Going After Historical Issues

Posted on March 10, 2014 by Eric Johnson

In an article found in an LDS Church manual (The Pearl of Great Price Teacher Manual Religion 327, pp. 54-55) that gives instructions to the LDS instructors comes this amazing statement:

PoGPManualJoseph Smith—History. Overview

Have students read the five italicized summary statements that are found throughout Joseph Smith—History and list the major events that are described in the text. Write the following five statements on the board:

God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ have appeared to mankind in modern times.

There was an apostasy of the true Church.

Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

The Book of Mormon is the word of God.

The Church of Jesus Christ has been restored

Ask students: If any one of these statements were false, how would that affect the other statements, and why?

I’m not sure what the church leaders expect the answer to be, but may I take my shot at what seems to be a rhetorical question: If any of these statement are false and Mormonism is based on fiction, the whole set of dominoes comes tumbling down.

If you haven’t familiarized yourself with the “Swedish Rescue,” you really ought to do so. (Here is a good place to start: http://www.mrm.org/fiery-fireside .) In this meeting with disaffected and questioning Latter-day Saints that took place a few years ago, two LDS historians provided practically no satisfactory answers to any of the members’ objections. For instance, the Swedish Saints brought up the following issues:

  • The First Vision: They wanted to know why the official First Vision account wasn’t introduced until 1838, and they wondered why there were no contemporary resources that can be found to support the First Vision’s claim.
  • Joseph Smith: They complained about Smith’s polygamous as well as polyandrous ways and questioned why the church wasn’t more forthright about this.
  • Book of Mormon: They were confused why the church was less than forthright in explaining how the Book of Mormon was translated. In addition, the Swedes questioned the LDS position that there were historical people as described in the Book of Mormon—if true, as the teacher manual puts it, then it becomes nothing more than a book of fiction.
  • The Apostasy of Christianity and the “restoration” of Christianity through the LDS Church: Among other issues, the handling (botching) of the Mark Hoffman affair was mentioned. In addition, they felt that the church promoted “lying for the Lord” and a sanitized view of church history that was less than honest. If the church leaders can’t be trusted, then why should anyone place their trust in them?  Does having a “restoration” even matter?

DominoesNot discussed in the manual but brought up by the Swedes were the Adam-God doctrine and the credibility of the Book of Abraham. With so many problematic historical issues, the credibility of Mormonism is at stake. The same is true for the historic Christian church if there was evidence that Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah, was an imaginative creation of later followers or if the resurrection of this man was doubtful (see 1 Corinthians 15); as Paul put it, Christians would be the most pitied of all people as they would be placing their faith in something that did not conform to the facts.

In the past few months, the LDS Church has uploaded articles on the LDS.org website to deal with such sensitive issues as plural marriage, blacks, and the Book of Mormon. (Could the sudden responses to such controversial issues be related to the “Swedish Rescue”? Quite possibly.) Reasons (excuses) are provided to distance the current church’s leadership from these topics. Yet numerous LDS leaders before 1890 (for plural marriage) and before 1978 (for blacks and the priesthood) can be quoted over and over again, as they were strong supporters of what they called “doctrine” (not theory). And plenty of statements from leaders in both the 19th and 20th centuries can be easily culled to show how these men believed the Lamanites were ancestors of the Native Americans.

Referring specifically to the Book of Mormon, the teacher’s manual quoted above goes on to say, “Bear your testimony of the truth of the events described in Joseph Smith—History, and invite students to share their thoughts and feelings.”

Notice the wording: “bear your testimony” as well as “share” “thoughts and feelings.” Unfortunately, too many faithful Mormons compartmentalize the history of the church. They bury the problematic teachings and retreat to their “testimony,” using a fideistic “faith above the facts” to minimize the damage. Fortunately, we have seen more and more people who, after being exposed to this questionable history, end up leaving Mormonism. For example, we just received an email from one “soon-to-be ex-Mormon” who said his discovery of Joseph Smith’s polygamous/polyandrous ways four months ago was earth-shattering for him; his official time in the church appears to be short. Just a few months ago we met an ex-Mormon at one of our local meetings who shared how his departure from the LDS faith came when he tried to disprove some historical points that we made on our radio show/podcast (Viewpoint on Mormonism). This gentleman said he ended up leaving his LDS faith and became a Christian because he found out that his presuppositions were in error as he attempted to defend the official church history.

I believe that those Latter-day Saints who are willing to open their eyes and do their homework will come to the conclusion that Mormonism, as Buddy from the movie Elf once stated, sits on a throne of lies. If the quote from the teacher’s manual would be read and considered by every thinking Mormon, imagine the mass exodus that would ensue!

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, Joseph Smith, Mormon History | Tagged , , , , , , | 30 Comments

We Thank Thee, O God, for…

Posted on March 6, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

sheet-musicOnce-official LDS history and doctrine is undergoing some hefty rewrites via the new Gospel Topics essays at LDS.org. As previously little-known information about Mormon history and doctrine has become available online, many Latter-day Saints are experiencing crises of faith when they learn of major discrepancies between what they have always been taught in the Church and what they have discovered on the internet. The Gospel Topic essays seek to fill a need for questioning Mormons to “read accurate information and be able to seek to understand those historical chapters in the context of time and place and understand that those answers have been approved by the presiding brethren of the church. I think that will give many of our members confidence that they can rely on these answers,” explains Church historian Steven E. Snow (“Understanding of Events in Church History: What about historical questions?” video).

As these essay answers generally do not consider or address the conflicting teachings of past Mormon prophets, seers and revelators, the following suggested rewrite of the beloved Mormon hymn, “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet,” has been proposed by Mormonism Research Ministry.

We Thank Thee, O God, for Our Scholars

We thank thee, O God, for our scholars
To guide us away from GAs.
We thank thee, O God, for revisionists
To lighten our minds with their tales.
We thank thee for their clever wording
That sounds normal to the nations.
We feel it a treasure to have them
And rejoice in their obfuscations.

When dark clouds of history hang o’er us
And threaten our faith to destroy,
There is hope smiling brightly before us,
Our deliverance by scholars is nigh.
We doubt not their words to distract us,
Their talent in changing the past.
The critics who challenge our stories
Will surely be silenced at last.

We welcome our well-crafted essays
We’ll praise them by day and by night.
We’re thankful, O God, for our scholars
Who keep our past well out of sight.
Thus happy and heedless to problems
We will doubt our doubts as we’re told,
Dismissing the words of our prophets
Happiness is in what we don’t know.

“Let me say with all the intensity I have
that nothing will hurt you more than what you don’t know.”
–Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland–
(“The Justice and Mercy of God,” Ensign, September 2013, 20)

Posted in Early Mormonism, Mormon Culture, Mormon History, Mormon Leaders, Prophets | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 97 Comments

“The fulness of his kingdom” – Mormons becoming like God

Posted on March 3, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

On February 25th (2014) the Mormon Church posted a new article in its Gospel Topics section: “Becoming Like God.” Deseret News says this essay accomplishes “explaining the faith’s doctrine” on the topic, and the Salt Lake Tribune likewise says it “explains Mormon teaching” on humans becoming like God. The essay is 3,500 words long, includes 56 footnotes, and reflects a “contribution of scholars.” Yet for all of this, readers learn surprisingly little of what “becoming like God” actually means within Mormonism.

The essay provides descriptive phrases such as:

  • PlanetsLatter-day Saints… consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential
  • Each possesses seeds of divinity
  • all people may “progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny”
  • the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father’s
  • [God]…can help each willing, obedient child of God receive of His fulness and glory
  • men and women have the potential to be exalted to a state of godliness
  • to live as God lives, to love as He loves

And on it goes, talking about “humanity’s divine nature and potential,” but never plainly defining what that actually consists of.

The essay shifts into apologetics mode to defend the Mormon doctrine of deification. The reader learns that the Bible talks about men becoming gods – after all, it tells us that humans are created in God’s image; Paul says we are the offspring of God; and Psalm 82:6 says “Ye are gods,” children of God. Early Christian church fathers spoke of human divinity. Yet, in the midst of this 800-word apologetic section, we are told, “What exactly the early church fathers meant when they spoke of becoming God is open to interpretation…” Thus far in the essay, the reader does not know what the Mormon doctrine of “becoming like God” specifically means, nor does he know what the Christian concept of deification means, but he does know that both faiths use the word “deification.” A footnote further clarifies, “There are likely important differences as well as similarities between the thinking of the church fathers and Latter-day Saint teachings.”

When the essay arrives at Joseph Smith’s teachings and LDS scripture citations, the language becomes a bit more pointed, speaking of people receiving “a fulness of God’s glory and be[coming] ‘gods, even the sons of God,’” being “made equal to Him.”

“[T]hose who keep covenants, including the covenant of eternal marriage, will inherit ‘all heights and depths.’ Then,’ says the revelation, ‘shall they be gods, because they have no end.’ They will receive ‘a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.’” (Essay quoting D&C 132:19-20)

Though this language provides a little more insight into Mormon exaltation or deification, it is still not very clear. What does all this strange-sounding jargon mean? It would have helped had more of D&C 132:19-20 been included, because that further explains that these people who keep covenants “shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths…Then shall they be gods because they have all power, and the angels are subject to them.”

When the essay quotes “Joseph Smith’s most detailed known discussion of divine nature and exaltation” found in the King Follett Discourse, readers learn that

“God ‘was once as one of us’ and ‘all the spirits that God ever sent into the world’ were likewise ‘susceptible of enlargement.’ Joseph Smith preached that long before the world was formed, God found ‘himself in the midst’ of these beings and ‘saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself’ and be ‘exalted’ with Him.

“Joseph told the assembled Saints, ‘You have got to learn how to be a god yourself.’ In order to do that, the Saints needed to learn godliness, or to be more like God.” (Essay quoting from several different versions of the King Follett Discourse, all found at josephsmithpapers.org)

While Joseph Smith’s teaching could be a very helpful tool in understanding Mormon exaltation/becoming like God, the essay informs readers that, due to the wind blowing on the day the Prophet spoke and “the limitations of transcription techniques,” all that is available of this important doctrinal sermon is an “imperfect” account that “is not canonized” so “it should not be treated as a doctrinal standard.”

Following Joseph Smith, the essay tells readers, “the doctrine that humans can progress to exaltation and godliness” was taught by fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow in his “well-known couplet: …As God now is, man may be”; affirmed by LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley; captured in song by early Latter-day Saint Eliza Snow; and included in a 1995 Ensign article by Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks when he wrote that Mormon theology “begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.”

SecretThus ends the portion of the essay that was provided to “explain” the Mormon doctrine of “becoming like God.” Honestly, an explanation of this doctrine using the exposition found in the Achieving a Celestial Marriage student manual would have been much more clear:

“God is an exalted man who once lived on an earth and underwent experiences of mortality… The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles… By definition, exaltation includes the ability to procreate the family unit throughout eternity… All who obtain this exaltation will have the privilege of completing the full measure of their existence, and they will have a posterity that will be as innumerable as the stars of heaven…  The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (1976, pages 129 and 132; emphasis retained from the original)

Here, in under 200 words, “exaltation” is clearly defined; “fulness” is clearly defined; “becoming like him” is clearly defined; and human “godhood” is clearly defined.

Instead of clarifying and explaining this Mormon doctrine that is said to be “central to the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the recent Gospel Topics essay uses 3,500 words to say next to nothing about it. But then, the Church’s essay does seem to identify clear teaching such as that found in the student manual quoted above as “cartoonish” or a “caricature” of the doctrinal reality.

Rather than spell out the official tenets of Mormonism, the Church essay informs readers of how Mormon members “imagine exaltation,” seeing “the seeds of godhood” in nurturing and loving children, in giving service, and in the order of the universe. The closest the essay gets to revealing the actual meaning of “exaltation” (as historically taught by Mormon leaders) is this:

“[W]hile few Latter-day Saints would identify with caricatures of having their own planet, most would agree that the awe inspired by creation hints at our creative potential in the eternities.”

LDS author Richard Bushman told the Salt Lake Tribune that the “Becoming Like God” essay “defines a boundary of what we truly believe and also tries to make it as appealing as possible.”

It’s pretty obvious that the Church was trying to make Mormonism sound appealing (and mainstream), but do people really come away from this essay with clarity regarding the Mormon doctrine of exaltation?

Apparently not, for since the posting of this essay dozens of media outlets have been proclaiming, “LDS church affirms that its faithful won’t get their own planets in afterlife” and “Mormon Church reveals people do NOT get their own planets in the afterlife” when in fact the essay actually says no such thing — if it did, it would be at complete odds with Mormonism’s historic official doctrinal teachings on exaltation. (Check out the MRM website and two related Mormon Coffee posts here and here to read about authoritative and clear Mormon teachings on Mormons, planets and the afterlife.)

In the end, the Mormon Church’s lengthy Gospel Topics discourse leaves readers with little more than a few “hints” of this crowning doctrine of the “restored” gospel – that is, the eternal future that Mormonism promises is awaiting those who become Gods.

Posted in Afterlife, King Follett Discourse, LDS Church, Nature of God, Nature of Man | Tagged , , , , , , , | 64 Comments

Mormonism’s 4th Article of Faith

Posted on February 27, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

The December 2013 issue of the Mormon Church’s Ensign magazine contains an article by John Welch titled, “The Articles of Faith and the Life of Joseph Smith.” In this article, Dr. Welch goes through the 13 Articles of Faith (canonized in the Mormon scripture The Pearl of Great Price) to help readers see Joseph Smith’s life “in a meaningful framework.” By considering the historical events that accompanied the founding of Mormonism, today’s Mormons can better understand “some key doctrines of the restored gospel” as outlined by Joseph Smith in these Articles. To that end, Dr. Welch invites his readers to “consider some ways in which the Articles of Faith and the life of Joseph Smith are aligned.”

The Articles of Faith were first published in 1842, in the Mormon periodical Times and Seasons. They were taken from a letter that Joseph Smith had written in the spring of that year to John Wentworth, the editor of the Chicago Democrat268px-Joseph_Smith_Jr_Signature.svg. Nine years later, in 1851, these same Articles of Faith were included in The Pearl of Great Price, a collection of Joseph Smith’s writings that were not yet canonized. The Pearl of Great Price became a standard work (scripture) of the Mormon Church in 1880, making the Articles of Faith official doctrine of the Church from that time onward (Church History in the Fulness of Times, Religion 341-343, 257).

The Articles of Faith today are mostly unchanged from when Joseph Smith affirmed them in his letter to John Wentworth, but a significant change was made to Article 4 sometime between the 1888 and 1928 editions of The Pearl of Great Price.

Articles 3 and 4 as originally written by Joseph Smith, canonized as scripture, and declared “official doctrine” by the Mormon Church read as follows:

“We believe that, through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

“We believe that these ordinances are: First, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; Second, Repentance; Third, Baptism by immerssion for the remission of sins; Fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (The Pearl of Great Price, 1888, 121)

Joseph Smith’s declaration was that the salvation of mankind (on man’s part) was achieved by obedience to laws and four distinct ordinances of the gospel — specifically defined as faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Article of Faith 4 was changed in later years. Now the dual Articles read (additions in bold for clarity):

“We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

“We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Articles of Faith 3-4, The Pearl of Great Price)

PoGPTherefore, the doctrinal declaration in the 4th Article of Faith was changed. It no longer states that mankind may be saved by obedience to four specific ordinances of the gospel. Now mankind may be saved, it indicates, by obedience to an unspecified set of ordinances, with just the first of these being the four ordinances that previously comprised the whole requirement.

Marion Romney, then a member of the First Presidency speaking at General Conference in 1974, defined what the word “saved” means in the 3rd Article of Faith:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms as its Third Article of Faith…

“In these remarks I shall set forth some views of the church of Jesus Christ on this subject.

“Saved as here used means resurrected and returned as a sanctified, celestialized, immortal soul to the presence and society of God, there to pursue an endless course of eternal progress.” (“How Men Are Saved,” General Conference, October 1974)

When Joseph Smith first wrote the Articles of Faith in the spring of 1842, temple ordinances (endowments, eternal marriages, sealings) were not fully developed doctrines of the Church – they were not yet required for salvation. But that changed.

“…the ordinance of [temple] sealing is an absolute, and that without it there can be no salvation in the eternal world, no eternal life.” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Ordinances of the Gospel,” cited in Achieving a Celestial Marriage, 204)

“The temple blessings are as essential for each of us as our baptism. For this reason, we are to prepare ourselves that we may be clean to enter into the temple of God” (Robert D. Hales, “Temples are essential to eternal plan of happiness,” Church News, November 19, 2005, 5).

“Temple ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world are for the salvation and exaltation of God’s children. It is important that the saving ordinances not be altered or changed, because all of those who will be exalted, from the first man, Adam, to the last, must be saved on the same principles.” (Royden G. Derrick, Temples in the Last Days, 36)

“We must do more than just say we believe in Jesus Christ; we must follow him. All people, regardless of their level of righteousness, will be saved from death because of the Resurrection of Christ. However, in order to attain the highest degree of glory in the resurrection, we need to ‘come unto Christ, and be perfected in him’ (Moroni 10:32). We come unto Christ by having faith in him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, receiving other saving priesthood ordinances, obeying the commandments, and keeping the covenants we make with our Heavenly Father.” (Preparing for Exaltation Teacher’s Manual, 39)

“The Lord Himself has revealed what is essential for the salvation and exaltation of His children. One of these essentials is that temples are to be erected for the performance of ordinances that cannot be performed in any other place… All of these priesthood temple ordinances [i.e., baptism for the dead, endowments, celestial marriages and sealings] are essential for the salvation and exaltation of our Father in Heaven’s children.” (Howard W. Hunter, “A Temple-Motivated People,” Ensign, March 2004)

“All of our efforts in proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the Saints, and redeeming the dead lead to the holy temple. This is because the temple ordinances are absolutely crucial; we cannot return to God’s presence without them.” (Ibid.)

In 1842 Joseph Smith taught there were four ordinances required for the salvation of mankind; today the Mormon Church says these four ordinances are just the beginning.

It’s too bad that Dr. Welch’s December 2013 Ensign article reflected the modern version of the Articles of Faith rather than the Articles as Joseph Smith wrote them. Dr. Welch missed an opportunity to further enrich his theme of “[bringing] to light the main stages in Joseph Smith’s prophetic mission and inspired life” by neglecting the way in which today’s 4th Article of Faith and the life of Joseph Smith are historically unaligned.

—

For more information on the topic of salvation:
Introduction to Salvation at mrm.org
“Salvation” links page at mrm.org
One Door to Salvation by Charles Spurgeon

Posted in Mormon Scripture, Pearl of Great Price, Salvation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 95 Comments

Passing the Torch of Mormonism’s Historical Racisim

Posted on February 24, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

[In honor of Black History Month 2014, each Monday in February Mormon Coffee’s blog post has addressed a topic related to racism in Mormon history. Today is the final post in the series.]

Institutionalized racism in the Mormon Church spanned nearly 150 years. It began with the religion’s founding prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. Smith’s prophet-successor Brigham Young carried the torch for a few more decades and then passed it off to the next prophet, John Taylor. Taylor passed it to Wilford Woodruff, who gave it to Lorenzo Olympic_TorchSnow, who passed it to Joseph F. Smith, and on through the years, each successive prophet/president of the Mormon Church continuing the discrimination against Blacks throughout their tenure until Spencer W. Kimball put a stop to it in 1978.

Recently the Mormon Church published a statement on Race and the Priesthood on its website, in an effort to clarify where the church stands today in regards to its past institutionalized racism. The statement is undated and unsigned, which leaves some readers skeptical about the level of authority behind the statement, especially since it contradicts official Church statements of the past.

The First Presidency of the Mormon Church is the Church’s highest governing body, endowed with the greatest authority within the organization. It has, over the years, made declarations regarding the church’s official position on race issues. For example, in 1947 the First Presidency (George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay) wrote in part:

“Indeed, some of God’s children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed. We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does.

“Your position [that all God’s children stand equal in positions before Him in all things] seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the preexistence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore.

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.” (Letter to Dr. Lowry Nelson, July 17, 1947)

Twenty-two years after this declaration by the First Presidency, and just nine years before the institutionalized Mormon discrimination against Blacks was lifted, the First Presidency again clarified the Church’s position in relation to race. This 1969 Statement restated “the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church” as a unified voice, including the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Following is the statement in its entirety.

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

How do these two official statements of the First Presidency correspond to the most recent Mormon website proclamation that “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life”? The contradictions between the current statement and First Presidency proclamations of the past may lead to manifold conclusions, but one thing is certain: the actual history of institutionalized racism in the Mormon Church is being mendaciously rewritten.

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon History, Mormon Leaders | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 20 Comments

Why You Should Be Anti-Evil

Posted on February 20, 2014 by Aaron Shafovaloff

“Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” (Romans 12:9)

Why do translators choose a strong word for ἀποστυγοῦντες, like “abhor”?

It is based on στύγω, which means to hate. But it is intensified.

Quoting John Piper:

If there were a universe in which there was no evil that hurt people or dishonored Christ, there would be only love and no hate. There would be nothing to hate. But in a world like ours it is necessary not only that we love and hate, but that our love include hate.

Paul says, “Let love be genuine, abhorring what is evil.” One commentator calls this abhorring “an intense inward rejection.” It is rejection. It is inward. It is intense. And my point is that in this world love has to feel hate for evil. Since evil hurts people and dishonors God, you can’t claim to love people while coddling evil.

Don’t make the mistake of saying: the evil I cherish only hurts me, and so it is not unloving to others. That’s absolutely false (see 1 John 5:2 above). You were made to display the worth of Christ to others. That is what is good for them. That’s what it means to love them. But if you do things to yourself that damage your delight in Christ and your display of Christ, you sin against others and not just yourself. You rob them of what God made you to give them.

So I say again, love for others must hate evil. Because evil hurts others directly, and evil hurts others indirectly by hurting you. Evil obscures the beauty of Christ. And Christ is our greatest good. Our greatest joy.

Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments

If the Foundation is Rotten, All that Joseph Smith Built Tumbles

Posted on February 17, 2014 by Lynn K. Wilder

[In honor of Black History Month 2014, each Monday in February Mormon Coffee’s blog post will address a topic related to racism in Mormon history. Today guest blogger Lynn Wilder presents Part 3, the final installment of the series she began on February 3rd.]

HouseBuiltOnSandThe Bible invites people to “reason together,” (Isaiah 1:18) to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) against the Word of God (Acts 17:11). What is rotten at the foundation, at the root, and does not “bear good fruit” will be hewn down. Still LDS, I read the following and knew there was a problem with the foundation of Mormonism.

“Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Luke 3:9; Matt 3:10).

For biblical Christians, the Bible is the standard for measuring truth. For Mormons, truth comes from four standard works of scripture and the words of prophets. The LDS prophets will never lead one astray, never mislead the saints, I was taught when I was LDS.

“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” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff, p. 199).

“You can always trust the living prophets” (True to the Faith, 2004, p. 129).

There are many such quotes.

But, what if a Mormon prophet did lead the church astray? Well, one could say he was speaking as a man and simply made a mistake, like Dieter Uchtdorf proposed in his conference talk October 2013.

“And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.”

Okay, Mormon prophets are human and they make mistakes. It’s difficult for other Mormon prophets, seers, and revelators to tell when the prophets speak for God and when they err. Sometimes mistakes are made by 11 church presidents in a row: Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball as the recent statement on Race and the Priesthood on lds.org concedes. I get it. What about the mistakes of the founding prophet Joseph Smith?

What if a “mistake”—a false teaching—appeared over and over again from the establishment of the church in 1830 to 1978, for 148 years, in not just one but in several “official” places? What if it appeared in both the words of prophets and the words of other general authorities, say, when they spoke in conference? What if that “mistake” was still taught in two of the four standard works of Mormon scripture and is still there today? Now, what if that false teaching (e.g., racism) came from the founding prophet? Now that would be a problem, according to the Bible.

The LDS Church stands or falls on the foundation of Joseph Smith—his First Vision of the Father and Son with “glorified” bodies of flesh and bone, modern day revelation, the practice of polygamy, and “translated” scriptures with racial bias. This foundation rests in the arm of flesh (2 Chron. 32:8). One cannot be baptized into the LDS Church, receive the Mormon Holy Ghost, or work their way to eternal life with the Father and the Son without professing that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who restored Christ’s original church in these latter days. Jesus alone is not enough. Mormons must confess belief in Joseph Smith. Without this acknowledgement, they cannot be exalted to the highest heaven. Joseph is the foundational key to Mormonism.

Jesus is Enough

Simply, the Bible is clear.  Jesus is enough. He alone is the foundational cornerstone (Psalms 118:22; Matt 21:42). He alone is the mediator between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5). A prophet is no longer needed. God spoke through the prophets until John the Baptist (Luke 16:16). Then Jesus came and He as God spoke for Himself (Hebrews 1:1).

The Bible establishes if a foundation is rotten, the entire structure/organization/person/religion must go. Remember the house built on the sand?

“For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).

And the house on the sand washed away…

—

Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 1
Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 2

Posted in Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Mormon History, Mormon Leaders | Tagged , , , , | 182 Comments

Mormonism’s Scarlet Letter of Apostasy

Posted on February 13, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Last month (30 January 2014) Newsweek published an article about Mormons leaving the LDS Church. Though Journalist Hannah Miet writes about some of the difficulties people have had in leaving Mormonism, she really misses the depth of emotional struggles attendant with becoming ex-Mormon.

Scarlet-LetterUnfortunately, Ms. Miet devotes 25% of her article to something she treats as an amusing novelty: ex-Mormons learning to drink alcohol. And in so doing, she demonstrates that she really doesn’t get it.

The former Mormons interviewed for the article talked about their experiences as believing Mormons, as doubting Mormons, and as ex-Mormons. They told Ms. Miet things like:

“‘[Mormon] People intuitively know that first and foremost their primary identity is a nameless soldier in the army of Mormonism,’ said Chou… He stressed the importance of being ‘proactive’ in a state where many are scared to voice their doubts about the church, which has…a disciplinary council that can order an excommunication of any church member who strays, a modern-day scarlet letter that cuts a person off from all active LDS members.”

“‘It sounds crazy to outsiders, but simple facts have the power to shatter the world of a Mormon,’ he [Chou] says. ‘The more you discover…the more you are pushed closer and closer to this abyss and you don’t know what’s at the bottom of it.’”

“’I think everyone involved [in Post-Mormon support groups] feels more free to be who they are,’ Chou says, surveying the room. ‘One of the most harmful things about Mormonism is that it creates false [sense of] self in people and they have to live in that space. And they think that’s happiness. I did. I thought that was happiness. Once the veil lifts, you wake up and you just think, This is how life should be.’”

A non-Mormon social worker who counsels ex-Mormons in Salt Lake City also tried to help Ms. Miet understand some of the struggles doubting Mormons face in Utah:

“Deanna Rosen…did not come here to specialize in ex-Mormon issues. As soon as she moved to Utah from Texas, though, the doubters found their way to her earth-toned office. Rosen is open about her Jewish faith, which may have been a beacon for Mormons ashamed to discuss their doubts with faith-promoting counselors at LDS Family Services. Though Rosen insisted, ‘There isn’t a counselor in Utah who doesn’t get Mormons with questions,’ Rosen insists, adding that the ‘gateway drug’ out of Mormonism is Google.”

“Mormonism is an ‘all or nothing’ commitment, Rosen explains. ‘If Pandora’s box is opened regarding questioning one policy or mandate, it leads to more, because it’s all connected. It’s not like other religions, where you can accept some parts and reject other parts. You have to accept the whole kit and caboodle. You have to accept every [church-mandated] “calling.” You have to go to every three-hour church meeting. If I didn’t go [to synagogue] for six months, the rabbi would be like, “I am so happy to see you.” You can’t do that as a Mormon.’”

“Many of Rosen’s patients fear losing their jobs at Mormon-owned companies, where watercooler chatter revolves around bishops, youth groups and callings. ‘[Ex-Mormons] have to find new peers and new families, so to speak, and sometimes, new places of employment,’ she says. ‘Leaving the church is almost like going into the witness protection program.’”

Yet somehow the flavor of Ms. Miet’s article seems to convey the idea that post-Mormon support groups are really about nothing more than “recruiting” people to their way of thinking – and drinking.  She writes,

“As a Mormon missionary, Chou converted dozens of people in the Hawaiian Islands. Now, as self-proclaimed ‘PostMo’ in the Mormon world capital, he uses his recruitment training to get people out.

“McKinnon, an engineer for the Federal Aviation Administration, was doing her own brand of evangelizing by slipping an identical card into every locker in the women’s locker room. She recently printed 10,000 copies.”

And,

“Some former adherents act like soldiers for an ex-Mormon liberation army, seeking out the doubters within the church, extracting them, and bringing them to more tolerant territory. They plaster their calling cards all over…”

The “calling cards” Chou and McKinnon use simply say,

“Are you questioning the Mormon church? Thinking about leaving the Mormon church? Already left the Mormon church? YOU DON’T HAVE TO DO IT ALONE.”

not-alone-billboardMs. Miet reports that PostMormon.org also put up billboards. The billboards say,

“PostMormon.org: You are not alone.”

And ex-Mormon Becky McKinnon explains,

“We see that people really are trapped in [LDS]. What we’re here to do is to catch these people when they fall.”

Ms. Miet wrote the article. She could not have missed the kinds of words her interviewees used to describe living in and leaving the world of Mormonism. Things like:

  • Primary identity is a nameless soldier
  • Scared to voice their doubts
  • Facts have the power to shatter the world of a Mormon
  • Closer and closer to this abyss
  • False sense of self
  • Fear of losing their jobs
  • Like going into the witness protection program

It’s pretty clear that the former Mormons in Ms. Miet’s article have lived through some very difficult experiences. They understand the agony associated with discovering the truth about Mormonism. They have suffered through the fear and loneliness that comes with doubting a lifelong faith. They have lived the humiliation of the “scarlet letter” inflicted on many who leave the Mormon Church. And because of their experiences, they want to help the people who are now where they once were.

Ms. Miet doesn’t get it. The Post-Mormon message is not, “We can teach you how to order drinks at both bars and coffee shops!” The message is, “You are not alone. We offer you a safe and supportive community as you work through your fears and doubts — and beyond. Do not despair. There is life after Mormonism.”

We Christians here at Mormon Coffee long for former Mormons to not only recognize life after Mormonism, but to find the abundant life, the eternal life, that Jesus Christ — who is Himself the way, the truth, and the life — holds out as a gift for all who come to Him.

—

Struggling with your Mormonism? Consider Christianity.

—

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Culture, Personal Stories | Tagged , , , , , , , | 80 Comments

Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 2

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Lynn K. Wilder

[In honor of Black History Month 2014, each Monday in February Mormon Coffee’s blog post will address a topic related to racism in Mormon history. Today guest blogger Lynn Wilder presents Part 2 of the series she began last week.]

LDS author Stephen Taggart (Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins, 1970) writes that it was Joseph Smith who put all of the elements in place for the church to accept a priesthood restriction for blacks. After Joseph’s death, the church’s semi-official paper, Times and Seasons, printed in 1846 that the blood of Israel had exclusive rights to the priesthood, implying that other blood lines such as the blood of Canaanites, did not. Patriarchal blessings identified Mormons with the non-cursed tribe of Ephraim from the 1830s.

Although at least two black men, Elijah Abel ordained by Zebedee Coltrin and Walter Lewis ordained by William Smith, received the priesthood during Joseph’s lifetime, Joseph did not ordain them. Ordained in 1836, Elijah Abel could merely enter the Kirtland temple for foot washings and later baptisms for the dead. He was excluded from the Elijah AbelNauvoo endowment ritual. After Joseph died, hundreds of endowments occurred in the temple before the exodus, but Elijah Abel was not among them. Irrefutably according to Mormon doctrine, he needed to receive his temple endowments to enter the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom in a role greater than that of a servant. So did Jane Manning James, once Smith’s housekeeper. She pleaded with church leaders for decades to give her permission to take out her endowments.  Smith did not offer the privilege to her, nor did Brigham Young after him, but in 1894 she was allowed to be sealed to Joseph Smith’s family as a servant.

Taggart and Fawn Brodie (No Man Knows My History, 1945) as well as some non-LDS historians suggested that the Mormon Church’s anti-abolitionist, proslavery attitude began in Missouri in the 1830s. Missouri was a slave state and suspicious that the incoming “Saints” might allow free blacks to come to Missouri. The LDS church took a stand, non-LDS historians say, for survival. In the Messenger and Advocate (vol. 2, no. 7, p. 300, April 1836), Smith declares that slavery was ordained by God and consistent with the gospel of Christ.

“…we unhesitatingly say…the project of emancipation is destructive to our government, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish!-And insensible to feeling must be the heart, and low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a NEGRO!

We entreat our brethren of the Eastern, the free States, the Canadas, and all, wherever they may be found, not to be surprised or astonished at this step, which we have thus publicly taken: were they acquainted with the present condition of the slave, they would see that they could not be freed, and we enjoy our present, civil and social societies. And further, that this matter cannot be discussed without exciting the feelings of the black population, and cause them to rise, sooner or later, and lay waste and desolate many parts of the Southern country.

This cannot be done without consigning to the dust thousands of human beings. And the bare reflection of being instrumental in causing unprovoked blood to flow, must shock the heart of every saint.”

Whether or not a few black men received the priesthood, they were denied the blessings of the temple endowments and sealings. Whether or not the racist posture coalesced in Missouri, it originated in the scriptures and the teachings that Joseph Smith himself brought forth. These are the very scriptures that the LDS church teaches came from God Himself and are “utterly reliable” and “pure truth.”

—

Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 1
If the Foundation is Rotten, All that Joseph Smith Built Tumbles (aka Part 3)

Posted in Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Mormon History, Mormon Leaders, Mormon Scripture | Tagged , , , , , | 49 Comments

Mormon Prophet Summoned to British Court

Posted on February 6, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Yesterday (5 February 2014) The Arizona Republic reported:

“The leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been ordered to appear before a magistrate in England on fraud charges filed by a disaffected ex-Mormon who disputes fundamental teachings of the religion, according to documentation obtained by The Arizona Republic.”

ThomasMonsonThomas Monson has been summoned to appear in a British court on 14 March 2014 to “answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue and have been used to secure financial contributions.” This is a criminal complaint filed by ex-Mormon atheist Tom Phillips. The Arizona Republic reports,

“Phillips’ complaint is based on the Fraud Act of 2006, a British law that prohibits false representations made to secure a profit, or to cause someone to lose money. “Conviction may carry a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

“The summonses were signed on Friday by Judge Elizabeth Roscoe. A court official in London confirmed to The Republic on Tuesday the issuance of the paperwork, which directs Monson to answer allegations that untrue religious precepts were used to obtain tithes comprising 10 percent of church members’ incomes.”

According to the summons, these “representations” that were made to the victims (i.e., things that the Church knew were “untrue or misleading”) include:

  • The Book of Abraham as a literal translation of Egyptian papyri
  • The Book of Mormon as an ancient historical record, the most correct book on earth, translated from ancient gold plates
  • Native Americans as descendants from an Israelite family that left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.
  • Joseph and Hyrum Smith killed as martyrs because they would not deny their testimony of the Book of Mormon
  • The Nauvoo Expositor was necessarily destroyed because it printed lies about Joseph Smith
  • No death on earth prior to 6,000 years ago
  • All humans alive today descended from two people who lived 6,000 years ago

President Monson must make this court appearance. The summons warns, “Failure to attend may result in a warrant being issued for your arrest.”

As The Arizona Republic reported, Tom Phillips wrote,

“These are not statements of mere ‘beliefs’ or opinions or theories. They are made as actual facts and their truthfulness can be objectively tested with evidence.”

Most people think that this case will not get very far. Indeed, it may not go any further than this summons before it is dismissed. The Mormon Church seems to see it as nothing more than a nuisance:

“’The Church occasionally receives documents like this that seek to draw attention to an individual’s personal grievances or to embarrass Church leaders,’ said Eric Hawkins, a spokesman at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City, who said he had not seen the legal document. ‘These bizarre allegations fit into that category.’”

But a comment posted at exmormon reddit suggests that Mr. Phillips might have something very specific in mind by instigating this lawsuit.

“As an attorney, I would be very surprised if Phillips’ legal team hasn’t already thought several more steps down the road. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t care what any church official said about whether they truly believed the church’s claims, or whether they claim the freedom of religious belief. That doesn’t matter. That wouldn’t be the goal. Document discovery would be the goal. This case involves claims of historical fact that are falsifiable. So the question would be, did the Brethren have access to internal information showing those claims to be false, or likely to be false? In a civil suit against a corporation, executives can claim ignorance, but that opens the door to internal records and communication to see whether the executives are being truthful, or whether they should have known of wrongdoing given the internal information that they had access to. This kind of discovery is done all the time.

“So what could they conceivably go for? Oh, just all of the First Presidency’s correspondence, meeting minutes, diary entries, archives, records, writings, studies, etc. Pretty much anything in the First Presidency’s vault. The argument to get access and make the church produce it is easy: there might be information showing either that a) Monson and the Brethren and their predecessors knew that the claims weren’t true, or b) should have known that their claims weren’t true, or c) withheld factual information that could have materially altered the decision-making of converts and members if that information had been disclosed. It’s obviously relevant to the question of what information they had through the years to either support or weaken their claims to the church’s veracity. At this moment, I can’t imagine a strong argument to protect it from discovery. I don’t see a relevant privilege at issue. The church could claim that it is sensitive material, but they would then have to explain why. The ‘why’ would have to be an argument that the disclosure of such evidence might be embarrassing or damaging to the church or its membership, but that goes to the fraud claim (i.e., if there’s something so embarrassing or earth shattering that the First Presidency has been hiding because it could damage members’ belief in the enterprise, that is fraud by concealment). Moreover, the argument would be made that if the Brethren truly believe it all, then the material in their possession should support their belief and they should be happy to disclose it to the world…

“In my mind, the document discovery is the banquet they’re going for. This personal summons to Monson is just setting the table…”

Joseph F. SmithWhile it is unlikely that the Mormon prophet will, in the end, actually be questioned under oath in an open court on these historical claims, that scenario is not without precedent. In 1904 LDS Prophet and President Joseph F. Smith was questioned during the senate hearings for Mormon senator Reed Smoot. During the three days he was interrogated, President Smith admitted to several surprising facts including: the violation of federal laws in the continuation of the practice of polygamy by Church leaders, years after the Manifesto supposedly discontinued it; President Smith’s own disregard of both the Manifesto and the law, demonstrated in his fathering of eleven children by five wives since 1890; and that he, though a prophet, had not received any revelations up to that point in his life.

However, during these hearings President Smith’s testimony also included “false statements” and

“evasive answers, half-truths, and responses wherein he claimed not to remember some of his own statements, meetings he had had with church leaders, the words of fellow LDS authorities, and documents circulating throughout the church. He even denied knowledge of the beliefs and practices of LDS missionaries and elders.” (Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, 338)

It will be interesting to see how this British summons plays out. Though people are divided on whether anything will come of it, most agree that the world will not see a “restoration” of the way ancient prophets answered their accusers. The attorney’s comment from exmormon reddit that I quoted above concluded:

“Peter stood in front of the Sanhedrin and declared with boldness that ‘by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.’ Paul stood before King Agrippa and declared ‘I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.’ But now, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, the ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’ of God’s alleged one true church will send their lawyers to object, deny, tie legal knots, and build a trans-Atlantic wall of weasel words.”

As stated by another commenter elsewhere, with a Mormon twist and perhaps a bit more succinctly,

“I do not think we will see Abinidi boldly standing before King Noah this time. God uses lawyers in the latter days.”

—

Find continuing information on this news story at MormonThink.com.

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Leaders, Prophets, Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry | Tagged , , , , , | 112 Comments