Brigham Young didn’t want to engage in polygamy, but he did it in order to help these widows legally and financially. [Actually, some of Brigham Young’s 55 wives were women who divorced their husbands just prior to marrying Brigham Young, women who had other interested suitors, and women who already had living husbands (Turner, 374-382; Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 45). Furthermore, Brigham Young’s stated rational for polygamy was theological, not altruistic (Turner, 205). See “Polygamy, Brigham Young and His 55 Wives” by John Turner for further reading.]

Once married, Brigham Young never even saw most of his plural wives again. [Actually, Brigham Young’s 58 children suggest otherwise (Turner, 375). But if this were the case, Brigham Young completely disregarded the biblical model of marriage that provides for a man and a woman to complete each other – the two become one flesh (Genesis 2:22-24). The husband is to love his wife “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,” cherish her, and hold fast to her (Ephesians 5:25-31).]

In case you’re wondering, during my tour I didn’t challenge the sister missionaries about their misinformed history; I imagine they were just repeating what they have been told. But here’s the thing I struggle with. The Mormon Church knows its history. Given that, it seems to me that the Church can choose one of three options:

It can choose to invite people to tour Mormon sites of historical significance and tell visitors the difficult but unvarnished truth;
It can choose not to provide historical tours at all (or to provide unguided tours) and thereby be relieved of any obligation to reveal embarrassing truths; or
It can choose to invite people to tour Mormon sites while lying about Mormon history.

The Church has chosen the third option. Why? It could choose to act faithfully, but instead has chosen that which is an abomination to the Lord (Proverbs 12:22).

Why has the Mormon Church made such a bad choice? Why does it choose to cast its lot among the wicked?

Posted in Brigham Young, LDS Church, Mormon History, Polygamy | Tagged Beehive House, Brigham Young, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDS Church, Lion House, Lying for the Lord, Mormon Church, Mormon History, Mormonism, Polygamy, Truth | 20 Comments