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

[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 kicks off the series.]

Delbert L. Stapley

Delbert L. Stapley

In January of 1964, LDS apostle Delbert L. Stapley wrote to LDS Michigan Governor George Romney urging him not to support the Civil Rights Act; it would bring the integration of blacks. Of course, the apostle pointed out that he did not speak for the church. Stapley wrote that three U. S. Presidents and a friend who had disagreed with the Lord’s voice on this matter met an untimely demise.  He justified his counsel to Romney with the words of Joseph Smith from two sources. Here’s a sampling:

“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 270)

“…the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will it be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come…” (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 438)

According to these passages, Joseph supported equalization but not integration. He wrote that the sons of Canaan (descendants of Cain) were cursed. It would take an act of God to remove that curse. The implication is it was an act of God that placed the curse in the first place.

In February of 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination according to race, religion, or sex. Four years later, Dr. Martin Luther King—pastor and Nobel Peace prize winner–was martyred for his role as a leader in the movement. After his death, black preachers continued to call for full integration of blacks into white restrooms, buses, schools, jobs, and neighborhoods. A full ten years passed after King’s death until the Mormon priesthood, eternal marriage, and temple endowments were offered to the few black church members. Prior to 1978, blacks could only hope to be servants to the more righteous in the hereafter.

Roots from Joseph Smith

Brigham and JosephTo imply, as the recent LDS Race and Priesthood statement  on lds.org does, that racial bias began in the Mormon Church with second prophet Brigham Young is inaccurate. Although the priesthood ban for blacks was not in force during the founding prophet’s lifetime, the seeds of its justification were planted by Joseph. The Book of Mormon (1830) teaches that dark skin is the result of a curse for sin. The Book of Moses (1832-33) teaches that blacks descended from Cain. In the 1835 Book of Commandments, Joseph Smith added a statement (now D&C 134:12) that the Saints pledged not to “interfere with bond-servants…such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust…”

Later in the Book of Abraham (1842), Joseph introduced the idea of “the right of Priesthood.”  In other words, some could have it; some were restricted. Pharaoh was said to come from the cursed Canaanite lineage that could not have the priesthood.

Abraham 1:21 “…king of Egypt [Pharaoh] was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.”

Abraham 1:27 “…Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood…”

It was Joseph Smith who taught that dark skin was a curse from God for iniquity. He was the one whose Book of Abraham taught that certain blood lines were denied the priesthood power of God.  It was Joseph who supported segregation and did not want men to interfere with slavery. The 1842 Book of Abraham and the Southern converts to the church were the final nails in the coffin for any abolitionist teachings from Joseph.

Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 2
If the Foundation is Rotten, All that Joseph Smith Built Tumbles (aka Part 3)

Posted in Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Mormon Leaders, Mormon Scripture | Tagged , , , , , , | 55 Comments

Mormon Apostle on Sins of Omission

It has been awhile since this 5-minute video was posted at its Deseret Book website, but it has recently been making some waves in the blogosphere. In this Q&A with a Mormon apostle, a young LDS boy asks David Bednar, “If you, like, stop reading the scriptures, what is the best way, how is the best way, to get back into reading them?” Dr. Bednar takes this opportunity to provide an object lesson for his audience.

Please watch “The Lord’s Side of the Line”:

I am troubled by this video.

Maybe it’s my mother’s heart that makes me feel sorry for the little boy as he struggles to hold back his tears.

Maybe it’s the way Dr. Bednar’s illustration feels like a threat, similar to a misguided parent who tells her child, “If you get out of bed the boogeyman will get you!”

Maybe it’s the way the lesson communicates to the little boy that he will never be safe.

Maybe it’s Dr. Bednar’s implied message that if a person makes a “mistake” and crosses the line there is no way back.

Maybe it’s the bottom-line Mormon teaching that staying on the Lord’s side is 100% about behavior and 0% about Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

Maybe it’s Dr. Bednar’s total neglect of any mention of God’s love and mercy — the one thing that would comfort this frightened little boy, and the one thing that everyone needs most of all (Titus 3:3-7).

I am troubled by this video. What do you think of it?

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Culture | Tagged , , , , | 128 Comments

Say you know, even if you don’t know?

“Quite simply, you can’t have a testimony until you bear it to someone. At the moment that you tell someone that you know X is true – even if you don’t know it yet – the Spirit will testify to you that it is indeed true. It may sound a little iffy, but I can tell you that it’s true. I had the same issue as you did at one point. I wasn’t sure that the Church was true, but I wanted a testimony. I got up in testimony meeting (the same time that I described earlier, in fact) and told everyone that I ‘believed’ the Church was true. I prefaced it by telling everyone that I didn’t know for sure yet, but I had heard that this was the way to find out for sure, so I was going to give it a shot. Sure enough, it worked. The Spirit told me that the Church was indeed true. In fact, the Spirit is telling me again that the Church is true as I’m writing this response. It’s really cool. I suggest that you try it for yourself. If you want to know for sure that the Church is true, tell someone else.” (“The Board”, 9/14/2005)

Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments

Glenn Beck Perpetuates Mormon Myths

Back in September of 2012 Blaze TV aired a special program wherein Glenn Beck sought to dispel the ‘biggest Mormon myths.” I watched the first segment on YouTube where Mr. Beck answered the viewer-submitted question, “We often hear the word polygamy and Mormonism coupled together. Why?” Mr. Beck’s response was quite disappointing. Rather than dispel Mormon myths, he perpetuated them with gusto.

Brigham Young with some of his 56 wives

Brigham Young with some of his 56 wives

Mr. Beck began his response by taking a couple of minutes to mock FLDS polygamists and criticize the media, but then he got serious.  Acknowledging that early Mormons did engage in polygamy, he said, “Why did they practice it?” For the following six minutes Mr. Beck laid out a story rife with historical inaccuracies and myths. Here are a few:

Mr. Beck said you can’t understand why Mormons practiced polygamy unless you know the story of the Book of Mormon and that many people died for it – “to have and to read and to share it.” (2:40) And, “In the 1800s people were dying because of the Book of Mormon.” (3:00)

This is pure conjecture; as far as I know, no such historical evidence exists. Mormons have died and continue to die, of course. But there is nothing to tie Mormon deaths directly to having, reading and sharing the Book of Mormon. Mormon persecution was not primarily about the doctrines of the faith, but rather due to politics, finances, polygamy and societal conflict.

Mr. Beck states that Mormons had been driven out of New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. (3:35)

Nope. Joseph Smith decided to leave New York for Ohio because more members of the Church lived in Ohio and it was a stronger base for Church operation. Joseph Smith decided to leave Ohio for Missouri because his failed banking venture had resulted in numerous lawsuits from bilked investors. Joseph owed more money than he could repay, so he snuck out of Kirtland under cover of night, and headed to Missouri; faithful Church members followed him. In Missouri, as Mr. Beck said, the Mormons were forced to leave and found temporary peace in Nauvoo, Illinois. A few years later, with Brigham Young now leading the Church, the Mormons agreed to leave the state after continuing conflicts between Mormons and non-Mormons. However, according to Brigham, they already had plans in place to move west – plans they had made before any “recent disturbances” with the non-Mormons of the area.

Mr. Beck talked about the Missouri “Extermination Order” which, according to Beck, “ordered that all Mormons should be exterminated – killed – you were legally able, according to this order from the Governor, to kill a Mormon. You find out somebody is a Mormon, kill him. Or, drive him from the state.” (3:50)

The so-called Extermination Order, while definitely deplorable, was not what Mr. Beck claimed it to be. Mormons love to perpetuate this particular set of myths. In truth, Governor Boggs’ Executive Order No. 44 sought to avoid bloodshed, not legalize it. As a military order, it called for the Missouri militia to “exterminate” — that is, “remove” — Mormons from their homes and force them to leave the state. This was clearly understood in 1838. It was never “legal” to kill Mormons in Missouri.

Mr. Beck said that this was unique in American history – no one had ever been exterminated before. (3:42)

Between the years of 1830-1838 various Native American tribes had been forcibly removed from their lands at least five times. The concept of people-group removal, noted Mormon historian William Hartley, “was not new” in 1838 Missouri.

Trail of Tears, Robert Lindneux

Trail of Tears, Robert Lindneux

Mr. Beck said that the Mormons who lived in Caldwell County, Missouri were forced to sign over their property to the Missourians and then were ordered to pay for the military campaign against them. (4:40)

In fact, the deed of trust (for the purpose of paying the expenses of the war) signed by the Mormons after their surrender in Missouri was quickly deemed illegal and was therefore never enforced. The Mormons retained ownership of their property after the war, and many of them sold or traded it to help pay for their expenses in moving to Illinois. However, they did often sell it for much less than it was worth.

Mr. Beck said that the Mormons left Missouri for Nauvoo, “then the mobs came in and burned down that city as well.” (5:40)

Actually, “the mobs” never burned down any Mormon city. After some years in Illinois, troubles between Mormons and non-Mormons started up again, and both sides in the conflict engaged in raiding, plundering and intimidating one another. These raids included burnings of crops and outlying buildings, but the city of Nauvoo was never burned down.

When the Mormons began to leave Nauvoo, according to Mr. Beck, “most of the men were dead.” (6:00)

No, this is not true. There has never been an official accounting of the Mormons who died in the Missouri war/exodus (to the best of my knowledge, none but the Smith brothers died in the Nauvoo conflicts), but according to Mormon historical sources, the number of Mormon deaths was somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 souls. These were sad, tragic and needless deaths; nevertheless, these deaths do not represent “most of the men.” Furthermore, a few seconds after making his nonsensical claim, Mr. Beck mentioned the Mormon Battalion. If “most of the men were dead” as he claimed, where did the 500 battalion volunteers come from?

Finally Mr. Beck returned to the question of polygamy. He said, “there weren’t a lot of dudes left,” so one reason polygamy was instituted was to repopulate and to care for women and children who were left alone. (6:55)

Given the historical fact that relatively few Mormon men had died during this turbulent time, Bill McKeever asks a good question: “Are we really to believe God decided to alter the one man, one woman tradition of marriage embraced by much of the western world because fewer than a hundred women living in 19th century America lost their husbands to indefensible acts of persecution or while relocating to the Salt Lake Valley?”

Mr. Beck claimed that only 5% of Mormons practiced polygamy. (7:30)

Five percent is a great underestimate. Author B. Carmon Hardy put Mormon polygamy numbers in perspective: “Recent studies suggest that the number of Mormons living in polygamous families between 1850 and 1890, while varying from community to community and year to year, averaged between 20 and 30 percent. In some cases the proportion was higher. The practice was especially extensive with Mormon leaders, both locally and those presiding over the entire church. These calculations would indicate that, during the entire time the principle was practiced, the number of men, women, and children living in polygamous households amounted to tens of thousands” (Solemn Covenant, 17).

This Blaze TV program dedicated to the so-called dispelling of Mormon myths is so disappointing. What I’ve addressed here is not exhaustive; it does not attempt to deal with all the myths Glenn Beck perpetuated in his “myth buster” segment on polygamy. But one thing is clear: Mr. Beck really had no interest in setting the record straight.

In Sacred LonelinessIn addition to sustaining long-held, faith-promoting myths so beloved by Mormons, Mr. Beck completely ignored the doctrinal — and darker — side of Mormon polygamy. He never mentioned that Joseph Smith claimed to have received a revelation in which Mormon men were commanded to take multiple wives, and wives were commanded to accept it. Mr. Beck didn’t mention men marrying women who already had living husbands (this fact would not fit with the assertion that polygamy was instituted for the care of women who had lost their husbands). He did not mention the fact that often, plural wives were not adequately cared for by their husbands and lived in poverty while trying to support their children on their own. Mr. Beck never mentioned that Mormon leaders taught polygamy was “was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come” (First Presidency, “Petition For Amnesty,” December 19,1891).

The LDS Church no longer allows members to practice polygamy in this life, yet it once encouraged it, while claiming God commanded it, and required obedience to it. Explaining these things to those who wonder why Mormonism and polygamy are linked together is the only way to truthfully dispel Mormon myths.

Sources and additional information (in no particular order):

Posted in Early Mormonism, Misconceptions, Mormon History, Polygamy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

What Really Happened at the Council of Nicaea?

On MRM’s February, 2013 trip to Turkey we stopped in Iznik – ancient Nicaea. Standing near the very spot where (it is believed) the Council of Nicaea was held in 325 AD, Pastor Cory Anderson (Shadow Mountain Church, West Jordan, Utah) explained the historical context of the Council and the importance of the Trinitarian doctrine it affirmed.

Pastor Anderson’s teaching in Nicaea (Iznik) is presented in the following 21-minute video. Because of wind and technical issues, the quality is not always the best, but the quality of the teaching is well worth the cost of putting up with the video’s mildly annoying imperfections.

Please watch the full video before joining the conversation on this thread.

 

Posted in Christianity, Nature of God | Tagged , , | 126 Comments

Mormon Historian Responds to Tough Questions

On December 16, 2013 the reddit exmormon forum held an AMA (Ask Me Anything) Q&A with highly respected Mormon historian Richard Bushman. Following are a few forum-member questions, along with Dr. Bushman’s answers (in no particular order). You will also find a few excerpts from a lengthy statement Dr. Bushman addressed to the forum members.

Q: “How much of an impact do you think that Sidney Rigdon’s Campbellite ideas haveon modern LDS theology? Did he significantly alter Mormonism after he joined, or did he just find a group that already taught a lot of the things he believed?”

Joseph's First Peepstone

by grindael

Dr. Bushman: “Joseph Smith was very eclectic. He drew upon ideas from all over, including Masonic ritual. I am not aware of source criticism of Rigdon’s influence, but I am inclined to think it was fairly large. It is quite possible that the idea of Restoration came from him. Restoration in the Book of Mormon refers to the restoration of Israel, the return of Israel to its favored place in God’s eyes, not the restoration of the New Testament church. Rigdon who was a restorationist along with Campbell could very well have turned Joseph’s thinking in that direction. I also think he may have been responsible for the phrase “creeds are an abomination.” That was [a] hobby horse of Alexander Campbell’s. Since Rigdon was involved in writing Joseph Smith’s 1838 history, he may have been one to introduce that language into the account of the First Vision.”

Dr. Bushman: “I have read through the imposing array of questions posed over the past week and hardly know how to begin. They are pointed, relevant, sincere, and deserve more of a reply than I can possibly manage. I will do what I can during our open chat hour on Monday, but for now I would like to say something about my beliefs as I have been currently voicing them. A few weeks ago during one of the seminars that Terryl and Fiona Givens and I have been offering for people working through their doubts and questions, an old friend sat me down during the lunch break, looked me in the eye and asked, ‘Richard, do you believe Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son in the grove?’ I said of course and the moment passed, but his question lingered on and moved me to think again about what I do believe about the founding stories.

The First Visions

The First Visions

“I am very much impressed by Joseph Smith’s 1832 History account of his early visions. This is the one partially written in his own hand and the rest dictated to Frederick G. Williams. I think it is more revealing than the official account presumably written in 1838 and contained in the Pearl of Great Price. We don’t know who wrote the 1838 account. Joseph’s journal indicates that he, Sidney Rigdon, and George Robinson collaborated on beginning the history in late April, but we don’t know who actually drafted the history. It is a polished narrative but unlike anything Joseph ever wrote himself. The 1832 history we know is his because of the handwriting. It comes rushing forth from Joseph’s mind in a gush of words that seem artless and uncalculated, a flood of raw experience. I think this account has the marks of an authentic visionary experience. There is the distance from God, the perplexity and yearning for answers, the perplexity, and then the experience itself which brings intense joy, followed by fear and anxiety. Can he deal with the powerful force he has encountered? Is he worthy and able? It is a classic announcement of a prophet’s call, and I find it entirely believable.”

Dr. Bushman: “…I am also impressed by the Book of Mormon. It is riddled with nineteenth-century Protestant theology and phrasing, but still is an incredible narrative of a civilization’s rise and fall…”

Dr. Bushman: “So what it comes down to is that I believe in the founding events. I think of them as the foundation of my faith. But they are the foundation, and I do not live in the cellar. I live in the rooms built on these events, the way of life, the attitudes, the institutions, the relationships, the experiences they support. This is what I meant when I spoke to Anselm Min, the Catholic theologian at Claremont Graduate School where Claudia and I taught for three years. Anselm took me to lunch soon after we arrived at Claremont and bluntly asked me how I could believe in Joseph Smith. My immediate response was that when I lived in the Mormon way I became the kind of man I wanted to be. Those words summed up a lot—my sense of having God’s spirit when I needed it, the salutary discipline of Mormon life, the friendships and commonalities of a Mormon ward, the requirement of unselfish service, the valuation of family, the tempering of pride and fear—a host of things. Like many people, I wrestle with demons. I frequently feel inadequate to my responsibilities. At the same time, I know I can be better, and when I live the Mormon way, I am lifted up. I see things more clearly. I can figure out how I really feel. I know how to relate to my wife and children and colleagues. I am temperate, incisive, generous, and focused. On bad days, Claudia and I often say we are out of sync with the universe. Over the many years I have been in the Church, I find that following the Mormon path puts me back in sync. I don’t use the word ‘know’ a lot, but I do know I am a better person for being a Mormon.”

Q: “You said that your testimony was somewhat mystical. Can you expand on this? What does it mean to have a mystical testimony? You said that you believed the Book of Mormon was literal history. How does this literal belief in the Book of Mormon relate to your mystical testimony? Do you have a mystical testimony that the Book of Mormon is literally true? Can you clarify what you believe about the historicity Book or Mormon?”

Dr. Bushman: “I enjoyed our conversation at the Huntington very much. It is hard to remember all that transpired, however, and I don’t remember talking about a mystical testimony. It is not a word I ordinarily use. As a young man in the mission field I did pray very hard about the Book of Mormon and came to feel that it was right. By that I meant everything seemed to fall into place. But that came after a lot of thinking and questioning. My conclusion was something like what we mean when we say something is a good fit. My thoughts and feelings came together. The question of BOM Historyhistoricity is complicated. I suppose I come down in something like a Blake Ostler position; the book is a melding. The fact is there is a lot of Christian theology couched in nineteenth century language in the book, not what you find in ancient Hebrew texts. It is possible there was more Christianity in antiquity than we think; Margaret Barker’s work points in that direction. Or it is possible that translation involved taking ancient language and giving it modern Christian meanings, as Paul and Christ use Hebrew texts for their purposes. Since the book was intended for a nineteenth-century audience, the translation employed nineteenth-century language, not just occasional words, but large bodies of thought. I don’t think this question is settled yet, even among Mormons.”

Q: “Problem with Anthon’s story. How could he have translated Reformed Egyptian when Egyptian had just barely been translated a few years earlier in France? Why would he lie about his abilities here when he had an otherwise upright career?”

Dr. Bushman: “He could not have translated Egyptian, and certainly not ‘reformed Egyptian.’ This story is garbled and confused in many respects, and I have found no way of straightening it out.”

Q: “Was Joseph Smith just simply (and sincerely?) wrong about the Book of Abraham? If so, what does that say about the Book of Mormon?”

Dr. Bushman: “I think he was sincerely wrong about the contents of the scrolls. He thought they were the writings of Abraham and Joseph and seems to have been wrong on that score. (There is still an argument that Abraham’s writings appeared on parts of the scroll we do not have.) I don’t think he was necessarily wrong about the English text. It does have marks of coming from the tradition of Abrahamic writings. Abraham and the Book of Mormon are alike in that both came by way of inspiration rather than literal translation. Joseph did not look at the plates as he translated, and he did not understand the Egyptian on the scrolls.”

In these few comments Dr. Bushman has clarified Mormon historical events as informed by his scholarly training and research:

  • Joseph Smith drew on many sources as he crafted Mormonism. Two prominent foundational ideas of the Mormon faith likely came via Sidney Rigdon’s influence: Restoration and “creeds are an abomination.”
  • The official 1838 account of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, though attributed to Joseph Smith, was not actually written by him (though he may have contributed to it). [Note: Several points of the 1832 account are at odds with the 1838 official account.]
  • The Book of Mormon is “riddled” with nineteenth-century Protestant theology.
  • Rather than affirming the appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith (stated in the 1838 First Vision account but not in the 1832 account), Dr. Bushman affirms a personal belief in what he somewhat ambiguously calls the “founding events” of Mormonism.
  • The historicity of the Book of Mormon is “complicated.” Rather than what one would expect to find in an ancient Hebrew text, the book is a “melding,” filled with large bodies of Christian theology and thought.
  • Joseph Smith’s canonized story of the Anthon transcript (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:61-65) is “garbled and confused” with no evident way to resolve it.
  • Joseph Smith was “sincerely wrong” about the content of the Book of Abraham scrolls, mistaking it for the writings of Abraham.
  • The Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon are not literal translations; Joseph Smith did not look at the plates as he “translated,” and he could not understand Egyptian.

I very much appreciate Dr. Bushman’s candid responses to these tough questions, but I’m saddened by his decision to be a Mormon because it’s a “good fit” for him, because he feels like he’s a better man as a member of the Mormon Church. Dr. Bushman is happy to be a Mormon, happy to live his life according to the dictates of Mormonism. But this life is fleeting. When he stands before his Creator, Dr. Bushman’s “better” will not be good enough (Romans 3:10-12). His own righteousness (and this goes for all people), though perhaps impressive to us, will be as filthy rags before Holy God (Isaiah 64:6). Dr. Bushman, I plead with you to have the courage to forsake the “good fit” of Mormonism for the living water of Christ. May He become your hope, your righteousness, your all-in-all (Philippians 3:8-9, 14).

Posted in Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Mormon History, Mormon Scripture, Pearl of Great Price | Tagged , , , , , , , | 37 Comments

“Some have claimed that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Christian church.”

A few weeks ago Larry Richman at LDS Media Talk (“not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”) brought up the persistent question, “Are Mormons Christian?” After having affirmed that Mormons say they are Christians, and having provided some reasons to support that position, Mr. Richman wrote,BibleCorrected

“In recent decades, however, some have claimed that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Christian church.”

I don’t know if Mr. Richman meant his statement to convey the idea that Mormonism’s designation as a non-Christian religion is something relatively new — only asserted in recent decades — or not, but that’s how his claim sounded to me. If that’s what he meant, Mr. Richman was wrong.

While not specifically stating that Mormonism was not Christian, in the late 1800s Baptists missionaries to Mormons described the Mormon religion with statements like these:

“But why does Utah, why does this Eden of Salt Lake City, so especially need the gospel?  Because, as in that Eden of old, the trail and the slime of the serpent are there, and no one but the ‘man child,’ ‘the seed of the woman who should bruise the serpent’s head’ by the power of the gospel, can destroy this work of Satan.” (Rev. S. Graves, The Baptist Home Mission Monthly, quoted here.)

“Mormonism is a strange compound of Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism; of saintliness, sensuality, and superstition; of the devout and the diabolical. It is not all evil.  A system all evil couldn’t have the power and hold this has.  There is enough of good with the evil to make it a masterpiece of the deceiver.” (ibid.)

“ . . . much has been  said and written of late concerning the religious condition of Utah, but only by personal contact and observation can we truly appreciate the appalling evils of Mormonism.  Only as we try to win its adherents to the truth can we measure the intensity of the fanaticism.  Their system combines in one strong bond almost every evil that can control a soul.  The basest passions, the strongest prejudices, the densest ignorance, all oppose the entrance of truth. “ (Rev. Richard Hartley, The Home Mission Monthly, quoted here.)

“Salt Lake City has a population of 25,000, and of this number, from 18,000 to 20,000 are Mormons.  Of course so great a preponderance in point of numbers gives to the Mormon Church a growing influence.  Everything large and grand is Mormon.  The large banks, stores, school and Sunday congregations are Mormon. Green Snake Mormons make the laws, collect the taxes, try the criminals, and manage the schools.  And what is this Mormon power?  Are its heart-beats in sympathy with our institutions?  Are its teachings and practices in keeping with American ideas?  No, it is a despotism in the heart of a republic, a hierarchy in the midst of a free church, and a form of Oriental barbarism in the lap of Christian civilization.  Organized upon falsehood, its columns filled from the ranks of ignorance and superstition, and led on by artful and cunning priests, and tolerates practices worthy of Tartars and Turks.” (Rev. D. Spencer, The Home Mission Monthly, quoted here.)

Baptists didn’t think too highly of Mormonism 120 years ago. But they weren’t the only ones. Also in the late 1800s Rev. R.G. McNiece, who had pastored the First Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City for twenty years, wrote,

“The Mormon System is thoroughly anti-Christian…Mormonism is a deliberate counterfeit of the Christian religion, intended to deceive the ignorant…Mormonism tries to palm off on the world a counterfeit Bible…Mormonism imposes upon the people a counterfeit priesthood…Mormonism imposes upon the people a counterfeit group of apostles” (Mormonism: Its Origin, Characteristics, and Doctrines, quoted here.)

And at a General Conference in 1898 Mormon Apostle Abraham O. Woodruff noted:

“I have in my pocket a slip of paper clipped from the Portland Oregonian of March 28th, giving the opinion of one Mr. Stone, the secretary of the Young Men’s Christian association. His comments are very much of the character I have mentioned. He says that the Mormons who have been members of his association have not been permitted to vote or hold office because they are not considered as Christians.” (Conference Report, April 1898)

Twenty years earlier, in 1877, Brigham Young acknowledged that non-Mormons in America did not view Mormons as redeemed Christians but rather as a people needing to hear God’s truth:

“You will probably have what is called a Christian Church here; they will not admit that we are Christians, but they cannot think us further from the plan of salvation as revealed from heaven than we know them to be, so we are even on that ground, as far as it goes.” (Journal of Discourses 14:196)

From Brigham Young’s remark it is evident that “some have claimed that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Christian church” for at least thirteen of the past “recent decades.” But if we look across the pond to England where Mormons were proselytizing in 1838, we find this from “An Impartial Observer”:

“I cannot, without deep regret, witness the counteracting influence of certain heresies and dogmas which are now so industriously propagated, chiefly among the more illiterate portion of the inhabitants… the Mormonites introduce themselves under the specious pretence of superior sanctity and religious knowledge, and by this means artfully contrive to pass off a base counterfeit for genuine Christianity.” (Preston Chronicle, 18 August 1838, quoted in The Guardian, 24 July 2012.)

For no fewer than seventeen and a half decades non-Mormons have expressed publicly that Mormonism is not genuine or authentic Christianity. Any suggestion that this is a recent development is mistaken.

It has been my observation that in more recent years, inclusivism, political correctness, and an extensive LDS PR campaign has resulted in many, whether by design or error, claiming Mormonism is Christian – even though Mormonism continues to embrace the same heretical doctrines that earned it the epithet “counterfeit Christianity” over one hundred seventy-five years ago.

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, Christianity, Misconceptions | Tagged , , , , | 120 Comments

Are Racist LDS Scriptures Still Deemed “Utterly Reliable” and “Pure Truth”? Part 2

ThomasMonsonWhat do LDS Church leaders have to say about the reliability and accuracy of their own scriptures?

According to LDS leaders, Mormon scriptures are “utterly reliable” and “pure truth.”  The current prophet, President Monson, declared on the official church website lds.org (underline added):

“The words of truth and inspiration found in our four standard works are prized possessions to me…These holy words of truth and love give guidance to my life and point the way to eternal perfection.”

In 2011, Apostle Richard G. Scott taught,

“Because scriptures are generated from inspired communication through the Holy Ghost, they are pure truth. We need not be concerned about the validity of concepts contained in the standard works since the Holy Ghost has been the instrument which has motivated and inspired those individuals who have recorded the scriptures.”

And D. Todd Christofferson in 2010,

“The scriptures are the touchstone for measuring correctness and truth…Where scriptural truths are ignored or abandoned, the essential moral core of society disintegrates and decay is close behind.”

Apostle Robert D. Hales in 2006,

“So essential are these truths that Heavenly Father gave both Lehi and Nephi visions vividly representing the word of God as a rod of iron. Both father and son learned that holding to this strong, unbending, utterly reliable guide is the only way to stay on that strait and narrow path that leads to our Savior.”

These men, considered prophets, seers, and revelators, all describe Mormon scripture as words of truth and inspiration, strong, unbending, an utterly reliable guide, pure truth, and the touchstone for measuring correctness. If LDS scripture is reliable as pure truth from God yet the racist scriptures still exist, the only logical analysis is that the God of Mormonism was at the time the Book of Mormon was birthed and still is, according to the Merriam and Webster Dictionary—racist (i.e., he is biased against dark skin).

While at BYU teaching multiculturalism, I was LDS and needed to trust Mormon scriptures as “strong, unbending, utterly reliable,” but I could not wrap my head around scriptures that suggest God cursed a people in the Book of Mormon with a mark of dark skin for their transgression. Exchanging my students’ scripture-driven, dark-skin prejudices into impartial attitudes became my passion. I thought perhaps I could help fix the racism problem in the next generation of LDS students. But, how could I when the scriptures taught that black skin was a curse? Find the narrative of my experience with the issue of racism in Mormonism and at BYU in the book, Unveiling Grace: The Story of How We Found Our Way Out of the Mormon Church (Zondervan, 2013).

In opposition, the God of the Bible made His stance crystal clear. He created humans in beautiful variability and is in relationship with people from every nation, tongue, and skin color— all members of the same human race. Skin color is never, ever a determiner of value. He teaches not to judge by appearances (John 7:24). He is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34-35). The biblical God instructs individuals to show no partiality, meaning not to pay special attention to or honor someone because of skin color, wealth, social standing, position, authority, popularity, looks, or influence.  If we do, it is so serious it is considered sin (James 2:9). Believers are charged to love other people as God loves them and treat them how we want to be treated.

Although the Book of Mormon states, “all are alike unto God,” as long as racist scriptures still exist, are  read, taught, believed, and made part of the culture, one may question the consistency of the Race and the Priesthood statement with the racist Mormon scriptures. The LDS Church is in a difficult position that is irrational, inconsistent, and illogical since the new Race and the Priesthood statement and its own “utterly reliable” and “pure truth” scriptures collide.

___________________________
Find Part 1 of Lynn’s article here.
___________________________

Posted in Book of Mormon, LDS Church, Mormon Scripture | Tagged , , , , , | 64 Comments

Are Racist LDS Scriptures Still Deemed “Utterly Reliable” and “Pure Truth”? Part 1

In the recently released statement on lds.org on Race and the Priesthood, the modern Mormon Church disavows “that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else…” This unequivocal truth, that no race or ethnicity is superior to another, is something that Spain (1542), Quakers (1600s), Pennsylvania (1790), England (1807), Abraham Lincoln (1865), and Christians of any era who believe the Bible, know. According to the Bible, God shows no favoritism—never by skin color—and commands his people to do the same.

Lincoln, who often quoted the biblical God, was displeased with the Utah Territory for its stance as a slave territory (and for its polygamy). Finally in 1978, 113 years after Lincoln and 24 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, the Mormon Church gave black members of African ancestry (why not restrict Native Americans—they were the unrighteous dark-skinned Lamanites of the Book of Mormon?) equal access to the priesthood, ergo its Celestial kingdom, eternal life, and the potential for godhood.

Book of MormonAs a professor at Brigham Young University (1999-2008), I taught, among other things—multiculturalism. In class, some of my generational LDS students proposed that those with black skin were blighted with something they called “the curse of Cain.” Alarmed by this belief, I began to investigate LDS scriptures on the topic and discovered scriptural support in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price corroborating students’ beliefs.

Because these scriptures still exist, are read, and revered, the lingering conundrum for the Mormon Church is this: How to explain the 20-some passages of LDS scripture that can be considered racist. So, this new attempt to state a non-biased position on race, which falls short of an apology, ignores the challenge of present-day scriptures.

As well intended as the latest words on the official church website are, they can affect no real change in policy or teachings because these scriptures remain. Why call these scriptures racist? The definition of racist is the belief that some races of people are better than others because of their race, their skin color. This is precisely what the LDS scriptures STILL teach. Here are few examples just from the Book of Mormon:

Alma 3:6 “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren…”

3 Nephi 2:15 “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin becamewhite like unto the Nephites;”

3 Nephi 19:30 “And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they werewhite, even as Jesus.”

As these passages explain, the Lamanites (forerunners of the dark-skinned Native Americans descended from the Jews according to the Book of Mormon) were given a mark of dark skin as a curse for their transgression, not toward God, by the way, but toward their brethren, the “righteous” Nephites. Later when some Lamanites became righteous, the curse was removed and their skin became white.

This repulsion for the LDS racist scriptures I had discovered began to soften my heart toward the biblical God who, according to the Bible, is no respecter of persons and who shows no favoritism. When I read the Bible, its teachings were unmistakably clear because they were repeated over and over. One of these undeniable themes is that God is no respecter of persons and shows no favoritism, no bias.

What to do with the racist scriptures? If the LDS Church moves to remove them, then that calls into question all other things Joseph Smith wrote as scripture and said came from God. Can the Mormon Church say they’re an allegory that means something other than what they say literally? As of today, the church is still defending the four standard works on their official website as “utterly reliable” and “pure truth.”

Part 2 of Lynn’s article can be found here.

Posted in Book of Mormon, LDS Church, Mormon Scripture | Tagged , , , , , | 65 Comments

Seeking God In the New Year

O LORD,
Length of days does not profit me
except the days are passed
      in Thy presence,
      in Thy service,
      to Thy glory.

Give me a grace that precedes,
      follows,
      guides,
      sustains,
      sanctifies,
      aids every hour,
that I may not be one moment apart from Thee,
but may rely on Thy Spirit
      to supply every thought,
      speak in every word,
      direct every step,
      prosper every work,
      build up every mote of faith,
and give me a desire
      to show forth Thy praise,
      testify Thy love,
      advance Thy kingdom.

I launch my bark on the unknown waters of this year,
      With Thee, O Father, as my harbour,
      Thee, O Son, at my helm,
      Thee, O Holy Spirit, filling my sails.

Guide me to heaven with my loins girt,
      my lamp burning,
      my ear open to Thy calls,
      my heart full of love,
      my soul free.

Give me Thy grace to sanctify me,
      Thy comforts to cheer,
      Thy wisdom to teach,
      Thy right hand to guide,
      Thy counsel to instruct,
      Thy law to judge,
      Thy presence to stabilize.

May Thy fear be my awe,
      Thy triumphs my joy.

(The Valley of Vision, A collection of Puritan prayers and devotions, Arthur Bennett, editor)

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments