A doctrine God revealed to Brigham Young

Posted on June 12, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Charles Harrell is an Associate Professor at Brigham Young University. In his 2011 book, This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology, he discusses many issues not normally found in a typical LDS-authored book. One such issue is the “Adam-God Doctrine.” Dr. Harrell explains,

“The Adam-God doctrine, which according to available evidence was introduced in Mormonism by President Brigham Young, is the belief that Adam is literally God the Father—the father of our spirits and of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Despite President Young’s affirmation that this was a doctrine ‘which God revealed to me,’ [Brigham Young, “Discourse,” Deseret News, June 18, 1873, 308] it is no longer countenanced by the Church and, in fact, has been labeled by Bruce R. McConkie as a ‘deadly heresy’ inspired of the devil. [“The Seven Deadly Heresies,” 78]” (“This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (Part 1) (Kindle Locations 3935-3939)

Brigham YoungIn his book, Dr. Harrell notes that Brigham Young first preached the Adam-God doctrine during a sermon in April of 1852. Found in Journal of Discourses volume 1, Brigham Young was recorded saying:

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken–HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later…

“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone…

“Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.” (Journal of Discourses 1:50-51; emphasis in the original)

Dr. Harrell suggests that Brigham Young got the idea for the Adam-God doctrine “from the ever progressive teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith on the Godhead, the plurality of Gods, and origin of Adam and Eve,” but provides evidence that the 1852 sermon was the first public exposure of the teaching. He adds,

“To be sure, many of Young’s associates resisted this doctrine, arguing that it conflicted with earlier revelations. Later LDS commentators would minimize the significance of Brigham Young’s Adam-God teachings, explaining that he was either misunderstood or was merely theorizing. However one chooses to interpret the historical record, President Young discontinued teaching the doctrine publicly after 1861 and, following his death, the doctrine gradually fell into disfavor and is now regarded as heretical.”

Though Dr. Harrell uses the year 1861 as the end of Brigham Young’s public teaching that Adam is God the Father, Deseret News reported on a discourse preached by Brigham Young on June 18th, 1873 in which he said,

Adam-Eve“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth…

“[Father Adam] was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He, with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, ‘I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state, I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh…” (Deseret News, June 18, 1873, 308 [at link see page 4])

Brigham Young’s Adam-God teaching was not insignificant during his lifetime. Just months before Brigham Young’s death on August 29, 1877, L. John Nuttall summarized part of the endowment ceremony’s lecture at the veil, composed by Brigham Young. As recorded in Nuttall’s journal, the lecture included this:

“Father Adam’s oldest son, Jesus the Savior, who is the heir of the family, is Father Adam’s first begotten in the spirit world and the only begotten according to the flesh (as it is written), Adam in his divinity having gone back into the spirit world and come in the spirit to Mary, and she conceived.” (L. John Nuttall Journal, February 7, 1877)

Nor did Brigham Young’s death put an end to the Saints believing his Adam-God doctrine. A dozen years after Brigham Young was gone, Abraham Cannon (then a President of the Seventy) related a conversation he had with his father, LDS Apostle George Q. Cannon (who was then serving in the First Presidency under Wilford Woodruff). George Cannon convinced his son of several “Gospel principles” and, among other tenets of Mormonism, related this doctrine:

“He [George Q. Cannon] believes that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and that Adam is His father and our God…” (Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, June 23, 1889)

George Q. Cannon died in 1901, but Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine lived on. Leaders of the Mormon Church began to make a greater effort to define the LDS doctrine of deity beginning around 1909, yet in 1912 it was reported that “some patriarchs had been teaching the Adam-God doctrine to Church members” (David John Buerger, “The Adam-God Doctrine,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1982, 42). And in 1916 Charles Penrose (then the second counselor in the First Presidency) said in General Conference:

“There still remains, I can tell by the letters I have alluded to, an idea among some of the people that Adam was and is the Almighty and Eternal God…..[T]he notion has taken hold of some of our brethren that Adam is the being that we should worship…..I am sorry that has not been rectified long ago, because plain answers have been given to brethren and sisters who write and desire to know about it, and yet it still lingers, and contentions arise in regard to it, and there should be no contentions among Latter-day Saints.” (as quoted in Buerger, 42)

Still, the Adam God doctrine didn’t die within the first two decades of the 20th century. Indeed, Spencer W. Kimball warned against believing the Adam God doctrine and even denounced it during the October 1976 General Conference. LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie continued that warning and in 1980 told students at BYU,

“There are those who believe, or say they believe, that Adam is our Father and our God, that he is the Father of our spirits and our bodies and that he is the one we worship. The devil keeps this heresy alive…anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve to be saved.” (“Seven Deadly Heresies,” as quoted in Buerger, 45)

Brigham Young believed it; and he made certain it was taught during the temple endowment ceremony.

Red AppleMany early Mormon Church leaders — and members — believed what Brigham Young, the “Lion of the Lord,” declared to his Church as revelation from God. Many people (Mormon Fundamentalists) still believe it.

Jesus said, “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). What does this fruit of Mormonism tell you?

Posted in Brigham Young, Early Mormonism, Fundamentalist Mormonism, God the Father, Mormon History, Mormon Leaders | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 28 Comments

Are Mormons Stressed Out?

Posted on June 9, 2014 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.]

_____________________________

Two recent Gallup polls have disclosed an odd disparity in the State of Utah, home of the Mormon Church. One poll reports that the citizens of the Provo-Orem area (home of the Church’s flagship university, BYU) have the best “well-being” in the Nation, while another reports that Utah is one of the four most stressed states in the Nation.  How can this be?

C1657Well, on closer examination it turns out that in the “well-being” poll, the Provo-Orem area scores high on having a non-smoking populace, certainly a benefit of adherence to the Mormon health laws; however, the area does not score that high in other areas of well-being. And Salt Lake City, the Church’s headquarters, does not score high at all.

However, in the “most-stressed” poll, the results are more consistent. In response to the question, “Did you experience [stress] during a lot of the day yesterday?” a total of 44.6 percent of Utahans answered “yes” to the question, ranking Utah behind only West Virginia (47.1 percent), Rhode Island (46.3 percent), and Kentucky (44.8 percent). (Salt Lake Tribune, Tuesday, May 6, 2014.)

Why so much stress in Utah? One possibility: Nothing breeds stress like internal conflict, and Mormons have plenty of that.

Even the Brethren running the Church’s flagship university, BYU, have tied stress among the Mormons to the Church’s intimidation and denial of its own history. The Spring 2014 issue of BYU Magazine warns:

“Latter-day Saints have experienced crises of faith throughout the history of the Church, but the number of those asking hard questions or finding themselves in faith crisis has increased with the advent of the Internet.” (“Keeping the Faith,” p. 22)

Mormons are faced with two mandates from their leaders that are sure to create inner stress. According to two LDS leaders – Apostles Boyd K. Packer and Dallin Oaks – Mormons are required to conceal “advanced” Church history and doctrines, and accommodate a history of lying by Church leaders about Joseph Smith’s polygamy with teenage girls and the wives of other men, as well as new authorized polygamous marriages after the 1890 Manifesto prohibiting such marriages.

Packer, currently President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and next in line to succeed the current Prophet, has in contemporary times continued the practice of concealing “advanced” Church history and doctrines, cautioning members of the Church:

“That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weakness and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church…places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession [that is, accurately describing Church history], regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for ‘advanced history,’ is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable.” (Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect,” 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271; emphasis mine)

PackerOaks2011

LDS Apostles Boyd Packer and Dallin Oaks, 2011

Concealing LDS history and doctrines evidently comes under the heading of “lying for the Lord,” according to Elder Oaks:

“Some have suggested that it is morally permissible to lie to promote a good cause. For example, some Mormons have taught or implied that lying is okay if you are lying for the Lord. As far as concerns our own church and culture, the most common allegations of lying for the Lord swirl around the initiation, practice, and discontinuance of polygamy…” (Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Gospel Teachings about Lying,” fireside address to faculty, students, and alumni of BYU on September 12, 1993; emphasis mine)

Elder Oaks discreetly neglects to mention that those responsible for the initiation and continuation of the practice were, and are, LDS Church leaders, from the Prophet Joseph Smith and his apostles to current Church prophets and apostles. Oaks went on to admit that the Prophet Joseph secretly practiced polygamy and lied to church members about it:

“It is clear from the record of history that Joseph Smith [secretly] introduced the doctrine and practice of polygamy to a select few in the 1830s and 1840s, but it [the doctrine of polygamy] was not announced publicly by the Church until the revelation was read aloud at a Church conference in Salt Lake City in 1852 [ten years later].”

Although the doctrine of polygamy was publicly introduced to the Church in 1852, Apostle Oaks’ admission that the Prophet Joseph had secretly practiced it in the 1830s stunned Church members in 1993, and even today the Prophet Joseph’s many wives – including 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball and the wives of other men – are considered “advanced history” and are not to be openly discussed by Mormons. Ironically, in spite of the Church’s efforts to intimidate members and suppress the facts, these facts can now be easily researched by Mormons and others on an objective Internet website, Wikipedia (see here and here.)

Elder Oaks further admitted during the fireside that senior Church leaders had continued to secretly authorize polygamous weddings long after the 1890 Official Manifesto that formally outlawed the practice, notwithstanding their public denials at the time.

“It is also clear that polygamy did not end suddenly with the 1890 Manifesto. … The performance of polygamous marriages also continued for a time outside the United States… It appears that polygamous marriages also continued for about a decade in some other areas among leaders and members…” (emphasis mine)

Here, too, the truth is now available on the Internet for all to see, denials from Mormons notwithstanding, and again from an objective source. 
Those post-1890 Manifesto polygamous marriages authorized by the most senior Church apostles are also considered to be “advanced history” and are not to be openly discussed among Mormons. In other words, Mormons are expected to “lie for the Lord” (without calling it that) and deny it ever happened, lest they fall under condemnation by Elder Packer.

Or, as Apostle Russell M. Nelson more politely warned in 1986:

“Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid… Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history… to dig up ‘facts’… should hearken to this warning of scripture.” (Russell M. Nelson, “Truth–and More,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, p. 69)

He then quoted Romans 1:17-18 — a threat to the ungodly to beware the wrath of God.

Is it any wonder Mormons are stressed out?

Posted in Mormon Culture, Mormon History | Tagged , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Litigation and the Mormon Church

Posted on June 5, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

A couple of months back grindael mentioned a trademark lawsuit that was brewing between the Mormon Church and a dating service called Mormon Match. The Church is claiming trademark infringement in Mormon Match’s use of the word “Mormon” and is seeking to force the dating service to change its name. Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (the holding corporation for the Church’s trademarks and copyrights, wholly owned and operated by the Mormon Church) has brought numerous claims against Jonathan Eller, the Mormon entrepreneur behind Mormon Match.

civil-litigationOn May 30, 2014 the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of Jonathan Eller. EFF describes itself as “a nonprofit civil liberties organization that has worked for more than 20 years to protect consumer interests, innovation, and free expression in the digital world.” EFF has interest in this case, arguing that the cost of defending this and similar frivolous lawsuits overpowers and stifles small businesses as well as “authors, filmmakers, cartoonists, songwriters, and other creators” who “feel pressured or succumb to meritless infringement claims.”

The amicus brief notes:

“Cases such as this one, where the affirmative defense of fair use is so clear from the outset, can and should be dismissed at the earliest possible stage of litigation. As this Court is aware, discovery can be expensive and time-consuming in trademark cases. In addition to the usual attorneys fees and costs, litigants must often hire experts to conduct and/or debunk large surveys identifying consumer confusion. These expenses quickly add up to eye-popping amounts. See, e.g., Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., …(awarding defendant $1,584,089 in legal fees and $241,797 in costs). Such expenses can be enough to stifle a business in its infancy, no matter how meritorious the company’s legal position. Some start-up entrepreneurs will choose to play it safe by changing the content of their services, or not creating certain services at all, because they cannot afford to litigate their rights.”

Millions of dollars. When I learned how expensive this sort of litigation is, I wondered how Mormons feel about their church spending so much on something that seems like an eternally insignificant thing; perhaps members’ tithing money is being used to “stifle” and “pressure” a fellow Latter-day Saint who is just trying to provide a welcome service to his brothers and sisters in his faith. Is this the best way to use the Church’s funds, I wondered?

But while I was thinking about this, I came across a post on the Exploring Mormonism blog site titled, “Structure of the Corporation of The President / Bishopric (Actual LDS “Church”)” posted on 2 June. Looking at all the financial holdings of the Mormon Church made me realize that, though a million dollars would be impossible for my church (and many others) to spend on a frivolous lawsuit (indeed, such an expense would never even be considered), it is less than a drop in the bucket for the Mormon Church. Between the Church’s ownership of insurance companies, communications, utilities, investment companies, apartment buildings, ranches, farms, office complexes, tourist attractions, schools, and shopping malls, a million dollars (plus) for trademark litigation doesn’t seem like a big deal.

STanner2014But it is a big deal for Jonathan Eller, just like it was a big deal in 1999 when Intellectual Reserve, Inc. sued Utah Lighthouse Ministry and Jerald and Sandra Tanner for alleged copyright infringement. In the Tanner’s case, their Motion to Dismiss was refused by the court. Because of their limited resources they chose to settle out of court, disappointing many who believed a ruling on this “David and Goliath” case would set important precedent for the future of the internet.

Regarding the decision to settle, Sandra Tanner explained,

“This settlement by Utah Lighthouse Ministry is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability. This settlement is the means by which we can end this costly litigation and continue with our original goal and purpose: to provide critical research and information to the public on the LDS Church through our books, newsletters, and on our web site www.utlm.org.”

EFF also weighed in on the UTLM suit, stating,

“I’m sorry to hear that they settled, but I’m not surprised. In this case, I believe the Tanners were completely in the right. A link [the subject of the lawsuit] is simply a reference that points someone in the direction of where they can find information. But the trend we’re seeing now is that large corporations, like the LDS church, are using the club of litigation as a way of controlling speech. Copyright litigation is becoming one of the most effective ways of silencing critics.”

Rather than defending themselves against the Mormon “club of litigation,” the Tanners chose to use their resources to pursue their original goal and purpose; namely, the ministry to which they had been called.

Perhaps the Mormon Church, too, is using its resources to pursue its original purpose. But in that case the question must be asked: If spending millions of dollars wielding a “club of litigation” against friend and foe alike accomplishes that goal, what exactly is the Mormon Church’s purpose?

Posted in Civil Liberties, LDS Church | Tagged , , , , , | 12 Comments

How Good is Good Enough?

Posted on June 2, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

About a week after the April 2014 General Conference of the Mormon Church the (Provo, Utah) Daily Herald published an article by correspondent Steve Densley titled, “How Good is Good Enough?” Mr. Densley began,

“The semiannual conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to a close last week. I watched intently for 10 hours of great counsel and then went to work trying to figure out just how I apply these teachings in making life better for my family, others and me…”

Thinking about applying the latest conference teachings reminded Mr. Densley of an apostle who once suggested that Mormons should be happy that prophets and apostles don’t teach new commandments at every General Conference because church members have enough trouble trying (and failing) to live the commandments they have already been given. This memory led Mr. Densley to remember yet another time when keeping the commandments was at the forefront of a different discussion. This time Mr. Densley was serving as a branch President at the Missionary Training Center when a young missionary sought his counsel:

Scales of Justice“The young man was deeply concerned about reaching heaven and asked if he had done all that he could and should have done….

“The young man asked me the question, ‘How good is good enough?’ How often should we pray each day? How many times should we attend the temple each month? What does it mean if we fail to pay a full tithe or the right amount of fast offerings? What if we missed fasting on occasion or if we took the Lord’s name in vain at a heated ward basketball game, which apparently he had done on more than one occasion. What about the reading of the scriptures daily? How would the breaking of the Word of Wisdom impact his future estate in heaven even if it had only been rarely? How would his life be impacted because of turning down an assignment to home teach that his Bishop had given him? He had never gotten his Duty to God Award nor had he become an Eagle Scout and he was concerned about not having attended his Seminary classes faithfully. He wanted to but had not yet received his Patriarchal Blessing for personal guidance. What if he did not attend all of his priesthood and sacrament meetings? He had avoided any chastity issues and had done everything that he could to raise the bar in his own life and repent of deeds that would have hindered his chance to serve a mission, but he was still troubled.”

This young man, “deeply concerned about reaching heaven,” apparently didn’t get the message that seems so popular among Mormons today (though it is absent from the formal covenants Mormon make): That trying to be good is good enough for Heavenly Father.

Neither did he get the biblical message that though absolute perfection is required, those who trust in Christ alone will enter heaven on the merits of Christ’s perfection alone, not at all on the basis of our own flawed attempts at righteousness.

Neither did the young man get the encouraging words of Jesus who said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6) and “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you…and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).

No, the young man whose concerns (as presented by Mr. Densley above) included no fewer than 15 specific ways in which he was burdened with a fear that he was falling short of being deemed “good enough” for heaven, was counseled thus:

“My answer was that each person through personal revelation should seek out the answers to those questions as needed. Free agency comes into play as does common sense and balance in life. Every person needs to ask himself or herself the question of, ‘How good is good enough?’”

But consider this. The young Mormon missionary-in-training was “deeply concerned” about his behavior. Even after doing “everything that he could to raise the bar in his own life and repent,” he was “still troubled.” From a Mormon perspective, wouldn’t this indicate that the young man’s “personal revelation” told him that he was not good enough? Of course he asked himself the question before seeking his branch president’s counsel. It was asking himself the question that caused him to be “deeply concerned” and “troubled” in the first place.

Biblically speaking, this conviction of sin is a central purpose of the law – “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Galatians 3:24 KJV)

As Matthew Henry explained in his commentary of Galatians:

“But the awakened sinner discovers his dreadful condition. Then he feels that the mercy and grace of God form his only hope. And the terrors of the law are often used by the convincing Spirit, to show the sinner his need of Christ.”

The young Mormon missionary was awakened to his dreadful condition; he knew he was not good enough for heaven. Sadly, his ecclesiastical leader turned him toward self when the Word of God would have turned him toward Christ.

StanleyGoodEnoughChristian author Andy Stanley argues in his book How Good is Good Enough? that the nearly universal good-people-go-to-heaven view is untenable. At the end of Part 1 of the book he offers a summary of six reasons why:

  1. We don’t know exactly what good is. Even our religious leaders can’t agree on the subject.
  2. Our internal moral gauges aren’t much help. They don’t line up cross-culturally… And as time passes, our definitions of right and wrong tend to change.
  3. We have no clear indication from God how the scoring system for good deeds works.
  4. It is difficult to reconcile the notion of a good God with a system that is so unclear and seemingly unfair.
  5. …The Bible doesn’t claim to offer a way to heaven through good deeds…
  6. Jesus assured the most religious people of his day that they weren’t good enough to enter God’s kingdom, while promising criminals and prostitutes that God would gladly welcome them. (p. 61)

Mormons are told by their spiritual leaders:

“Trying is not sufficient” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, 164)

“This progress toward eternal life is a matter of achieving perfection. Living all the commandments guarantees total forgiveness of sins and assures one of exaltation through that perfection” (ibid., 208)

“…Perfection therefore is an achievable goal.” (ibid., 209)

Because in Mormonism, as in popular thought across the globe, good people go to heaven.

But that is not the message of the Bible. The Bible says there are no good people (Romans 3:9-18). Only God is good (Luke 18:19).

And though millions of people come face-to-face with John 3:16 every day, sadly many miss the message of it:

“That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:15-16 KJV)

The Bible says,

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24 KJV)

The Bible says,

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1 KJV)

The Bible says,

“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)

How good is good enough? Friends, we will never be good enough this side of heaven. But we have no reason to despair for the Bible tells us a profound truth expressed simply by Andy Stanley:

“The good news is that good people don’t go to heaven – forgiven people do.”

Posted in Afterlife, Forgiveness, Salvation, Worthiness | Tagged , , , , , , | 23 Comments

Liberty University and the Glenn Beck saga (Part 2)

Posted on May 29, 2014 by Eric Johnson

As noted in Part 1 of this article (posted earlier this week), on April 25, 2014 Liberty University held a convocation that featured Mormon celebrity Glenn Beck as speaker. Beck told the student body (among other things),

“I share your faith. I am from a different denomination, and a denomination quite honestly that I’m sure can make many people at Liberty feel uncomfortable. I am a Mormon, but I share your faith in the atonement of the Savior Jesus Christ.”

LibertyUConvocationA few hours after Beck spoke, my review of his talk was posted on MRM’s website. When I visited LU a couple of weeks later to attend my daughter’s graduation, I was able to speak with Johnnie Moore, the senior vice-president for communications and the assistant to the president at LU, about my concerns regarding LU placing Glenn Beck in its “pulpit,” as well as Moore’s concerns stemming from my critique. Here I continue what I began in Part 1 of this article: A discussion of Moore’s main objections concerning my critique, followed by my responses.

LU’s reputation should be enough to show that their motives are good. Reputation can only go so far. For those over 40, remember New Coke? It replaced the regular Coke recipe back in the 1980s. This was a marketing nightmare, and within a year “Classic Coke” (containing the old formula) started to hit the shelves. Before long, “New” Coke was history. I worked in a grocery store at that time, and I remember the ridicule Coke received for this bad judgment. Pepsi used its “Pepsi Challenge” to practically double its sales at our store that next year. Yes, public perception is important. On the day before I met with Moore, I spoke to more than a hundred people at a local evangelical Christian church on the topic of Mormonism. Before the service, a man about my age came up to me and, without me bringing up the topic, asked, “Should I send my 16-year-old daughter to Liberty?” Like me, he was bothered about Beck’s on-stage appearance at Liberty University.

At the end of my talk, I took questions from the audience. Guess what the first question was about? Obviously, it was Glenn Beck’s talk at LU. Nobody was prompted. I must add that, while LU did receive a $50,000 gift from Beck’s nonprofit organization, it should be pointed out that this amount doesn’t even pay half the tuition for one student who would attend Liberty for four years. Allowing LU’s reputation to be sullied, possibly causing the school to lose potential students, is a bad move for a university that is very active in recruitment. Even losing 5 or 10 students is a shame and unnecessary! And while Beck’s appearance could keep some from sending their children to Liberty, how many potential students will enroll at LU merely because Beck spoke there? How about none? Liberty officials need to understand that many who belong to their school’s target audience don’t think this is a peripheral or unimportant issue.

LU administrators were surprised that Beck talked about Mormonism. Shouldn’t this alone be enough to tell the school’s leaders that they should avoid inviting someone from another religion to address the student body?  The school doesn’t require its speakers to give details about their content beforehand. Should it be a surprise when a Mormon is allowed to take the stage and then makes it appear that Mormonism is just another “denomination” of Christianity? When I asked if Beck would ever be a speaker at Liberty again, Moore was noncommittal. Has no lesson been learned?

Glenn Beck may be a (closet) Christian.  According to Moore’s email, “many conservative evangelical leaders who are closer to Beck than me have told me that they believe Beck has had a born again experience recently. I do not know his heart but our audience knows that he was speaking only for himself and expressing his personal opinions and beliefs, not those of Liberty University or even of Mormonism generally.”

Moore told us that he has met with Beck behind closed doors and is impressed how (and I quote) “he talks like a Christian.” Should this be a surprise? Of course, Mormons use the same language as Christians. This is the problem in allowing Beck to address the students in the first place! Remember, he is the one in his talk who very clearly stated that he was a Mormon and admitted that his differences would probably go against what most officials at Liberty thought. He is the one who called Joseph Smith a martyr and referenced preexistence. While I certainly hope and pray that Beck eventually becomes a believer in the Christ of the Bible, LU should not have let its guard down by allowing potential confusion to reign in the hearers of his message.

The students at LU are inoculated from Mormonism because they are required to take four religion classes. In the email Moore wrote, “College is about learning.  How can you defend what you believe if you don’t understand what others believe?  I believe our students are stronger in their faith because of our convocation speaker series and the wide diversity of views that they have been privileged to hear in person over the last few decades.”

He also wrote, “Our students are all required to take many credit hours of theology and Bible courses, regardless of their major.  Our students have no question about what Liberty’s doctrinal statement is.  It is posted publicly for all to see. Our doctrinal statement is our public statement on Mormonism.  It is the same statement that Liberty was founded upon and it will never change.”  He added, “As Jerry Falwell, Sr., our founder, often used to say about speakers at Liberty who had different views than him, Liberty students are smart enough to eat the fish and spit out the bones! I believe that’s as true today as it was in his day.”

In other words, because the student body—remember, some are as young as 17—has taken two Bible classes and two theology classes (would you consider four classes “many”?), there is apparently no need to worry about possible cases of students jumping ships. It should be pointed out, though, that the topic of Mormonism is not brought up once in any of those classes. This information comes not only from my daughter but a senior member of the LU Bible department. Bible majors are able to take a class in the cults, but few outside the Bible department ever take the class. Having taught Bible classes at both the high school and college level, I can attest that a total of four classes (with no specific training on LDS doctrine) is inadequate to prevent someone from joining the LDS Church sometime in the future. Besides, I have known folks with  Ph.D.’s who were left confused by the similar-sounding teachings of Mormonism. LU’s thinking on this is, at best, naïve, and at worst, reckless.

Conclusion

There is more that could be said. While this blog will not reach the audience of my original article, I want to reiterate that LU made a terrible mistake by allowing Glenn Beck to speak at convocation, regardless of the school’s defense of this decision. If the school wants to continue allowing nonbelievers to man the stage at convocation, then I recommend that no worship music or prayers are included in these particular services. Why confuse the issue if the intention is for LU students to hear different perspectives? (This is not a bad policy, as long as it’s clear what the purpose of the convocation is.) In addition, I suggest that LU should not require students to attend these particular convocations and thereby not enforce the $10 fine currently assessed  to those who miss.

It’s a shame that there is such controversy at what is, I believe, a fine school that really does have top-notch programs. For the sake of training champions for Christ, please, Liberty officials, consider a change in philosophy.

Posted in Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry | Tagged , , , , | 23 Comments

Liberty University and the Glenn Beck saga (Part 1)

Posted on May 26, 2014 by Eric Johnson

Let me state upfront that, besides wearing my apologetic hat, I am a parent of a Liberty University (LU) graduate. My oldest daughter graduated on May 10, 2014, and we’re very proud of her accomplishment.

Beck LUI’m sure you don’t want to hear about my child, so let me explain the real purpose of this piece. On April 25, 2014, LU held its last convocation of the school year. Convocation is a three-times-a-week gathering of the student body. Among other things, musical worship, school announcements, and prayer are featured as well as an address from a special guest speaker. Convocation is not the same as a “chapel,” as Johnnie Moore, the senior vice-president for communications and the assistant to the president at LU, explained in an email sent to those who had complained about Beck’s appearance–an email that Religion News Service said was filled with “boilerplate verbiage that sounds like a sales pitch for potential students.” (See “Liberty University responds to complaints about Glenn Beck sermon” by Jonathan Merritt, posted 5/19/14.)

Moore wrote:

“You should remember that Liberty University’s Convocation is not a church service. We have explained over the decades repeatedly that convocation is an opportunity for students to hear from people of all faiths and from all walks of life.  Liberty has also made it clear repeatedly that it does not endorse any statements made by any convocation speaker.”

Thus, while many speakers are pastors and theologians, big-name politicians and businessmen (among others) are invited to impart their wisdom to the student body. Thinking about running for president some day? This is a good place to court the conservative votes. Being an evangelical Christian is not a requirement.

Featured at the April 25th convocation—the last one for the 2013/14 school year—was Glenn Beck, the TV/radio political commentator who happens to be a member of the LDS Church. Besides referring to Joseph Smith as a martyr and referencing the LDS doctrine of preexistence, Beck said,

“I share your faith. I am from a different denomination, and a denomination quite honestly that I’m sure can make many people at Liberty feel uncomfortable. I am a Mormon, but I share your faith in the atonement of the Savior Jesus Christ.”

A few hours after Beck spoke, my review of his talk was posted on MRM’s website: “What Glenn Beck didn’t explain at last month’s convocation talk at Liberty University.”

It just so happened that my wife and I had already scheduled a visit to LU’s campus from May 8-10 so we could participate in the school’s graduation activities. I wrote Moore, who graciously agreed to meet with us during our time in Lynchburg.  I knew it was a very busy time for the top brass, so I didn’t expect a long session with this LU mover and shaker who has daily contact with school president Jerry Falwell, Jr. At our appointed time, my wife and I were escorted into Moore’s office for the private conference.

After a few minutes of chitchat, I reiterated why I had come.  My bone of contention is that the welcoming of Glenn Beck at the final convocation could be confusing to both students and outside observers. The school is very proud about being a “university” and stresses its open-mindedness. Generally, I don’t have a problem with this approach, if it’s done in the right setting. Having worship music and prayers along with a full-fledged introductory endorsement by the president of the school for a Mormon speaker is just not wise.

In our half-hour conversation, I explained how I was defending LU against unfair criticism. For example, the main focus of one blog I read complained about how students were fined $10 for not attending Beck’s talk. This isn’t a fair criticism because students are fined $10 for missing any convocation, not just this one. It’s a school policy that remained consistent throughout the year.  However, I had heard a rumor that there were several students who were fined because they were offended and walked out in the middle of Beck’s  convocation; I have not been able to get this information confirmed, and the administrator doubted it happened. (Even if this did take place, a generous businessman who sat on the platform that day handed out $20 bills to each of the 10,000 students, so there still would have been half leftover after the fine was paid!)

For Mormon Coffee readers, let me share some of the main objections given by Johnnie Moore concerning my critique. My response to each point follows:

Why didn’t I come to the school first before publishing the review article at mrm.org? This is not a Matthew 18 situation. The critique is not specifically aimed against an individual.  Instead, it originated when a Mormon used LU’s pulpit (the administrator disagreed that the convocation platform is a “pulpit” but I’ll continue to use it, nonetheless) to present Mormonism as a Christian denomination. Moore said he received approximately 20 emails, all but one apparently opposing Beck’s appearance. (The one positive comment, he said, came from a Mormon student enrolled at LU.) He justified this overwhelming margin by claiming that only those who “complain” are the ones who send in their complaints. While that’s generally true, I mentioned how MRM received five emails from four LU students and one professor within 24 hours after my article hit the LU social media sites. Each writer was in complete agreement with my perspective and wrote to tell me so. No one wrote to disagree with my viewpoint. Isn’t that interesting?

Because I’m part of LU’s family (as a parent of an LU student), I shouldn’t have written a public article criticizing the school. Glenn Beck’s talk was a public event, aired on live Internet stream through both Beck’s media company and LU.  Instead of complaining about the messenger, the school ought to deal with the message many concerned people such as myself are sending. That message is that nobody from another religion should be allowed to speak on spiritual topics from LU’s  platform, especially when the backdrop reads “Training Champions for Christ since 1971.” Peter was criticized by Paul—an event even reported in the Bible (see Gal. 2)—and it was a positive event as Peter recognized his error and the two did reconcile. Families that “pretend” everything is fine do no favors and ought to be considered dysfunctional. Shouldn’t we as Christians believe that honesty is the healthy policy? To suggest that my public criticism of Beck’s invitation is an attack on LU misses the mark.

Bloggers don’t represent an accurate assessment.  I disagree. Generally, the variety of bloggers out there seem to represent the spectrum of views. While Moore had read my blog, he said he refused to look at the others concerning Beck’s visit to LU. Doing so, he said, was a waste of time. Pretending that what people are saying in the public forums is not important seems to be a naïve way of addressing a very delicate situation. Understanding the perspective of these folks should be important, one would think, so that any misconceptions could be addressed. It’s a missed opportunity to understand just what people are thinking.

The perception the critics (of Beck’s appearance) have is wrong. While Moore is certainly more educated than I am in the field of public relations—he said he received an award last year for his PR expertise—I did take PR classes in college and even minored in marketing to go with my major in advertising. Back in the early 1980s (I’m dating myself), I was taught that the general public perception is true, whether or not it is accurate. The way to tackle an improper perception is to provide further explanation. Through clarification, it is possible to change outsiders’ impressions to be more in line with reality. Unfortunately, the school is hoping that sitting on their proverbial hands will make the negativity go away, which is the same approach the school used in the spring of 2010 when people complained about Beck being selected as a keynote speaker to address the LU graduation audience. Time tends to provide a reason for people to give up, but they don’t all forget.

On Thursday this article will conclude with a discussion of my responses to four more objections raised by LU’s Johnnie Moore.

Posted in Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

“What Many People Called Sin Is Not Sin” Part II

Posted on May 22, 2014 by grindael

Joseph Smith, Kirtland Ohio. 1836 by grindael

During a Church Court in 1850, Joseph E. Johnson claimed that he was aware of what he called “the first frigging” of Joseph Smith and Johnson’s mother-in-law, Mary Heron Snider. For details about this incident, see Part I.

The reason that the Church Hierarchy in 1850 may not have been overly surprised by this account by Joseph Johnson, is that Joseph Smith could (while he was alive) simply claim that a certain woman was his spiritual wife; and this would be accepted by them [his inner circle] because they had no real way of knowing who Joseph claimed as his “wives” since he did everything in virtual secrecy.

This is one reason why there is so much confusion today about Smith’s relationship with those who are labeled as his plural wives. As Todd Compton wrote:

“Joseph often framed his marriage proposals in terms of a divine fait accompli–the Lord has already ‘given’ the woman to the prophet. God was the ratifying agent, and it was sacrilegious to doubt. It was the woman’s duty to comply with the fact that she was already Joseph’s possession.” (Source: In Sacred Loneliness, pg. 407)

Like with so many others, what Joseph did with Mary Snider was done in secret, with only a few people (not necessarily those in the Church Hierarchy) privy to what he did. Was this really a marriage, as some claim, or was it something else?

This statement by Joseph Smith as recorded by Wilford Woodruff may help clarify why some were convinced that Joseph could not sin when it came to his relations with women:

“…if we did not accuse one another God would not accuse us & if we had no accuser we should enter heaven. He [Joseph] would take us there as his backload. If we would not accuse him [Joseph] he would not accuse us & if we would throw a cloak of charity over his sins he would over ours. For charity coverd a multitude of Sins & what many people called sin was not sin & he did many things to break down superstition & he would break it down. He spoke of the curse of Ham for laughing at Noah while in his wine but doing no harm.” (Source: Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 2, 1841–1845, p.137, November 7, 1841, emphasis mine.)

The timing of this statement by Joseph Smith is significant, because D. Michael Quinn claims that Joseph Smith “very likely married Mary Heron Snyder (Snider) in the spring/summer of 1841” (Quinn, pg. 25). Quinn believes that this was some kind of marriage, but their is no evidence to bear this out.

Joseph’s teaching that “some sin is not sin” coupled with a justification to keep such things silent contradicts what the Bible says about sin:

“As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.” (1 Timothy 5:20)

Peter does say that “charity covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8), but that is not an excuse to sin, (or for that matter, excuse sin) as Paul teaches:

“Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” (Galatians 5:13)

To complicate matters for those who believe that Smith somehow was married to Mary Snider, there is no evidence that he married her, or that she was sealed to him during his lifetime or after his death.

Also, as explained by Brigham Young and recorded by Wilford Woodruff, if a woman was estranged from her husband and did not provide him with any affection, it was a type of adultery,

“The subject of Adultery again Came up. Joseph [Young] said a man Cannot Commit Adultery with his wife. So says the revelation on the Patriar[chal] Marriage. Yet a man Can do [w]rong in having Connexion with his wife at times. Joseph Young said the Ancient Apostle said this. A man should not put away his wife save for the Cause of fornication. If He did they would both Commit Adultery.

“Brigham Young Said Joseph [Smith] taught that when a woman[‘]s affections was entirly weaned from her husband that was Adultery in spirit. Her Affections were Adulterated from his.

“He also said that there was No law in Heaven or on Earth that would Compel a woman to stay with a man either in time or Eternity.

“This I think is true (but I do not know) that if a man that is a High priest takes a woman & she leaves him & goes to one of a lesser office say the Lesser priesthood or member I think in the resurrection that that High Priest Can Claim her.”

“Joseph [Young]. What if she should not want to go with him? I should not want a woman under those Circumstances.

“Brigham [Young]. I will tell you what you will find. That all those evil traditions & affections or passions that Haunt the mind in this life will all be done away in the resurrection. You will find then that any man who gets a glory & exaltation will be so beautiful that any woman will be willing to have him if it was right & wharever it is right for the woman to go there she will be willing to go for all those evils will vanish to which we are subject in this life.

“I have told the people the truth Just as it is but others will at times get up & tell the people that they will get no heaven ownly what they make in this life and that it will be in the next world as it is in this. Now they do not mean what they say. They do not explain themselves. Hence the people will not understand what is said to them.” (Source: Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 56, May 2, 1857).

The idea of being able to justify sin was nothing new to Joseph Smith, as we see from the November 1841 quote recorded by Wilford Woodruff above.  In this case it would be justifying the sin of adultery. This was a bone of contention with Ezra Booth, who wrote to Edward Partridge in 1831:

“Now, permit me to inquire, have you not frequently observed in Joseph, a want of that sobriety, prudence and stability, which are some of the most prominent traits in the Christian character? Have you not often discovered in him, a spirit of lightness and levity, a temper easily irritated, and an habitual proneness to jesting and joking?

“Have you not often proven to your satisfaction that he says he knows things to be so by the spirit, when they are not so? You most certainly have. Have you not reason to believe, or at least to suspect, that the revelations which come from him, are something short of infallible, and instead of being the production of divine wisdom, emanate from his own weak mind? Some suppose his weakness, nay, his wickedness, can form no reasonable objection to his revelations; and ‘were he to get another man’s wife, and seek to kill her husband, it could be no reason why we should not believe revelations through him, for David did the same.’ So Sidney asserted, and many others concurred with him in sentiment.” (Source: Letter of Ezra Booth to Edward Partridge, September 20, 1831, emphasis mine.)

Booth also wrote:

“In this office [as prophet] he is to stand, until another is appointed in his place, and no other person can be appointed in his stead, unless he falls through transgression; and in such a case, he himself is authorized to appoint his successor. But how is he to be detected, should he become guilty of transgression. The commandment makes provision for this. His guilt will become manifest by his inability to utter any more revelations, and should he presume ‘to get another man’s wife,’ and commit adultery; and ‘by the shedding of blood, seek to kill her husband,’ if he retains the use of his tongue, so as to be able to utter his jargon, he can continue as long as he pleases in the bed of adultery, and wrap himself with garments stained with blood, shed by his own hands, and still retain the spotless innocence of the holiest among mortals; and must be continued in the office of revelator, and head of the Church.” (ibid, emphasis mine.)

Levi Lewis, a cousin of Emma Smith, related in 1834 that both Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon claimed that “adultery was no crime” (Source: Affidavit of Levi Lewis, 20 March 1834, Susquehanna Register and Northern Pennsylvanian, 1 May 1834).

According to Joseph Smith, just like Noah got drunk and it “did no harm,” some committing adultery could be excused because “David did the same.”

Is this really “breaking down superstition” or is it simply an excuse to justify what is clearly sin, according to Joseph Smith’s own “revelations”? (See D&C 132:42) It is of interest to note that the word justify or justified occurs five times in this revelation.

With rumors swirling around him about “spiritual wives,” Joseph Smith told the Relief Society in April of 1842:

“The devil has great power to deceive; he will so transform things as to make one gape at those who are doing the will of God.” (Source: Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith and annotated by Richard C. Galbraith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1993, p. 256)

Was it really the devil, or just Joseph Smith trying to justify sinful behavior? Why then, if it was not sin, did Joseph practice what he called “plural marriage” in secret, and not go through the proper channels supposedly set up by God for the Church:

“For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.” (D&C 26:2, emphasis mine)

Why then, did Joseph Smith feel the need to lie about practicing polygamy when asked directly about it? Why did he not reveal this doctrine to the church before he began to practice it in secret? And why, before it was revealed by the Church that they did indeed practice polygamy, did they issue this denial in the Millennial Star, and use the binding scripture of the Doctrine and Covenants to back up the denial:

“12th Lie—Joseph Smith taught a system of polygamy.
“12th Refutation.—The Revelations given through Joseph Smith, state the following:— ‘If any commit adultery, they shall be dealt with according to the law of God.’ [Doctrine & Covenants] Page 127.— ‘He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her; or, if any commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit.’ Page 150.— ‘Thou shalt love thy wife, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.’ Page 124.— ‘We believe that one man should have one wife.’ page 331.” (Source, “Who is the Liar?”, The Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, Vol. 12, No. 2, January 15, 1850, pp. 29-30.)

Notice that polygamy, here, is associated with adultery. As the Apostle Paul wrote:

“But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light.” (Ephesians 5:3-14, emphasis mine.)

Paul then adds:

“And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.” (ibid., verse 18)

We now live under a New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6). Believing that some sin is not sin can be dangerous. The Apostle Peter spoke of false prophets and teachers who would try and do so in the last days:

“They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray.” (2 Peter 2: 13-15)

Shall we place our faith in hypocritical men who “lie for the Lord,” claim that “some sin is not sin,” and justify what Jesus and His Apostles call sin by claiming that “others did it, so I can too”? If you do, it may be well to remember what Paul wrote:

“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.” (Romans 2:6-8)

Posted in D&C and Pearl of Great Price, Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Mormon History, Polygamy | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

“What Many People Called Sin Was Not Sin” Part I

Posted on May 19, 2014 by grindael

Joseph Smith & Plural Wife

A Church Court is convened. A man is accused of committing adultery and fathering a child with another man’s wife.  One of the presiding elders speaks to those assembled about the offender and says that,

“This matter was bro[ugh]t before Council … [and] his Priesthood was required to be laid down until he came here—… she was living in his house –we deemed it improper for her to be there [and] he sent her away to a retired place—she was delivered of a child—she is again living in his house … he wishes to retain his fellowship in the Church. He says he has [spoken to her husband] & he is satisfied.”

The accused adulterer apologizes to those who are presiding over the Disciplinary Court and says,

“I am come purposefully if possible to get the matter settled & atone for the wrong I [ha]ve done. I [ha]ve neglected to lay it before you before this… all I can do is beg for mercy—I became acquainted with the girl, & the consequences [a]r[e] as they [a]r[e]— …I am come here to atone for the wrong I [h]av[e] done.”

The accused then states,

“I never heard any conversation to say it was right to go to bed to a woman if not found out—I was aware the thing was wrong.”

The accused then adds that he,

“was familiar with the first frigging—that was done in his [the accused adulterer’s] house with his mother in law—by [the leader of the church].”

Even with this apparent example by the leader of the church, the accused concludes,

“I knew at the time I was doing wrong [by committing adultery with another man’s wife]. I never [h]av[e] taken anybody [else’s actions] as a[n] excuse[—] I never plighted my faith on [that leader of the church’s] transactions.” (Source: 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.)

“Frigging” is 19th century slang for having sexual relations. In other words, the accused adulterer here, claimed that what he did with another man’s wife (commit adultery) was wrong, and that he never based his faith on what he saw the leader of the Church doing (even if it was the same thing).

Is this account troubling? It should be, because the leader of the church referred to in the account is Joseph Smith.  The woman mentioned by the accused (Joseph E. Johnson) was his mother-in-law, Mary Heron Snider.  Mary at the time was married to another man, John Snider. According to Brian Hales:

John Snider

John Snider

“John Snider, died in Salt Lake City in 1875, having served valiantly in the Church.  The notice of his death read:  ‘Deceased was a veteran in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, having been connected with it in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith and ever since.  He was a man much respected, being true to his convictions of right.’  Two weeks later, Apostle John Taylor penned a second obituary, which stated:  ‘He [John Snider] gathered to Utah in 1851, where he has since continued a steadfast, faithful and honorable member in the Church… Having been well acquainted with him for upwards of forty years, I thought it proper to give the above short statement.’”

In response to a presentation on Polygamy given by Brian Hales at a F.A.I.R. Conference in 2012, D. Michael Quinn wrote:

Joseph E. Johnson

Joseph E. Johnson

“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).” (Source: The Sexual Side of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy,  D. Michael Quinn,  2013, pp. 21-22 expanded/finialized version)

Even Brian Hales admits that he believes the Joseph E. 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.” (Source: Joseph Smith’s Sexual Polyandry and the Emperor’s New Clothes: On Closer Inspection, What Do We Find?, F.A.I.R. Conference, 2012, emphasis mine. )

According to Quinn, Joseph Johnson was not an uninformed novice about Smith’s polygamy. He was aware that two of his sisters (Delcena in 1842, then Almera in 1843) were his polygamous wives, and that Joseph Smith unsuccessfully asked the Johnson’s 16-year-old daughter Esther to become his wife in the spring of 1843 (Quinn, pg. 22).

Though some were surprised by Johnson’s account of what Joseph had done with Mary Snider, it did not seem to phase Brigham Young and other leaders at all. According to Quinn:

“…this pioneer-defender of Joseph Smith expressed no criticism for what Joseph E. Johnson had said about the Prophet’s ‘frigging.’ Instead, Brigham merely chastised Johnson for his adulterous conduct, and instructed the Church court to rebaptize him. Aside from being temporarily disfellowshipped in Iowa, he received no punishment from the Church court over which Brigham presided in Utah.“ (ibid, pg. 23, emphasis mine.)

Why would Joseph Smith be having sex with the wife of another, faithful Mormon? And why would Joseph E. Johnson bring this fact up in a church court where he claims that he knows adultery is wrong, and that he would never “plight his faith” on “Joseph [Smith’s] transactions”? This indicates that Johnson knew that Joseph was having sex with Johnson’s mother-in-law in a way that Johnson linked with his own adultery.  As Brian Hales wrote:

[An interpretation of the evidence] “…also acknowledges the existence of sexual relations between Joseph and Mary and assumes the two were sealed in a plural marriage making Mary Heron Joseph Smith’s thirty-fifth plural spouse.  It also assumes that at that time, Mary was also experiencing conjugal relations with her legal husband, John Snider, thus creating a sexual polyandry situation. This version also describes the Prophet as an adulterer and a hypocrite because he taught that sexual polyandry was adultery (D&C 132:63).  D. Michael Quinn apparently concurred, writing in his notes (now housed at Yale University): ‘If the statements about Joseph Smith in this trial are accurate, and they do not seem to be disputed with respect to the impropriety of circulating them, then JOSEPH SMITH HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE (AND PRESUMABLY PLURAL MARRIAGE) WITH MARY HERON SNIDER.’” (emphasis in original)

Hales attempts to downplay this as adultery by trying to claim that since Mary and John Snider did not have any children after 1828 (when their son John was born), their marriage was therefore sexless, and this scenario somehow gave Joseph Smith the right to claim her as a wife and have sex with her; and that she only stayed married to John Snider to create what Hales calls a “front husband.”

Yet, Mary traveled to Salt Lake City with John Snider in 1847, where she died in 1852 (still his wife). Also, John and Mary had a daughter Julia who was born in 1833. Still, because there were no other children after 1833, is that reason enough to make the assumption that the marriage was sexless and therefore Joseph was justified in having sex with another man’s wife?

Or that the rightful husband was not having sex with her, and was only a “front” or prop husband? She simply could have had health issues, or complications from her last pregnancy that made it difficult for her to conceive, or any number of other reasons. What legitimate reason could there ever be for a “front husband”?

Why would these “front husbands” agree to such a thing? One argument that is often used by those who claim that these are legitimate marriages is that there is no record of them having “complained” about it; and that the husbands simply stopped having relations with their wives to allow Joseph to do so, therefore, what Joseph did was not adultery or polyandry, but a legitimate marriage approved by God, who approved of this deception by everyone involved.

Would you consider what Joseph Smith did with Mary Snider adultery or a legitimate marriage? We will further discuss this issue in Part II.

Posted in Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Mormon History, Polygamy | Tagged , , , , , , , | 22 Comments

Only Jesus did his best

Posted on May 15, 2014 by Aaron Shafovaloff

What do people mean when they say, “their best”?

“I did my best to make it on time.”

“I did my best to get good grades.”

“I do my best to be a good person.”

Normally, this functions as hyperbole or socially acceptable exaggeration. It is often feel-good language for moral failure. When pressed, people usually admit that they could have done better. But if one could have done better, then they didn’t do their actual best. “Best” often functions as a catchphrase for, “I could have done better, but I, uh, at least tried.”

This kind of ambiguity or “semantic range” or exaggeration or hyperbole has no place in a clear discussion on grace, faith, works, and forgiveness. It is arrogant to stand before a holy God and tell him, “I did my best.” No, you didn’t, you cosmic criminal. Stop lying to yourself, and stop lying to God.

If doing our real best is the precondition for forgiveness or eternal life, then we’re all doomed.

The only one who morally did his real best was Jesus.

Stop trusting the false god who justifies those who do their “best” and start trusting the God who justifies the ungodly by faith (Romans 4:4-8).

Posted in Uncategorized | 85 Comments

The Good News of Repentance?

Posted on May 12, 2014 by Eric Johnson

In the December 2013 Ensign, Brian D. Garner of the Church Correlation Department wrote a five-page article titled “The Good News of Repentance” (pp. 40-44). As I was reading this piece—subtitled “There is great joy in heaven whenever we repent in sincerity of heart”—I was struck by what I believe is really the bad news of repentance, at least when referred to in the context of Mormonism.

Garner talks about how the word “gospel” means “good news.” Saying repentance “is among our greatest blessings,” he asks, “What can compare to the freedom, confidence, peace, and joy that come from complete repentance and forgiveness?” (p. 41) On the next page, he writes, “The importance of repentance is better understood when we realize that it is a key that unlocks the blessings of the Savior’s atoning sacrifice.”

key_and_lock_banner3It sounds well and good. After all, Christianity certainly talks about the importance of repentance. But the author’s Mormonism comes into play in the next two columns, which are filled with LDS passages talking about what is required in addition to repentance. Although he says this “principle with a promise is certain,” the verses he provides don’t appear to support this notion (all italics are his):

  • “I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven” (D&C 1:31-32).
  • “Whoso repenteth and cometh unto me as a little child” (3 Nephi 9:22).
  • “If ye will repent and return until me with full purpose of heart” (3 Nephi 10:6).
  • “If they will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts” (3 Nephi 21:22).
  • “Turn unto me and hearken unto my voice and believe and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized” (Moses 6:52)
  • For good measure, D&C 1:32 is again quoted, with an emphasized “and”: “He that repents and does the commandments of the Lord”
  • “Repent and walk more uprightly before me” (D&C 5:21).
  • “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them” (D&C 58:43).

Based on these verses, Garner writes,

“Forsaking or discontinuing a sin is more difficult when that sin is a part of our natural inclination or has become an addictive habit. However, the Savior’s repeated instruction is clear: ‘Go, and sin no more’ (John 8:11; see also D&C 6:35). The difficulty of forsaking sin is magnified by the possibility of facing that temptation every day for the rest of our lives.”

Notice, the principle to “go, and sin no more” is “clear.” And then he adds this:

“To those who struggle with confession and forsaking sin, consider the Lord’s counsel as you seek added strength: ‘Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting’ (Matthew 17:21; see also Isaiah 58:6). Fasting can lead to increased spiritual power and self-control, especially when combined with prayer and scripture study.”

I struggle with sin! In fact, so did Paul. He wrote in Romans 7:18-25:

For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

According to the article, the secret for those struggling with “forsaking sin” involves prayer, fasting, and scripture study. Then, on page 43, Garner writes,

“After doing all they can to repent, some worry whether they have been forgiven. The Lord has said that when we refuse to repent, He ‘will withdraw [His] Spirit’ (Helaman 13:8) and that as we repent, He will ‘pour out [His] Spirit’ upon us (Proverbs 1:23). Therefore, when we regularly feel the influence of the Holy Ghost in our lives, we can be assured that the Lord has forgiven us (see Mosiah 4:1-3).”

I am bewildered about how we, as sinners, are supposed to “feel” God’s presence in our lives. Does this mean when I don’t “feel” forgiven, I’m not, and if I feel pretty good about myself, then somehow I am? Is God’s forgiveness based on my success in squelching sin from my life? Indeed, the words of twelfth President Spencer W. Kimball are just plain scary:

“Each command we obey sends us another rung up the ladder to perfected manhood and toward godhood; and every law disobeyed is a sliding toward the bottom where man merges into the brute world. Only he who obeys law is free. Serfdom comes to him who defies law. ‘The truth shall make you free’ (John 8:32) was another of the incontrovertible truths authored by the Master. He truly is free who is master of situations, habits, passions, urges, and desires. If one must yield to appetite or passion and follow its demands, he is truly the servant of a dictator” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 153).

As I wrote above, even Paul admitted to combatting sin in his life and I’m sure he wasn’t always successful. Then, referring to the “repentance which merits forgiveness,” Kimball said the “former transgressor must have reached a ‘point of no return’ to sin wherein there is not merely a renunciation but also a deep abhorrence of the sin—where the sin becomes most distasteful to him and where the desire or urge to sin is cleared out of his life.” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 355).

“Feeling” that we are forgiven—based on emotions that change day to day—and “knowing” that we are forgiven are two separate things. First John 5:13 says, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of Godso that you may know that you have eternal life.” Knowing here refers to “certainty” and not just a “feeling” that fleets with life’s trials and tribulations. While it is possible to feel pretty good about successfully claiming victory over individual sin, the chances are those temptations will creep back in sooner than later. As Kimball suggests, giving in to sin slides a person toward the bottom once more. What a hopeless and vicious circle.

There is no good news in Mormonism’s view of repentance. If true, if just means each of us have not yet arrived. However, Jesus came to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) based on His work, not ours. According to the plethora of verses supplied by Garner, repentance is powerless unless the second clause (ceasing sin) in each verse is fulfilled as well. Therefore, it’s impossible to know whether or not one is forgiven. I would hope this Ensign article stirs more angst than peace in the honest Latter-day Saint’s heart.

Posted in Forgiveness, Repentance, Salvation | Tagged , , , , , , , | 34 Comments