Mormonism’s Prophetic Authority and Selective Disobedience

Posted on April 10, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Mormon blogger Jana Riess writes about “selective obedience” in her April 7th (2014) blog. She’s responding to a comment made by LDS apostle Robert Hales at last weekend’s General Conference. In his address, Mr. Hales contrasted three types of behavior: disobedience (rejection of God’s law), selective obedience, and mature Christ-like obedience. As reported by Deseret News, Mr. Hales said,

“At times members may participate in ‘selective obedience,’ claiming to love God and honor God while picking and choosing which of His commandments and teachings— and the teachings and counsel of His prophets — we will fully follow.”

GC Conference CenterIn her blog, Ms. Riess takes issue with Mr. Hales’ teaching, noting that “selective obedience is where most of us live. Of course we pick and choose. Of course we have to pray and make decisions.”

Ms. Riess contrasts her chosen “selective obedience” with those who take an all-or-nothing approach to LDS “prophetic authority.” There are those who believe “every statement that proceeds from a church leader’s mouth is gospel,” and there are those who “witness the overwhelming evidence of historical change in the Mormon tradition and conclude that little or nothing in the religion can be inspired.”

Ms. Riess recognizes that historical evidence exists that demonstrates past Church leaders have been wrong on occasion:

“that God denounced interracial marriage, for example, or that African-Americans would never be worthy to hold the priesthood by divine decree. Brigham Young taught that polygamy was an essential practice to prepare a person for life in the Celestial Kingdom (though some of his other statements qualified this). He also believed that there might be a Loch Ness-style monster living in the Bear Lake, which traveled via an underground tunnel to its other home in the Great Salt Lake.

“Clearly, none of this is current LDS teaching.

“So I’m not on board with the idea that I should simply accept anything proposed in General Conference, even if it is reiterated at different times by different general authorities…”

Yet Ms. Riess is not “ready to dismiss the many beautiful, true, and thought-provoking things that were said at General Conference” and therefore takes a middle-of-the-road approach. She chooses which “prophetic” teachings she will accept, and which she will dismiss.

In some ways, this reminds me of C.S. Lewis’ famous trilemma, expressed in his book Mere Christianity:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

Like Jesus in Lewis’ trilemma argument, Mormonism has not left open the option that Jana Riess prefers — that Mormon “prophetic authority” can go terribly wrong sometimes, but at other times should be embraced as “beautiful, true and thought-provoking.”

This self-same “prophetic authority” has decisively pronounced the all-or-nothing argument that Ms. Riess rejects.

doctrine-and-covenantsMormon Scripture says of Mormon elders:

“And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.” (D&C 68:4-5)

Mormon Scripture says of Joseph Smith (and by extension, subsequent Mormon prophets):

“thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.” (D&C 21:4-5)

The Mormon manual Gospel Principles explains Mormon Scripture:

“A prophet is a man called by God to be His representative on earth. When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking (see D&C 1:38).”

If Mormons leaders holding “prophetic authority” speak for an omniscient God, then they cannot be wrong when speaking on spiritual matters. They cannot lead the Church astray with false doctrine. If they do, they are not speaking for God. Those holding “prophetic authority,” in their roles as prophets, seers and revelators, have taught:

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, 212-213)

“We are most fortunate to have a living prophet at the head of the Church to guide us, and all who heed his counsel will be partakers of the promised blessings which will not be enjoyed by those who fail to accept his messages…Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” (N. Eldon Tanner [First Counselor in the First Presidency], “The Debate is Over,” Ensign, August 1979, 2)

“One cannot successfully attack true principles or doctrine, because they are eternal. The revelations that came through the Prophet Joseph Smith are still correct! …when you pick up a stick you pick up both ends. And so it is with the gospel. As members of the Church we need to accept all of it.” (James E. Faust, “Lord, I Believe; Help Thou Mine Unbelief,” Ensign, November 2003, 21-22)

Early Mormon apostle Orson Pratt proffered:

“If one portion of the doctrines of the Church is true, the whole of them are true. If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them, because it is utterly impossible, according to the revelations that are contained in these books, to believe a part of them to be divine—from God—and part of them to be from the devil; that is foolishness in the extreme…” (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 17:224)

As much as Jana Riess and other liberal Latter-day Saints would like to approach Mormon “prophetic authority” as one might approach a dinner buffet, Mormonism does not give them that option. President James Faust did not allow for that kind of thinking:

“Revelations from the prophets of God are not like offerings at the cafeteria, some to be selected and others disregarded.” (ibid., Ensign, November 2003, 22)

Moses parts the Red SeaMormons cannot have their cake and eat it, too.  Either the prophets speak for God and what they teach is true, or they do not speak for God at all. Mormonism leaves no room for any conclusion other than (to borrow from C. S. Lewis),

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things the Mormon prophet(s) said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either what this man spoke, and speaks, is ‘the will…mind…word…voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation,’ or else he is a madman or something worse.”

And if the Mormon Church is led by a “madman,” if what its prophets, seers and revelators say are lies or delusions, then the Mormon Church is a fraud and the eternal promises it makes are null and void. Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley insisted,

“Each of us has to face the matter – either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.” (“Loyalty,” Ensign, May, 2003, 60).

Dear Mormons, it is “foolishness in the extreme” to believe that a true prophet, whose very words are “scripture,” would teach false doctrine (“whatever comes from the voices of those who hold that authority is scripture, no matter of what they may speak,” J. Reuben Clark, Jr. [First Counselor in the First Presidency], Conference Reports, April 1944, 112).

In truth it is all-or-nothing. The Mormon Church is the kingdom of God…or nothing. The conclusion is inescapable: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by its own definition, is nothing.

But do not lose hope my friends, for here…here is something. Here is our nothing covered by God’s all.

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, D&C and Pearl of Great Price, General Conference, LDS Church, Mormon Leaders, Prophets | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

A Counter-Creed to “Practical Mormonism Atheism”

Posted on April 7, 2014 by Aaron Shafovaloff
Practical Mormon Atheism The Contraries
1 Even if Mormonism is false, it is still worth believing and ought not be refuted. Mormonism, if false, ought not be “left alone”, but ought to be refuted and engaged and deconstructed.
2 Faith is ultimately irrational. Faith is partly but vitally rooted in evidence that can be publicly scrutinized.
3 Even if you don’t believe in God, you should still stay on the membership rolls and consider yourself a Mormon. Those who turn atheist can keep attending as welcomed guests, but ought not attend as members, and ought not self-identify as a member of any religion they no longer believe in.
4 If the LDS Church isn’t true, there is no God. There are plenty of reasons to believe in a first, Most High, absolutely ultimate God outside of Mormonism.
5 How you live your life is more important than what you believe. Beliefs are primary and behavior is secondary, because the only behavior that matters is that which flows from true and right belief.
6 I can’t believe in a God who demands worship. God is a jealous God who demands that he be praised and worshipped as the best of all beings, and will harshly punish those who refuse to worship him.
7 It doesn’t matter if it’s true. What matters is whether it is official. “Non-official” teachings of our tradition, culture, literature, and institution ought to be scrutinized.
8 I proudly mentally disassociate from the content and implications of my belief system. We love systematic, integrated theology, and thinking through the implications of our worldview.
9 The Church is true. Even if I don’t believe this or basically understand it, I can bear testimony of it. We insist that neither we nor our children bear such testimony until we basically understand and believe what this means.
10 There was a conspiracy to fundamentally corrupt the Bible. It is untrustworthy and we look elsewhere for truth. We trust the Bible to not have been fundamentally corrupted, we encourage the study of original Biblical languages, and we value exegesis and examine the teachings of our leaders against the most probable original meaning of the text.
11 Apart from Mormonism, I have no good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Outside of Mormonism there are good reasons to believe in the resurrection of Jesus.
12 The existence of my personhood is not owing to any god. My personhood is not co-eternal with God or any other intelligences, rather God himself created my essential personhood at a point in time.
13 Everything is matter and nothing is immaterial. Not everything is composed of matter. Some things are immaterial spirit.
14 There is no ultimate personal being who is the ground of all other being. There is an ultimate being from whom absolutely all other things (not to be relativized to one generation of the gods) come.
15 There is no first cause. There is a first cause.
16 There are impersonal eternal laws that govern everything. All eternal laws come from an ultimate personal being.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 88 Comments

Mormons and Muslims Similar in Many Ways

Posted on April 3, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Blue Mosque by night – IstanbulBack in 2005 Robert Velarde and Eric Johnson co-wrote an article for the CRI Journal comparing Mormons and Muslims. The authors looked at four areas of differences (i.e., views of Creation, God, Jesus, and humankind’s final state) and four areas of similarities (i.e., origins, scripture, restoration, and the human condition).

In 2008 the Los Angeles Times reported on a growing bond between Muslims and Mormons. The article noted a statement made by a BYU professor to the effect that positive Mormon attitudes toward Islam had resulted in (among other things) “Mormonism’s being called the Islam of America.”

In 2010 Aaron Shafovaloff explained to Mormon Coffee readers that LDS apologist and leading scholar on Islam, Daniel Peterson, was unwilling or unable to take a position on whether Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, was a false prophet or “a genuine prophet of some sort.”

In 2012 Huffington Post contributor Eliza Wood asked “Are Mormons Closer to Muslims or Christians?” Before providing readers with a list of 19 similarities between Islam and Mormonism, Ms. Wood wrote, “While in some ways neither Islam nor Mormonism is very much like Christianity, the two faiths actually have a lot of similarities.”

jesus-is-muslim-billboardAnd that brings us to today as yet another similarity between Mormons and Muslims has appeared – this in the area of public relations. The Christian Post reports that controversial billboards are showing up around Columbus, Ohio that state, “Jesus is Muslim,” “Muhammad is in the Bible,” and “Muslims love Jesus too,” The organization responsible for the billboards is ask-a-muslim.com. This organization insists, “When you have questions about Islam, ask a Muslim.” On the website, under the heading “Jesus was Muslim,” is this declaration:

“Muslims are Christians

“For starters, Muslims are Christians – if ‘Christian’ means someone following the teachings of Christ, so by learning about Islam you are not disobeying Jesus…

“Muslims are following the teachings of Jesus, while most Christians have began to follow the Church – this is why the Quran needed to be revealed.  (Holy Quran 9:31)…

“Please remember Islam = following Jesus. Muhammad confirmed Jesus.”

Ask-a-muslim.com is a group of Muslims who live in Ohio. They are

“dedicated to educating you about Islam, giving you a chance to hear about Islam from practicing Muslims… We invite people to have an open discourse with us. All we ask you to do, is ask us whatever questions you have about Islam, and we’ll gladly and honestly answer them. We believe that clearing up the many misconceptions about Islam will make this world a better place. A place with less violence and hatred, filled with mutual respect and understanding.”

AskAMormonHow does the statement, “Muslims are Christians” clear up misconceptions about Islam? How does the claim “Islam = following Jesus” foster greater understanding of the religion and its adherents?

According to Velarde and Johnson,

“Muslims do acknowledge Jesus as a great prophet and accept His virgin birth,sinlessness,and miracles, but they adamantly reject His deity as well as His death by crucifixion. Some Muslims argue that someone else died in the place of Jesus.Because Muslims often interpret in a literal fashion the Christian doctrine of God ‘begetting’ a Son, they hold that Christians add another being to the nature of God. This is blasphemous to the Islamic mindset, since Allah is the only God and can therefore have no companions.”

Likewise, when Mormons talk about Jesus there is a theological disconnect between what Mormonism teaches and the biblical Christ:

“Latter-day Saints affirm the divinity of Christ and His virgin birth, miracles, and bodily resurrection. This may seem orthodox, but a closer look at LDS teaching reveals significant points of disagreement with Christian positions on these doctrines. For instance, while LDS leaders say Jesus is the ‘Son of God’ and ‘the Only Begotten Son in the flesh,’ they do not hold that He is God in the flesh or the second person of the Trinity. In Mormon theology, Jesus is one god among many. Also, Mormons have claimed that the virgin birth involved a physical union between God the Father and Mary.” (Velarde and Johnson)

Coach Dave Daubenmire of Pass the Salt Ministries in Ohio has responded to the “Ask a Muslim” campaign by organizing a Christian rally to counter the misleading statements on the billboards:

“‘Although we support the Islamic community’s right to free speech, as well as their right to post messages on billboards, we do not support the hi-jacking of the name of Jesus Christ in their attempt to lure uninformed Christians into their religion,’ Coach Dave Daubenmire said.

“Daubenmire continued, ‘Jesus Christ was crucified, died, and resurrected over 600 years before the birth of Mohammed.  Although Islam honors Jesus as a prophet, they do not believe that He is the risen Son of God.  During this most Holy Lenten Season we find the messages on the billboards to be insensitive, dishonest and deserving of a response from concerned Christians. We will be on the streets to proclaim Jesus is NOT Muslim but Jesus is Lord!!’”

This is something I never saw coming. Mormons and Muslims now share an effort to be identified as Christians. They share the desire to have their respective religions recognized as the true religion of Jesus Christ. They share a willingness to spin and blur the truth in order to achieve their proselytizing goals. And because of all this, there is one more thing they share: Challenges to these misleading claims by Christians who are committed to stand firm for the truth, stand firm for the cause of Christ.

Posted in LDS Church, Misconceptions | Tagged , , , , , , | 22 Comments

New church essay distances LDS Church from Joseph Smith

Posted on April 1, 2014 by Eric Johnson

Breaking news as reported by Peggy Fletcher Stuck:

joseph-smith-statueOver the past few months, there have been essays published on LDS.org concerning the First Vision, Race and the Priesthood, plural marriage, the Book of Mormon translation, and Becoming Like God. Now, in a paper that appears to top the others, the sixth essay was published yesterday that is causing shock waves around the world. Titled “Distancing the Church from Joseph Smith,” church authorities  indicate that the LDS Church wants nothing more to do with the legacy of Joseph Smith.

According to the article:

“Joseph Smith was a farm boy with a fifth grade education. While he certainly was gifted in many ways by God, it has never been claimed that Smith was responsible for ending the Great Apostasy that started in the third century. In fact, there could have been no such event as a ‘great’ apostasy if the apostle John and the Three Nephites are still alive and never lost their priesthood. Thus, while Joseph was indeed responsible for starting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of our people place too much emphasis upon this man who is just like you and me, a human with many frailties just like ours.”

Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a member of the First Presidency, likened the move to his days as a pilot for a German airline. He claimed that “just as I flew for many years, Joseph Smith is like an eagle soaring above the plains. He’s a good eagle, no doubt, but to give too much prominence to one man would be irresponsible since our church is centered on Jesus Christ. Just consider the name of our church and you’ll know what I mean.”

Among other issues, the article cited Smith’s polygamous ways with 34 women as “irresponsible, especially when it is considered that a third of his wives were teenagers and another third married to other men’s wives.” Also specifically cited as “blasphemous” was Smith’s infamous “King Follett Discourse,” a speech given by Smith claiming that people could become gods.

As far as the death of Joseph Smith, the article states that Smith did not die as a martyr.  It admitted that because Joseph Smith had a smuggled gun and used it to shoot several of his attackers, the title “martyr” is not an appropriate description. The article stated,

“It is not true that Joseph ever said that he was like a lamb led to the slaughter. Instead, what he said was ‘I am thirsty like a ram led to the water.’ Apparently George G. Watt, the stenographer who later compiled the Journal of Discourses, had a head cold that day and did not fully understand what Smith was trying to say.”

MelPriesthoodProbably most shocking of all is that statues of Joseph Smith as well as his brother Hyrum will be immediately removed from Salt Lake City’s Temple Square area. No indication was given about what would replace these statues.

It’s one thing for the church to lay the blame for the banning of blacks at the feet of Brigham Young or to admit that “some” plural marriages in the LDS Church continued after the Manifesto of 1890. But this move to relegate Joseph Smith to nothing more than a person who spoke his personal opinion seems to be a step unexpected by everyone, including LDS Church president Thomas S. Monson.

President Monson, who made a guest appearance on NBC’s “Nightline with Hugh Downs” and was quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune (“LDS President unclear about the legacy of Smith,” Salt Lake Tribune, 3/31/14), said,

“I think Smith had good intentions, but then I think he really had good intentions. He probably intended to have these good intentions, but regardless, Smith’s intentions can’t be faulted.”

While critics of the church hailed the decision, many speculated what this move will mean to the LDS Church. When asked about the paper printed on the LDS website, one BYU professor who asked not to be named merely shook his head and stated, “Not official, not official, not official.”

We’ll keep our ears to the ground and inform you of any updates. Until then, Happy April Fools Day!

Posted in Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, LDS Church, Mormon History | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

Should Christians – or Mormons – participate in the Hindu Holi Festival of Colors?

Posted on March 31, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom
1912440_10203225886225971_1653302425_o

Aaron evangelizing at the
2014 Hindu Holi Festival

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the Hindu Holi Festival in Spanish Fork, Utah, “draws tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints and others to Krishna Temple.” The 2014 Festival was held this past weekend. The Washington Post reported,

“’It’s an opportunity for young LDS (Mormon) kids to come and celebrate their spirituality without alcohol or drugs,’ said Caru Das, the temple’s priest.”

Listen as Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson discuss the Holi Festival and its spiritual significance on Viewpoint on Mormonism.

Posted in Mormon Culture | Tagged , | 46 Comments

“What do Mormons believe about the Bible?”

Posted on March 27, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

The Bible and the Book of MormonThe Mormon Church appears to be updating its FAQ section at Mormon.org. I’ve received several Google Alerts highlighting specific Frequently Asked Questions and their official answers. One recent Alert pointed me to the FAQ section on the Bible, to the question, “Do Mormons regard the Bible as Holy Scripture and the word of God?” Another FAQ in this section is very much the same: “What do Mormons believe about the Bible? Do they regard it as Holy Scripture and the word of God?” The answers provided for these questions, though different, communicate basically the same thing:

“Mormons believe, revere and love the Holy Bible. We see it as a powerful, important, and sacred holy record which serves as the bedrock of all Christianity. The Bible is rich in history, doctrine, stories, sermons and testimonies, all of which witness that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of our Heavenly Father. The Bible is the word of God and came from the writings of holy men of God as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost (see 2 Peter 1:20-21). Through the same process we have additional Holy Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, which supports and exalts the Bible.” (“Do Mormons regard the Bible as Holy Scripture and the word of God?”)

This response pointedly addresses both parts of the question. And while the general answers provided in the FAQ section appear to be designed to be short and to the point, this answer goes beyond the question and provides the additional information that Mormons also accept other books as Holy Scripture. The answer to the similar FAQ question (noted above) does the same thing, and includes a list of these additional scriptures with a short explanation of what they are.

So this leaves me with a question of my own: Why do these official responses to questions about the Mormon view of the Bible fail to include the doctrine so clearly spelled out in the Articles of Faith; that is, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” (Articles of Faith 1:8; emphasis added)? It is true that the Articles of Faith can be found elsewhere on the Mormon.org website, yet failing to mention that particular canonized doctrinal caveat renders the response provided by the Mormon Church incomplete at best.

The following quotes from faithful Mormon sources will allow the reader to reach a better-informed conclusion about Mormonism’s regard for the Bible.

“There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 310)

“The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts.” (Presidents Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas Monson, “Letter Reaffirms Use of King James Version of Bible,” Church News, 6/20/1992, 3)

“The words contained in this Bible are merely a history of what is gone by; it was never given to guide the servant of God in the course he should pursue…” (Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 2:75)

“What shall we say then, concerning the Bible’s being a sufficient guide? Can we rely upon it in its present known corrupted state, as being a faithful record of God’s word?… Add all this imperfection [i.e., lost books and “mutilated, changed and corrupted” text] to the uncertainly of the translation, and who, in his right mind, could, for one moment suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original?” (Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of Book of Mormon, No. 3, “The Bible and tradition, without further revelation, an insufficient guide,” 47)

“The Book of Mormon is translated correctly because an unlearned man did it by the gift and power of God. It took him less than sixty translating days. The Bible abounds in errors and mistranslations, in spite of the fact that the most learned scholars and translators of the ages labored years on end over the manuscripts of antiquity to bring it forth.” (Bruce R. McConkie, “The Bible: A Sealed Book,” a BYU speech given to LDS Seminary and Institute teachers, August 1984)

“The fragmentary nature of the biblical record and the errors in it, resulting from multiple transcriptions, translations, and interpretations, do not diminish our belief in it as the word of God ‘as far as it is translated correctly.’” (Joseph Wirthlin, “Christians in Belief and Action,” Ensign, General Conference edition, 11/1996, 71)

“Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation.” (Ezra Taft Benson, “The Book of Mormon – Keystone of Our Religion,” Ensign, 10/2011, 55)

“From these statements of the Prophet we can ascertain more clearly the meaning of the eighth article of faith, part of which reads, ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly’ (Articles of Faith 1:8). Here the word translated appears to be used in a broader sense to mean transmitted, which would include not only translation of languages but also copying, editing, deleting from, and adding to documents. The Bible has undergone a much more serious change than merely translation from one language to another.” (BYU Professor Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible!, 72. Italics in original)

“In a vision of the future, Nephi sees the Bible going ‘forth from the Jews in purity, unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.’ But the Gentile church takes away ‘from the Gospel of the Lamb, many parts which are plain and most precious.’ The Book of Mormon, in other words, declares the Bible to be deficient.” (Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 100)

8thArticleOfFaith

Posted in Bible, Mormon Scripture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 23 Comments

Examining the claims of defenders of Mormonism

Posted on March 24, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Many critics of Mormonism know how frustrating it can be to try to pin down the truth while talking with Latter-day Saints about Mormon doctrine and history. This video by ldsvideoencyclopedia demonstrates the sorts of difficulties critics encounter while trying to discuss troubling Mormon issues with LDS defenders. In this 36-minute video ldsvideoencyclopedia takes a look at a previously recorded interview with Mormon apologist Martin Tanner, pausing along the way to fact- and logic-check Dr. Tanner’s assertions.

Posted in Early Mormonism, Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry | Tagged , , , , , , | 25 Comments

Critics of Mormonism Are All the Same

Posted on March 20, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

The feminist Mormon group Ordain Women explains on its website:

“Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormons to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.”

OrdainWomenPriesthood

Kate Kelly, founder of Ordain Women, seeks entrance into the October 2013 LDS priesthood session

Last October (2013) Ordain Women put itself in the public eye as a group 200 strong showed up at the Mormon Church’s General Conference priesthood session with a request to be admitted. The request was denied.

A little more than two weeks from now, on April 5th (2014), a group representing Ordain Women plans to again approach the General Conference priesthood session and “reverently seek admission.” The Mormon Church issued a statement this week in the form of a letter, which says in part:

“Your organization has again publicized its intention to demonstrate on Temple Square during the April 5 priesthood session. Activist events like this detract from the sacred environment of Temple Square and the spirit of harmony sought at General Conference. Please reconsider.

“If you feel you must come and demonstrate, we ask that you do so in free speech zones adjacent to Temple Square, which have long been established for those wishing to voice differing viewpoints. They can be found on the attached map.”

The Washington Post summed this up:

“Mormon women seeking tickets to the faith’s general priesthood session next month will not only be denied access to that all-male meeting, but also may be shut out of Salt Lake City’s historic Temple Square altogether.”

This forewarned banishment of faithful (though critical) Mormon women from Temple Square has Mormon feminist blogger Jana Riess asserting, “I’m a Mormon feminist, not an anti-Mormon protestor.”

Ms. Riess’ surprise is evident as she’s come to understand that in the eyes of LDS leadership, all critics of Mormonism are the same. She writes,

“There is something deeply symbolic about yesterday’s statement, for it reveals what the Church apparently thinks of the feminists within its fold. We, as faithful and active members of the Church, are being lumped together with the same anti-Mormon protestors who routinely crash General Conference and shout that the Mormon religion is of the devil. These protestors have started fistfights with conference-goers and even stomped on or burned temple garments. I have little in common with those people.”

Eric Johnson in the Free Speech Zone, Brigham City, Utah

Eric Johnson in the Free Speech Zone, Brigham City, Utah

We at Mormonism Research Ministry (and many other so-called anti-Mormon groups) also have little in common with the behavior of people who start fistfights and stomp on temple garments; nevertheless we, too, are “lumped together” with those who do these things, both in the way Mormon Church leadership responds to us and our concerns, and the way Mormons in general think of us.

Ms. Reiss’ blog article discusses some of the ways she and her feminist ideas are treated within Mormonism. If a few identifying words were to be changed here and there, the article could very well be discussing Mormonism Research Ministry’s efforts to challenge Mormon doctrinal positions. Some things Ms. Reiss and I share in our respective areas of faithful passion for change are these (as expressed in her blog article):

  • “I am being told my views are anathema.”
  • The Church “wants to make [critics] appear powerless and insignificant….[it] positions Mormon [critics] as a lunatic fringe, a mere distraction, a mosquito to be swatted off Temple Square.”
  • The critical group’s “members are detracting from ‘helpful’ discussions about Mormonism and” [fill in the topical blank].
  • We wonder, “where, exactly, are these ‘thoughtful discussions’ about [our concerns] in church allegedly happening?”
  • Critics are “dangerous enough that they need to be banned from Temple Square.”
  • “So we blog, and we speak out in unofficial ways about the need for change, since there is such a limit to what we’re allowed to express within institutional channels.”
  • “Mormon [critics] will continue speaking out in all our variety.”

Ms. Riess, as viewed by LDS leadership, critics of Mormonism are all the same. To them you are an “anti-Mormon protestor.”  As Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard once explained in General Conference,

“…in the Lord’s Church there is no such thing as a ‘loyal opposition.’ One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God’s prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed.” (“Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers,” Ensign, 11/1999, 64).

Faithful Mormon members of Ordain Women, Welcome to the club.

Posted in General Conference, LDS Church, Mormon Culture | Tagged , , , , , | 47 Comments

Mormonism, the Bible, and God the Father

Posted on March 17, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

LDS Godhead (two of three)The January 2014 Ensign magazine includes an edited version of a General Conference talk given in 1986 by (now deceased) Gordon B. Hinckley of Mormonism’s First Presidency. The 2014 “Gospel Classic” is titled, “The Divine Godhead.” In it Mr. Hinckley explains what he believes about God the Father and relates an experience he had while a missionary in England:

“I believe without equivocation or reservation in God, the Eternal Father. He is my Father, the Father of my spirit, and the Father of the spirits of all men. He is the great Creator, the Ruler of the Universe. … In His image man was created. He is personal. He is real. He is individual. He has ‘a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s’ (D&C 130:22).

“In the account of the creation of the earth, ‘God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Genesis 1:26).

“Could any language be more explicit? Does it demean God, as some would have us believe, that man was created in His express image? Rather, it should stir within the heart of every man and woman a greater appreciation for himself or herself as a son or daughter of God. …

“… As a missionary, I was speaking [in London, England, when a heckler interrupted], ‘Why don’t you stay with the doctrine of the Bible which says in John (4:24), “God is a Spirit”?’

“I opened my Bible to the verse he had quoted and read to him the entire verse: ‘God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.’

Speakers’ Corner, Hyde Park in 1944 (Roberts, 1995) © 1995 Charles C. Roberts, Jr.

Speakers’ Corner, Hyde Park in 1944 (Roberts, 1995)
© 1995 Charles C. Roberts, Jr.

“I said, ‘Of course God is a spirit, and so are you, in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I.’

“Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity. All know of the reality of death … , and each of us also knows that the spirit lives on as an individual entity and that at some time, under the divine plan made possible by the sacrifice of the Son of God, there will be a reunion of spirit and body. Jesus’s declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body.” (Ensign, 1/2014, 72; ellipses and brackets retained from the original)

When Jesus says “God is spirit” (John 4:24), aren’t His words just as explicit as the statement quoted by Mr. Hinckley (Genesis 1:26; also see verse 27)? No one need be confused about what “God is spirit” means in connection to Mormonism’s assertion that God the Father has “a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” for Jesus, in another time and place, explained, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). Mr. Hinckley’s argument that God the Father has a spirit (coupled with a body of flesh and bones) imposes much onto the words of the apostle John that is not there – or anywhere in the Bible.

Likewise, Mr. Hinckley’s treatment of Genesis 1:26 misses the mark. Mr. Hinckley suggests that man being made in the image and likeness of God the Father can only mean that God the Father is a tangible being of flesh and bones. This is not so.  Christian author Dr. Jim W. Adams explains:

“Humanity is distinguished from all other creatures by the fact that it is created in the image (tselem) and in the likeness (demut) of God (Gen 1:26). What exactly the term tselem means in relation to humanity has been the source of scholarly debate. But careful analysis of the various occurrences of the noun throughout the Old Testament leads to the conclusion that a tselem ‘represents’ something. Hence, the most natural understanding of humankind created in the image of God is that human beings are God’s image or representative on earth. This is confirmed by God’s command for humanity to rule over God’s creation on his behalf (v. 28; see also Ps 8:5-8)…

“The term tselem, however, also indicates that to some degree human beings are like God and resemble him. This is enhanced by the use of the similar noun demut (Gen 1:26a; 5:1), which tends to convey the idea of two objects corresponding to one another (see, e.g., 2 Chr 4:3; Ps 58:4). Still, the text never indicates how humankind is like God. An obvious correspondence between God and humankind would include that both speak, hear, see, and feel. However, what is certain is that humanity does not resemble God in nature or in bodily form, for in the Old Testament God is never presented as an embodied being or even a physical being. Furthermore, the Old Testament assumes throughout that human beings do not have the divine nature of God: God creates, but human beings cannot create in the same sense; God is the sole Creator, but humans are creatures; humans die, but God is immortal.” (“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith?”, The New Mormon Challenge, Beckwith, Mosser, Owen, general editors, 172, 173)

I think Gordon B. Hinckley’s “heckler” at Hyde Park asked a good question those many years ago: Why doesn’t Mormonism stay with the doctrine of the Bible? Like Joshua entreated the people of ancient Israel, so we too beseech you, Mormons: “Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart to the Lord, the God of Israel” (Joshua 24:23). He, the only true God, can be found in the pages of the Bible, explicitly revealed to all who seek to know Him – to all who seek to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Posted in Christianity, God the Father, Gordon B. Hinckley | Tagged , , , , , | 77 Comments

Ask Mormons to Define “Evangelists” When They Quote Ephesians 4:11

Posted on March 13, 2014 by Aaron Shafovaloff

A Mormon friend appealed to Ephesians 4:11 as the supposed basis for modern LDS Church structure. I asked him to camp out on the passage with me instead of quickly moving on to another. There is a little-known, very awkward LDS Church interpretation of “evangelists” in Ephesians 4:11 that not even many Mormons know about:

Consider the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (yoo-ang-ghel’-ee-on). It means “gospel.” Now consider εὐαγγελιστής (yoo-ang-ghel-is-tace).

Not knowing Greek, which do you think is the more likely accurate translation of the second word?

1. Someone who shares/communicates/brings the good tidings, the good news.

2. Someone who gives patriarchal blessings.

Mormonism chooses #2.

To top that off, the 2009 edition of the LDS manual “Gospel Principles” took out this line:

“All of the offices and functions of the Church in the days of Jesus are present in the Church today.”

Why? Among other things, because there were no plans to have a successor to Eldred G. Smith. He died on April 4, 2013, and the May 2013 Liahona LDS magazine described him as “the last person to hold the position.” Which position? “Patriarch to the Church.”

This is important because 1) It shows how awful and unnatural the “official” interpretation of “evangelists” is that Mormons are stuck with and 2) It calls into question basic modern Mormon claims about itself.

One is better off taking the natural interpretation (evangelists are those who evangelize — they announce the good news) and adopting a Jesus-centered Christianity with Jesus as prophet, priest, and king.

Please do read that last link. It is wonderful.

Posted in Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism | Tagged , , , , | 35 Comments