Mormon Coffee

John Walker’s Key Opens Book of Mormon Names

Posted on July 14, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

The wise biblical King Solomon wrote, “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Researcher Rick Grunder has provided a great latter-day example of “What has been is what will be.” In his massive work, Mormon Parallels: A Bibliographic Source, Mr. Grunder provides readers with an interesting look at names found in the Book of Mormon and a parallel source that could have aided Joseph Smith as he wrote it.

In 1732 John Walker was born in England. As an adult, Mr. Walker was known as an “actor, elocutionist and lexicographer,” teaching and lecturing on elocution. In 1791 he published his Critical Pronouncing Dictionary in London. This work was reprinted in many editions and abridgements, one of which was advertised in the Palmyra (New York) Herald on September 24, 1823, and another suggested for inclusion in the curriculum for Colesville, New York schools in 1826 (in Joseph Smith’s neighborhood).

The specific abridgment of Mr. Walker’s book that is examined by Rick Grunder is A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names, with the specific section of most interest being a 15-page list of “Scripture Proper Names.” Mr. Grunder explains,

“I have selected the following list of names and terms which I find similar to, resonant with, or identical to Book of Mormon names. On page 79 alone appear not only the three eldest male members of the leading Book of Mormon family (Lehi, ‘Lah’man’ and Lemuel), but the Book’s first villain as well (Laban), plus two notable Master Mahan/secret combination protagonists in Joseph Smith’s 1830 Book of Moses (chapter 5): Lamech and Irad. Walker’s Key also provides the unusual reference to the Apocryphal name Nephi, p. 81. Of additional interest is a pronunciation rule to which ‘Ne´ phi’ is here referenced, showing the same pronunciation that is used by Mormons today.

“In preparing this list, I have excluded a number of the most famous biblical names shared or recalled by Book of Mormon people, as well as the names of exclusively biblical locations referred to in the Book of Mormon (primarily in 2 Nephi). Names which I place in LARGE & SMALL CAPITAL LETTERS, (not followed by comparison names in parentheses) are identical to names in the Book of Mormon. Names which I signal with an asterisk (*) occur in Walker’s Key with added prominence by appearing first or last in a page column.”

Mr. Grunder’s list includes 137 of the 300-plus proper names found in the Book of Mormon. For you to get a taste of the list, the “A” section looks like this:

A-bin´ a-dab (cf. Abinadi)
A-bin´ o-am (cf. Abinadom)
A-bish´ a-i (cf. Abish)
A ´ chish (cf. Akish)
Æ´ nos (cf. Enos)
A´ HAZ Al´ mon Dib-la-tha´ im [and,]
Al´ na-than,
Al´ pha,
A´ mal,
A-mal´ da (cf. Alma)
Am´ a-lek (cf. Amaleki)
AM´ A-LEK-ITES
A-MIN´
A-DAB
AM´ MON
AM´ MON-ITES
Am´ non (cf. Amnor)
Am´ o-rites (cf. Amoron)
An-a-ni´ ah (cf. Ammonihah)
An´ ti-och (cf. Antion)
An-ti´ o-chus (cf. Antionum)
AN´ TI-PAS
An to´ ni-a (cf. Antionah)
Ar-che-la´ us (cf. Archeantus)

As another example, page 79 from Mr. Walker’s Key includes these notable parallels:

Jo´ tham (cf. Jothan)
Kib´ roth Hat-ta´ a-vah (cf. Kib)
KISH Ko´ rah [and,]
Ko´ rah-ites,
Ko´ rath-ites,
Kor´ hite,
Kor´ hites,
Kor´ ites
Ko´ re (cf. Korihor, Corihor)
LA´ BAN
La-cu´ nus (cf. Lachoneus)
Lah´ man (cf. Laman)
[LA´ MECH – see Moses 5]
LE´ HI*
LEM´ U-EL*
Lib´ nah (cf. Limnah)
Lib´ ni [and,]
Lib´ nites, (cf. Lib)

Rick Grunder’s research does not prove that Joseph Smith used Mr. Walker’s Key in writing the Book of Mormon. Indeed, Mr. Grunder does not even hint at this. Rather, he writes,

“I seek not so much to prove what another young man did or did not do in the nineteenth century, as to test in some measure the many easy assurances that I have heard since my own youth, that Joseph Smith simply could not have created the many unusual names which appear in the Book of Mormon.”

Along with King Solomon we affirm that there is nothing new under the sun. Joseph Smith did not need to create 300 new and unique proper names to fill out the Book of Mormon; many sources were available to him to draw from as he composed the book.

Joseph Smith by grindael

The reason this research is significant is that it is another piece in the grander puzzle to consider when contemplating the truth or falsity of the Mormon Church’s claim that Joseph Smith is “God’s mouthpiece.” Mormon Apostle Joseph Wirthlin wrote,

“Finally, conversion to the Book of Mormon is conversion to the divine, prophetic calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is the divine evidence of the truthfulness of Joseph Smith’s calling. Either this is all true, or it is not. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained it best when he wrote:

‘To consider that everything of saving significance in the Church stands or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth is as sobering as it is true. It is a “sudden death” proposition. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is, or this Church and its founder are false, a deception from the first instance onward.

“‘Not everything in life is so black and white, but the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our religion seem to be exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, a prophet who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from Moroni’s lips, and eventually received at his hands a set of ancient gold plates that he then translated by the gift and power of God, or else he did not. And if he did not, he would not be entitled to the reputation of New England folk hero, or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, nor would he be entitled to be considered a great teacher, a quintessential American religious leader, or the creator of great devotional literature. If he had lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he would certainly be none of these…

“‘Joseph Smith must be accepted either as a prophet of God or else a charlatan of the first order…’” (“The Book of Mormon: The Heart of Missionary Proselytizing,” Ensign, 9/2002, 14)

Did Joseph Smith “lie about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon”? Did he find those proper names he used engraved on gold plates, or did he find them listed in the back of a schoolbook? The Bible warns again and again against being deceived by false prophets and deceitful workers; the world has seen countless charlatans across the centuries. To follow them is naught but (borrowing the poetic words of Solomon) “striving after wind.”

God Himself defines where spiritual safety lies:

“Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal…the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world…I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst…whoever comes to me I will never cast out…everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:27-40)

May we all cease striving after wind and instead find life in Jesus, the very bread of God.

Posted in Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Mormon Scripture | Tagged Book of Mormon, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jeffrey Holland, John Walker, Joseph Smith, Mormon Church | 3 Comments

From Mormonism to Christianity Conference: July 17-19

Posted on July 12, 2014 by Aaron Shafovaloff

See the Facebook event here. See more information here. Come!

I will be speaking at 11am on Saturday on “Matthew for Mormons”, a walk-through of some exciting and surprisingly relevant themes in the Gospel of Matthew.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Mormon logic of lost books and its implication for prophetic accountability

Posted on July 10, 2014 by Aaron Shafovaloff

When talking to some Mormon missionaries in March I encountered an interesting line of thinking. One of the elders gave the standard claim that the Bible is missing books that should have been included.

I asked, “Which ones?”

He answered: Works that the Bible makes mention of.

So I asked, “So, mere mention of a work in scripture (of something presumably written by another prophet) indicates that the work should have been included in the canon as scripture?”

They answered, “Yes, because what prophets write should be considered scripture.”

This later was downgraded to a more modest claim: That the majority of what prophets write for public consumption should be considered scripture.

This is the default, functioning, practical view of mainstream Mormonism:

“We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (Article #9)

This is “functionally” (in practice) taken to encompass most of what the LDS Church teaches and publishes, especially General Conference messages. I call this approach prima ecclesia. (It is far different than the standard LDS apologetic approach, which is something akin to sola scriptura.)

Just to dig this in, I asked: “Would you agree that prophets should be held to a high standard of expectation and accountability over what they publicly teach about God and the gospel?”

They answered, “Yes.”

These kinds of principles are important to pull out and explicate. Get them on the table. Help your Mormon neighbor commit to these principles — out loud. With words they commit to. This might seem simple but it’s radical. It implicitly presses the point that prophets should not be given a free pass for false teachings — especially and most obviously for public false teachings about God and the gospel which are never repented of.

The more clear and heavy you make the point, the more powerful things like Adam-God and the priesthood ban are. Jesus said to inspect alleged prophets by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-20). Serious fruit-inspection is a way of obeying Jesus. We’re also helping Mormons obey their own scripture: to study things out in their mind instead of depending on mere emotional epiphanies (D&C 9:7-8). I love what my friend Matt says about fruit-inspection: “Don’t do it with binoculars.” Peel the skin off and get dirty. It’s our responsibility.

Posted in Uncategorized | 93 Comments

When it comes to the plates, there was no miracle

Posted on July 7, 2014 by Bill McKeever

For the past several years I have been bringing a replica set of “gold plates” to the Mormon Miracle Pageant held annually in Manti, Utah. By encouraging Mormon visitors to lift my plates, it gives me an opportunity to explain the many problems I see with the official account of how Smith allegedly retrieved the plates back in 1827.

My plates are six inches by eight inches, by six inches deep, the same measurements given by Joseph Smith. And although my plates are made of sheet metal and are much lighter than gold plates, they are still quite heavy—80 pounds. If Smith’s plates were actually made of the metal gold, their soft consistency and dense weight would tend to expel any air gaps between the plates. In other words, as plates are added to the ever increasing record, the plates (at least near the bottom of the stack), would tend to flatten out. That being the case, it would be very likely that the six-inch stack would weigh around 200 pounds.

Mormons are led to believe that Smith carried the plates under his arm, and while carrying them home three miles away, he was able to jump over a log, fight off three separate attackers, and that he ran “at the top of his speed” to get away from these men.

Amazingly, many Mormons insist that because Smith was “a buff farm boy” he was able to accomplish such a feat, but when a Mormon finally realizes that replicating Smith’s story is humanly impossible, they have no recourse but to insist that a miracle was involved. The problem with such a claim is that if Smith needed a miracle to carry the plates, then surely Moroni, the person Mormons believe buried the plates centuries ago, must have needed one too, not to mention all of the other Book of Mormon characters who certainly handled the plates towards the time they were supposedly buried in the ground. Amusing in- deed is a scene in the Mormon Miracle pageant where Mormon hands the plates to Moroni as if it was a football.

Are we to assume that the “eight witnesses” mentioned in the front of the Book of Mormon also needed a miracle to “heft” the plates? If so, wouldn’t Smith’s wife, Emma, who was known to have moved the plates around on the table “as her work required it,” also need a miracle? (See Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, p. 70.)

Mormon leaders of the past never seemed to entertain the notion that a miracle was needed.

For example, if a Mormon wants to insist that Smith needed a miracle to carry the plates he must explain the following comment from Mormon Apostle John A. Widtsoe. Understanding that plates of pure gold would be much too heavy for Smith to carry, he offered this explanation:

“A cube of solid gold of that size, if the gold were pure, would weigh two hundred pounds, which would be a heavy weight for a man to carry, even though he were of the athletic type of Joseph Smith. This has been urged as an evidence against the truth of the Book of Mormon, since it is known that on several occasions the Prophet carried the plates in his arms. It is very unlikely, however, that the plates were made of pure gold. They would have been too soft and in danger of destruction by distortion. For the purpose of record keeping, plates made of gold mixed with a certain amount of copper would be better, for such plates would be firmer, more durable and generally more suitable for the work in hand. If the plates were made of eight karat gold, which is gold frequently used in present-day jewelry, and allowing a 10 percent space between the leaves, the total weight of the plates would not be above one hundred and seventeen pounds—a weight easily carried by a man as strong as was Joseph Smith” (John A. Widtsoe and Franklin S. Harris, Jr., Seven Claims of the Book of Mormon, pp. 37-38).

Widtsoe would have no need to give such an explanation if he believed that a miracle was involved. Still, Widtsoe’s hypothesis fails for one simple reason — 117 pounds is not at all an easy weight to carry, no matter how strong he thinks Smith may have been. This can be easily demonstrated.

At the Utah Lighthouse bookstore in Salt Lake City, Sandra Tanner has a replica set of plates made of lead on display. Lead is lighter than gold, but like gold, it is very soft and very dense, hence the plates contain no air gaps, making it appear as a solid piece. Though only one pound heavier than Widtsoe’s estimate, visitors to the bookstore who attempt to lift the lead plates learn very quickly that Smith could not achieve what Mormons are led to believe. In fact, many who fail to lift the plates at all, often ask if they are bolted down. No, they are not.

Mormon apologists who admit that plates made of actual gold would be much too heavy for Smith to carry like to point to Reed Putnam, a Mormon metallurgist who insisted that the gold plates were actually made of an alloy consisting mostly of copper. Perhaps knowing that Witdsoe’s arbitrary 10% air gap between the plates is entirely inadequate, he argues that if plates had a whopping 50% air gap, the weight could be brought down to as little as 53 pounds.

But why bother if a miracle was involved? If God could miraculously allow Smith to carry 53-pound plates, He most certainly could have enabled Smith to carry 200-pound plates. Efforts by Mormon apologists to get the weight of the plates down to a manageable level tend to prove they do not believe a miracle was involved. Furthermore, Mormon attempts to make the plates lighter actually take away from the glory of God. After all, is it not more of a miracle for Smith to carry 200-pound plates as opposed to 118-, or even 53-pound plates?

—

This article is reprinted from the May-June 2014 issue of Mormonism Researched.

Posted in Book of Mormon, Mormon History | Tagged Book of Mormon, Gold plates, Joseph Smith | 29 Comments

Sidney Rigdon’s July 4th Oration

Posted on July 3, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

MP3

Originally aired on Viewpoint on Mormonism on July 4, 2012

Posted in Early Mormonism, Mormon History | Tagged Far West, July 4th Oration, Missouri, Sidney Rigdon | 9 Comments

Mormon Church’s “Bees” Are Swarming…

Posted on June 30, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Last week the threat of excommunication for Kate Kelly became a reality. Ms. Kelly is the founder of Ordain Women, a Mormon group advocating for gender equality in the Mormon priesthood. She was found guilty of apostasy. Her bishop explained:

“. . . our determination is that you be excommunicated for conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church. This means that you may not wear temple garments or contribute tithes and offerings. You may not take the sacrament, hold a Church calling, give a talk in Church, offer a public prayer in behalf of the class or congregation in a Church meeting, or vote in the sustaining of Church officers. These conditions almost always last at least one year. If you show true repentance and satisfy the conditions imposed below while you are no longer a member, you may be readmitted by baptism and confirmation.

“In order to be considered for readmission to the Church, you will need to demonstrate over a period of time that you have stopped teachings and actions that undermine the Church, its leaders, and the doctrine of the priesthood. You must be truthful in your communications with others regarding matters that involve your priesthood leaders, including the administration of Church discipline, and you must stop trying to gain a following for yourself or your cause and taking actions that could lead others away from the Church.”

Ms. Kelly plans to appeal her excommunication within the next thirty days, according to the Church’s procedural policy.

Mormon bloggers John Dehlin (Mormon Stories Podcast) and Alan Rock Waterman (Pure Mormonism) are among additional Latter-day Saints that are currently facing Church discipline for apostasy. As I noted in “Mormon Church Kicks the Beehive” (June 16, 2014), many Latter-day Saints were upset and frustrated by what they saw as an effort by the Church to silence its critics. While the Church hoped the media interest and frustration of members would “de-escalate,” so far that hope has been nothing more than wishful thinking.

In an unprecedented move, an assembly of Latter-day Saints has begun organizing under the banner “Strangers in Zion”:

“Strangers In Zion is a grass roots movement for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are requesting to subject themselves to church discipline in solidarity for other wrongfully excommunicated and otherwise disciplined Latter-day Saints.” (“About“)

Strangers in Zion is calling for like-minded Mormons to contact their Church leaders with requests for disciplinary hearings based on each individual’s “beliefs that are contrary to the teachings, doctrines, and leaders of the Church.” In a letter template available on the website, participants are encouraged to list specific contrary beliefs they hold (e.g., “I find Joseph Smith’s fundamental character flaws, pathological dishonesty, and moral relativism not in harmony with an individual who should be speaking for God.”) as well as ways in which they have publicly promoted (and intend to continue promoting) those beliefs (e.g., “I have published numerous blog posts with wide circulation amongst the online Mormon community publicly opposing the Church’s stance on…”). The letter template concludes:

“All this being considered, I humbly request assistance from the Church in the form of a Church court to determine the best course of action for myself and my membership in the Church. If you have any questions I would be happy to address them at my disciplinary court.”

Strangers in Zion plans to post a list of participants along with information related to the participants’ individual experiences as the movement progresses.

As far as I’m aware, the modern LDS Church has never seen this sort of widespread uprising of members (though the early Mormon Church experienced rife dissention in Kirtland, Ohio and Nauvoo, Illinois). Certainly the majority of Latter-day Saints supports the Church in this situation and opposes those members accused of apostasy. Yet according to one of the accused, Mormon blogger Rock Waterman,

“There’s going to be a lot of fallout resulting from this needless debacle. And absolutely none of it is going to benefit the church.

“Already countless members on the fence have declared this nonsense to be the last straw for them, and they’re throwing in the towel. I’ve come to know a number of these people; two former bishops, several bishopric members, Relief Society presidents, counselors, ward clerks, stake High Council members, one former stake president, a stake patriarch, you name it — all of them believers in the gospel of the Restoration, and all of them have had their fill of the shenanigans the structural Church has been up to in recent years. This final malfeasance has done them in. They embrace the gospel, but they tell me this is it; they’re done supporting the corporate Church.

“And those are the devout believers. A whole lot more members who are not so devoted, but whose testimonies of the gospel have been shaken by the Magisterium’s transparent hypocrisy, have weighed in online declaring their intentions to resign. These people number in the tens of thousands.” (“Who Is Changing the Doctrine?”)

If this actually comes to pass, what will these “devout believers” do? Will they join the swelling ranks of atheistic ex-Mormons? Will they form a new Mormon denomination/splinter group just as hundreds of Mormon dissenters have done before them? What they do will affect them into eternity.

At the MRM website we address those struggling with their Mormon faith:

…we often hear from members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are struggling in the aftermath of betrayal. Realization that their church has not been wholly truthful about Mormon Church history and the doctrinal teachings of Mormon leaders, many Latter-day Saints respond with hurt and anger and a myriad of questions. “Why did the church deceive me?” “Why couldn’t my bishop be honest with me?” “How could I have been so easily fooled?”

Anger is a natural reaction in this situation. Unfortunately, many become so disgusted that they throw the baby out with the bathwater. Feeling vulnerable, they may think, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” The idea of finding another church and religion is daunting – and scary. If Mormonism is false, they reason, why trust religion at all?…

Traditional Christian teachings are often never even considered or given a chance; for if the “only true church” isn’t true, that leaves no spiritual truth at all. Giving traditional Christianity a fair hearing, then, is prevented by pain and fear.

Hopefully, the confusion you are experiencing will not cause you to drift unnecessarily into agnosticism or atheism. To throw all faith away because Mormonism proved to be false is like abandoning all health care because you were once the victim of medical malpractice…

Struggling with faith issues can be a very emotional experience. While it may be easier and less threatening for you to dismiss the truth claims of the Christian faith outright, our prayer is that you would take the time to understand what traditional Christianity really is, and what it has to offer.

To that end, if you are a struggling Mormon please visit MRM’s Struggling with your Mormonism page to find resources that will help you make intentional and wise decisions about your eternal future – there’s a lot riding on it.

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Culture | Tagged Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Excommunication, John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, LDS Church Policies, Mormon Church | 26 Comments

Citizen Smith

Posted on June 26, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

In the late afternoon of that sticky June day, Joseph Smith lay broken and bleeding beside the foundation of the Carthage Jail. Though few people knew he held the secret, self-imposed scepter of king, the fact that he had been in the race for the United States presidency was common knowledge. But Joseph Smith did not look like a ruler that day. Events which had intensified during the first half of 1844 had brought the Prophet to his ignoble end.

In January 1844 Joseph Smith had been privately nominated by his Apostles to run for president. The Saints at Nauvoo voted nearly unanimously to support this political move. By spring Mormon proselytizing missions in the U.S. had been suspended. Instead, hundreds of political missionaries were sent out to campaign for Joseph. Smith’s efforts at international diplomacy proved he was serious. By early June LDS ambassadors were strategically in place in England, Texas, Washington, D.C., France and Russia.

The thousands of Mormons in Illinois generally voted as a bloc. This concerned non-Mormon citizens because the Mormons virtually held the key to the state’s national politics. To the people of Illinois, Joseph’s campaign for president was no small matter.

Meanwhile, hidden from the public eye yet inextricably bound to his politics, Joseph Smith began organizing the Kingdom of God on earth.

In March Joseph organized the theocratic Council of Fifty. This Council was to be God’s Kingdom and Government to establish His rule and law for the “protection of civil and religious liberty in this nation and throughout the world.” Those initiated into the Council were sworn to secrecy “under the penalty of death.”

At a church-wide conference a veiled announcement was made about Mormonism’s new government: “When God sets up a system of salvation, he sets up a system of government;…a government that shall rule over temporal and spiritual affairs.” The Council of Fifty operated under the presumption of ultimate power, believing they had the authority to set aside and live above the laws of the U.S. and all other secular governments.

On April 11, at a meeting of the Fifty, Joseph was secretly “chosen as our Prophet, Priest and King by Hosannas.” The Council performed an ordinance “in which Joseph suffered himself to be ordained a king, to reign over the house of Israel forever.” Publicly, Joseph, the presidential candidate, announced, “I go emphatically, virtuously, and humanely for a THEO-DEMOCRACY, where God and the people hold the power to conduct the affairs of men in righteousness…”

Some within the Council privately suspected Joseph’s kingly ordination might be treasonous. Their fears were confirmed when, one month into his kingship, Joseph announced, “I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.” Alarmed, these men broke their vow of secrecy and informed Joseph’s former (and excommunicated) first counselor William Law of the Prophet’s ordination as “King, Priest and Ruler over Israel on Earth.”

On May 10 William Law and fellow religious dissenters published a prospectus for their newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, which contained a reference to Nauvoo’s “SELF-CONSTITUTED MONARCH” and promised to reveal the city’s “gross moral imperfections.” On June 7 the first and only edition of the Nauvoo Expositor appeared, proclaiming, “We will not acknowledge any man as king or lawgiver to the church: for Christ is our only king and lawgiver.”

A sympathetic historian wrote in 1994: “Smith realized that Council of Fifty members had betrayed him. He could not allow the Expositor to publish the secret international negotiations masterminded by Mormonism’s earthly king.” Therefore, on June 10 the Nauvoo city council, Mayor Joseph Smith presiding, decided to destroy the Expositor and its press as “a public nuisance.” Twelve days later Joseph deserted his city and his people in an attempt to escape the consequences of his treasonous actions. However, being accused of cowardice by his friends, Joseph returned to Illinois and entered Carthage Jail.

On the morning of June 27 Joseph sent an order to the commander of his Nauvoo Legion instructing him to lead an immediate attack on Carthage in order to free the prisoners. At about 5:00 p.m. the frightened jailer informed Joseph that more than 250 men were approaching. The Prophet replied, “Don’t trouble yourself [–] they have come to rescue me.” But Joseph was mistaken. The Nauvoo Legion didn’t come; its Major-General refused to obey the attack order because he knew such action would bring civil war and destruction on the citizens of Nauvoo.

As the mob overtook the jail gunfire erupted and within minutes Mormonism’s king was dead. So ended the presumptuous ambitions of Joseph Smith the Prophet.

Every June as Mormons around the world remember the death of their Prophet, Christians are able to joyously proclaim that Jesus Christ, the true and living Prophet, Priest and King, reigns now and forevermore!

(Information included in this article is from D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy, 117-141.)

This article is reprinted from the Summer 1995 issue of A Word in Season (newsletter of Word for the Weary).

Posted in Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Mormon History, Nauvoo | Tagged Carthage Jail, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, Martyrdom, Mormon Church, Mormon History | 22 Comments

Follow the Prophet?

Posted on June 23, 2014 by Eric Johnson

It wasn’t long ago when an advertising campaign for basketball superstar Michael Jordan emphasized just three words: “Be like Mike.” The slogan became very popular and sold plenty of shoes.

This came to my mind as I read an article titled “Follow the Prophet” in the April 2014 Ensign magazine. Written by Seventy William R. Walker, the piece puts the LDS president on a pedestal. If the reader wanted to predict what the article would be about, the pull quote on page 39 says it all: “As we follow President Monson and try to be more like him, we will inevitably succeed in being more faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Somewhere I was halfway expecting another pull quote that would have read, “Be like Tom.”

Consider the points made by Walker to succeed in “following the prophet’s example”:

Be positive and happy
Be kind and loving toward children
Follow the promptings of the Spirit
Love the temple
Be kind, considerate, and loving

Toward the end of the article, Walker writes on page 41, “President Monson has taught us the way to live our lives with his wonderful and inspiring messages at general conference. He has taught us how to be followers of Jesus Christ by his remarkable and wonderful personal example. . . . As we follow him and try to be more like him, we will inevitably succeed in being more faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Someone may predict that I am about to insist that it is wrong to imitate other people. That’s not my point. If a person’s walk is worthy to be imitated, then by all means it should be! For the Christian, this might be a pastor, Billy Graham, or another spiritual giant. Even Paul urged the Corinthians to “imitate me” (1 Cor. 4:16) and “follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). In Philippians 4:17, the apostle wrote, “Join together in following my example, brothers and sisters, and just as you have us as a model, keep your eyes on those who live as we do.”

Was Paul perfect? By no means! He was a man who was transparent and even admitted to struggling with sin! (Rom. 7:7-25) Flip through the book of Acts and study how Paul handled certain situations, including a serious conflict with Peter. Read 2 Corinthians 11 and better understand the mindset of the man who told us to imitate him. There is much open transparency when it comes to the life of Paul.

Contrast Paul’s example with President Monson. Besides photo ops and generic biannual speeches at the general conferences, how much transparency is provided? Of course, there are plenty of PR pieces to make Monson look saint-like (example). And there is a 2010 biography (To the Rescue written by Heidi S. Swinton, a faithful member of the LDS Church), though the chapter titles (including “He went about doing good” and “The consummate counselor”) show the demeanor of this book. We must wonder if there really is enough information provided to give us an accurate assessment of his character. Could the image we are given be nothing more than a caricature?

Someone might say that we can learn more about the real Monson from General Conference messages that he’s given over the years. I have read or listened to many Monson addresses, and I just can’t remember a time when I heard him refer to situations where his current life or example was less than stellar. Oh, we certainly get some tales, including one that has been dubbed the “fire story.” It details a time when Monson and a friend got into trouble when they played with matches and started a fire. While this certainly was an admission of wrongdoing, I believe the narrative is presented in a way that appears innocent and cute, even if the moral of the story was to obey. (See the April 2013 account here.)

Except for certain long-ago stories like this, very little is shared at conference that provides an accurate picture of the 21^st century Monson. The impression that is given—purposeful, I believe—reflects a mortal who appears to have a lock on sainthood.

We are left to wonder, does Mormonism’s top leader struggle with evil, lustful thoughts? Does he have any temptation with gossip or backbiting talk? Has he disagreed with one of his children and spoken in an angry tone? In other words—and I want to know—is Thomas S. Monson human? After reading Walker’s article, the top LDS leader appears to be a demigod who apparently walks on water.

In a 1985 book titled On the Lord’s Errand: Memoirs of Thomas S. Monson that has long since been out of print, Monson reminisced about a time when he was given advice from a senior apostle. He wrote on page 184:

“In about 1956 we recognized that our neighborhood was deteriorating. We observed this one Halloween by the nature of the people who came in the guise of ‘Trick or Treat.’ The minority elements were moving into the area where we lived, and many of the old-time families had long since moved away. Seeking counsel, I visited with Mark E. Peterson, who for many years had been the General Manager of the Deseret News. O. Preston Robinson, my former professor of marketing at the University of Utah, had succeeded Brother Petersen as the General Manager at the News. As I mentioned to Mark my dilemma, wondering if it would be unfair for me to move, he said simply, ‘Your obligation to that area is concluded. Why don’t you build a house in my ward?’”

By telling the story, Monson doesn’t appear to have any remorse referring to human beings as “the minority element.” He doesn’t seem to feel bad that he took Petersen’s advice to move away from these “elements.” Maybe this is why the story has never made it into a conference address. At the same time, I wonder, should we consider this as an example of how we ought to “follow the prophet”?

Posted in Mormon Leaders | Tagged Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Follow the Prophet, Mormonism, Prophets, Thomas S. Monson | 57 Comments

From the Mailbag (Eternal Marriage)

Posted on June 19, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Hi,

I have a Mormon friend that finds forever marriage very important to him and I tried explaining how Heaven is going to be so much better then any marriage or person. He then asked “What is there to do?” I haven’t studied much about what life is going to be like in Heaven and I know we all can’t really know the fullness of it but he still put up the argument of marriage being a forever promise or “eternal covenant” with God that cannot be broken. How can I better explain that this can be broken after life on earth?

Thank you!

Hi Jenny,

Thank you for your email. You ask a very interesting question. While I’m not sure how you can better explain biblical marriage to your friend, I do hope my comments might be of some value to you…

Your friend’s concern regarding marriage and eternity represents a fundamental difference between the ways Mormons and Christians view eternity. I was once told (by a Mormon man) that my (biblical) view of heaven (i.e., focusing on being in the presence of God — along with my believing loved ones) was nice, but incomplete; he said it was like going to a fancy restaurant, enjoying the salad, and leaving before the entree was served. For him, being in the presence of God was along the lines of an appetizer, not a meal.

For Christians, our focus is on what the Bible calls our “first love.” We live in an intimate relationship with God, marked by profound love and deep worship. So our hope for eternity, our deepest longing, is to be in the presence of our God forever. God promises this to His people. Since this is our greatest desire, it is enough to know this about our eternal future. God doesn’t tell us much more, and that’s okay. In Genesis we are told that God Himself is our reward:

“After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, ‘Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.’” (Gen 15:1 NKJV)

How awesome is that???

Mormonism, on the other hand, leads followers to a different focus and a different longing. Their relationship with their God is not the focus of their spiritual hope. Their hope and great love is toward the concept of family. Husband, wife and children — this is what makes them happy and fulfilled in this life, and what they long for in the next as well (please understand that I am generalizing here).

Mormonism teaches that marriage (i.e., a marriage that is sealed in a Mormon temple) is eternal; but the Bible teaches no such thing. Christians do not make eternal marriage covenants (as Mormons do). We understand that marriage to our spouse is for this life only, as Jesus teaches (see Mark 12; Mark 12:25 and Marriage in Heaven).

In the end, of course, it all boils down to faith. God told Abram to “go” and he went, not knowing where he would end up.

“Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ So Abram went, as the LORD had told him.” (Genesis 12:1-4).

God tells us that we will love Heaven. Indeed, He has put that longing in our hearts. “What is there to do?” your friend asks. It doesn’t matter. We believe God, and therefore we know that Heaven will be greater than we can even imagine. That is enough. If God is your first love, it is more than enough (Psalm 84:10).

Mormonism tells people that after enjoying the “salad” of being in Heavenly Father’s presence, they can go on to the main course: power, eternal progression, eternal increase, etc. Mormonism promises people Godhood — the same life Heavenly Father lives, with all the same attributes Heavenly Father possesses. Marriage, one LDS manual taught, is “a laboratory for godhood” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 65. See Mormons Yawn at Christian Heaven). Mormons are taught that God is a “glorified man,” and that their purpose in this life is to be worthy enough to achieve Godhood (i.e., become a glorified man/woman) as well — just as Heavenly Father did. They expect to receive glory and honor from their spiritual offspring throughout eternity. The biblical revelation of Heaven does not fit their theology at all.

For your friend to recognize that Heaven is so much better than any marriage or any person (as you’ve said), he needs to recognize and come to know the God who is. When he comes to “love the Lord God with all [his] heart and with all [his] soul and with all [his] might” (Deuteronomy 6:5), he will say with the Psalmist, “As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God” (Psalm 42:1). Then Heaven will sound incredible.

Thank you again for writing, Jenny. May God equip and use you to help your friend see the awesome glory of our great God!

In Christ,
Sharon

Posted in Afterlife, Christianity, Family, LDS Church | Tagged Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Eternal Marriage, godhood, Heaven, Mormonism | 12 Comments

Mormon Church Kicks the Beehive

Posted on June 16, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Last week (June 11, 2014) The New York Times reported that the Mormon Church is threatening two highly visible members with excommunication. Kate Kelly, the founder of Ordain Women (which seeks to bring about change in the Mormon Church’s priesthood restrictions) and John Dehlin, the man behind Mormon Stories Podcast (which features discussions of interest to Mormons questioning various aspects of their faith) were both notified that they are facing “excommunication for apostasy.” These Latter-day Saints have rocked the Mormon world via their forthright and bold treatment of what they see as problems within the Mormon Church – doctrinal, historical, and cultural. And while they disagree with many things Mormon, both of them express continuing love for the Church; neither of them want to be excommunicated.

Kate Kelly explained,

“I think the charge of apostasy is wholly unfounded. I’ve never said anything against the leaders of the church. I’ve never said anything negative about any of the Lord’s anointed. I’ve never taught any doctrines, let alone false doctrines. The only sins I’m guilty of is telling the truth and living authentically and having sincere questions. If those are apostasy, I’m guilty, but I don’t view those to be apostate acts.”

On the Mormon Stories website John Dehlin admits that he no longer believes “many of the fundamental LDS church truth claims”; nevertheless, when given the option of resigning from the Church or facing Church discipline, he said,

“I will not be resigning my membership. I love the church too much to resign from it.”

In response to questions regarding the threatened excommunications, the Mormon Newsroom website offered a general explanation of the need for Church discipline:

“Sometimes members’ actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled.”

While the Mormon Church has the right – and the responsibility – to set boundaries and discipline church members, one has to wonder what effect this particularly public move may have on the Church at large. Consider a few of the things that have been happening since the pending Church discipline has become public.

The New York Times said this forceful move by the Church “to quash such prominent critical voices” is “a sudden change of course for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had been working to project an image of greater diversity and openness.” Will the watching world now see Mormonism in a less favorable light?

The Herald Journal of Logan, Utah is running an online poll asking readers, “Would you support the excommunication of Mormon activists John Dehlin and Kate Kelly?” At the time of this writing, the “No” response outnumbered “Yes” by nearly 4 to1.

Mormon blogger Jana Riess is very troubled by the Church’s actions toward Kelly and Dehlin. She asked, “Are we looking at a Mormon purge?” Dr. Riess compared the pending discipline of Kelly and Dehlin to the 1993 Mormon Purge wherein six Latter-day Saints (The September Six) were excommunicated or disfellowshipped “for publishing scholarly work against Mormon doctrine or criticizing Church doctrine or leadership” over a 12-day period in September of that year.

As she blogged about the current discipline of vocal non-conformist Church members, Dr. Riess wondered if she, too, should expect a disciplinary letter stemming from her own outspokenness. She wrote,

“If that’s what is coming for me, so be it. I would be terribly sad to be disfellowshipped or excommunicated from my church — excommunication meaning, literally, out of community.

“I’ve been a Mormon for more than twenty years. This is my home, and Mormonism is part of my core identity. I love it.

“But I have always known there might be a price for having my own opinions in a culture that so values conformity and obedience.

“If the point of these pending excommunications is to strike fear in the hearts of other Latter-day Saints who love the Church but do not always agree with it on matters of social justice, then it has already failed. For Zion’s sake, and for my own, I will not keep silent.”

This disciplinary action by the Mormon Church has caused Dr. Riess to plant her flag, choosing freedom of thought and expression over allegiance to the Church.

Tim Malone is a Mormon blogger (Latter-day Commentary) who loves the Church and sustains Church leaders. Nevertheless, he wrote that he can no longer stand idly by and watch injustice done. Therefore, he surrendered his temple recommend:

“Because I disagree with the excommunications taking place in other stakes of individuals I have come to know and love – first online and then in person – I felt it would be less than honest to keep my temple recommend. I turned it in because I could no longer answer no to the question about ‘affiliating’ or ‘sympathizing’ with individuals who the church has cast out for apostasy. I do sympathize with them and I do intend to affiliate with them…” (emphasis in the original)

Because of the Church’s disciplinary actions toward Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and Alan Rock Waterman (Pure Mormonism), another Mormon blogger has found the courage to come out of hiding and publicly declare,

“My name is Elizabeth Day. My name is still on the records of the church because I did not want to break the hearts of my family members who still believe that if my name is expunged from the records of the church that I am lost to them for eternity. But I do not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true…I am an apostate and I’m tired of hiding.”

All of these are relatively insignificant examples of fallout the Church has already experienced and maybe it won’t go any further. But Elizabeth Day thinks otherwise. She wrote,

“I have a feeling that there will be people like me—maybe in the hundreds, maybe in the thousands—who will realize that this is the moment to speak out. To add our voices to those of Dehlin and Kelly and Waterman. To come out of the closet with our thoughts, or our doubts, or our disagreements.”

If the Church’s current disciplinary actions cause hundreds or thousands of Mormons to more closely examine the Church, its history, and its doctrines, I pray that these people come to find they must abandon the false system of Mormonism. I pray that as they turn away from the Mormon Church they will find love and acceptance in Jesus as He waits for them with open arms.

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Culture | Tagged Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Excommunication, John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, LDS Church Policies, Mormon Church, Mormon Purge, September Six | 25 Comments