More on Exalted Mormons Creating and Populating Worlds

PlanetsMormonism Research Ministry’s website contains a 2011 article sparked by Mormon denials (including a pointed and clear denial found on lds.org) of the long-standing doctrine in Mormonism that exalted Mormons will one day create and populate their own worlds. The article contains many quotes from Church manuals and Church leaders that prove the doctrine is not mere “folklore” as some claim. What follows are few more instances of the teaching from official Mormon sources that suggest the doctrine is more than just a popular myth.

All are dated within the past 17 years except the first quote in the list. The first one is older, from a 1959 Sunday school course. Even though it’s almost 55 years old, I’ve included it because, according to Apostle Boyd K. Packer, “The doctrines [of the Church] will remain fixed, eternal…” (Quoted in Teachings of the Living Prophets, 7).

ABRAHAM’S BLESSINGS MAY BE YOURS…[Abraham’s descendants] would be privileged to dwell with and become like God, sharing with him the rule of the universe. They should have an everlasting inheritance upon this earth, even after it becomes a celestial kingdom. Through their children born on earth and their spirit children born to them after the resurrection, they should have the power of eternal lives or eternal increase, eventually being able to create worlds and people them with their own spirit offspring. These earthly and spirit children will constitute the kingdom over which they shall rule.” (Archibald Bennett, Family Exaltation, Course 20, Genealogical Training Department for the Sunday Schools of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1959)

“Exaltation means godhood, creatorship. ‘As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.’” (Apostle L. Tom Perry, “Learning to Serve,” Ensign, August 1996, 15, quoting Spencer W. Kimball)

“[When we receive eternal life] our spirits will be changed. We will become able to want what God wants, to think as He thinks, and thus be prepared for the trust of an endless posterity to teach and to lead through tests to be raised up to qualify to live forever in eternal life.” (President Henry B. Eyring, “Adversity,” Ensign, May 2009, 24)

“[Peter’s and John’s] righteous lives opened the door to godhood for them and creation of worlds with eternal increase. For this they would probably need, eventually, a total knowledge of the sciences… After our feet are set firmly on the path to eternal life we can amass more knowledge of the secular things. [[A highly trained scientist who is also a perfected man may create a world and people in it, but a dissolute, unrepentant, unbelieving one will never be such a creator in the eternities.]] Secular knowledge, important as it may be, can never save a soul nor open the celestial kingdom nor create a world nor make a man a god, but it can be most helpful to that man who, placing first things first, has found the way to eternal life and who can now bring into play all knowledge to be his tool and servant.” Apostle L. Tom Perry, “The Tradition of a Balanced, Righteous Life,” Ensign, August 2011, 51, quoting Spencer W. Kimball. The text in double brackets is found in the original source quoted by Mr. Perry (as quoted by him in his August 1996 Ensign article referenced above), but Mr. Perry replaced it with ellipsis in this article. While the idea of creating and populating worlds is clearly present without the omitted text, I’ve included it for context as an aid to the reader.)

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, Lorenzo Snow | Tagged , , , , , , , | 50 Comments

Evangelism is a form of worship, and Mormonism claims to let people worship according to their dictates of their conscience

One of the ways we evangelicals worship the Most High God is by evangelism, and part of our evangelism is sometimes engaging false ideas about God and the gospel, and part of engaging false ideas about God and the gospel (especially for those in Utah) is contrasting Mormonism with Biblical Christianity — urgently yet patiently presenting this to our Mormon neighbors, and calling people to repentance.

So, Mormon neighbors, if you want to let us worship our Most High God (the one who never sinned, who doesn’t have a grandpa), then allow us to evangelize you. Give us a fair hearing, as we should give you a fair hearing.

Evangelism

Posted in Uncategorized | 25 Comments

Brigham Young In His Own Words

Bart Pascoal at MormonInfographics.com has been producing and posting short videos of dramatic readings of Brigham Young. Watching an actor deliver these words from Brigham Young’s sermons adds a whole new dimension to such statements as:

“I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die. Now, you nasty apostates, clear out…” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:83)

“…I shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom, and reign triumphantly.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:178-179)

“The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet; when we shall take the old broad sword and ask, ‘Are you for God?’ and if you are not heartily on the Lord’s side, you will be hewn down.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:226)

MormonInfographics has posted 14 of these dramatic readings so far. Here are two of them to whet your whistle.

Posted in Brigham Young, Early Mormonism | Tagged , , , , , | 11 Comments

Equal pay for LDS bishops!

One of my neighbors is an LDS bishop. I have not talked to him about the topic at hand, but I have an inkling of how much time and effort he must devote to his local congregation of about 200 people. I know that he gets plenty of respect from the local community—most of our neighbors are a part of his flock—and when the missionaries in white shirts walk by his home on our neighborhood street and he’s standing outside, they make a special effort to say, “Good evening, bishop.” I’ve seen it.

But while the many bishops work very hard managing their flock by (among other things) managing the church services, applying church discipline, interviewing members for temple recommends, visiting the sick and elderly, preparing an occasional message, and who knows what else (besides the bishops themselves), these men are not financially compensated for their efforts. In effect, they are volunteers in what must be a full-time job.

PaycheckI realize that many Latter-day Saints would shudder at the thought of “paying” the bishops. For some reason, these folks have romanticized the idea that someone who serves with no compensation must be more dedicated and pure than a person who receives income from his or her labors. The words “paid hireling” are often associated with Christian pastors. This is especially true for those older Mormons who experienced the pre-1990 temple ceremony and remember the part when Lucifer made a financial offer to the Protestant minister for doing Satan’s work, saying “I will pay you well.” Paying the bishop a salary would be nothing less than heretical for these members.

We must understand, though, that the bishops are given a HUGE responsibility. Check out what former President Gordon B. Hinckley said at a general conference from a decade ago:

“We have more than 18,000 bishops in the Church. Every one is a man who has been called by the spirit of prophecy and revelation and set apart and ordained by the laying on of hands. Every one of them holds the keys of the presidency of his ward. Each is a high priest, the presiding high priest of his ward. Each carries tremendous responsibilities of stewardship. Each stands as a father to his people” (“The Shepherds of Israel,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 2003, p. 60).

Because of the “tremendous responsibilities” it takes to run this organization at the local levels, it seems that “the father(s) to (their) people” have every right to receive financial compensation for their dedicated efforts. Consider what Doctrine and Covenants 42:70-73 says:

“The priests and teachers shall have their stewardships, even as the members. And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned; Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.”

What exactly does “just remuneration” mean? I suppose this is open to interpretation. As I wrote in an article earlier this year, apparently “just remuneration” for mission presidents in Utah begins at about $100,000 (or more)—and that’s a conservative figure. The number could be more or less depending on the location. We can quibble all day long about whether their compensation should be called a “salary” or just “living expenses.” The wording doesn’t matter. The point is that mission presidents are paid for their work. Of this, there is no doubt. (For more information on this issue that many Mormons have never thought about, see What does “unpaid ministry” look like? at mrm.org)

I recently came upon the following quote in a church teacher’s manual discussing D&C 70:

Doctrine and Covenants 70:12–16. Church leaders who are called to serve the Lord full-time are to have their needs supplied by the Church. (5–10 minutes). Ask students who among them has a Church calling. Ask:

• How much time do you spend each week fulfilling your calling?

• How much time do you think the Relief Society president and bishop spend on their callings?

• How much time do you think the prophet spends on his calling? Divide the following questions among the students. Have them read Doctrine and Covenants 24:3, 7; 70:12–16 and look for answers.

• How much time did the Lord expect these servants to work? (see D&C 24:7).

• How did the Lord provide for these servants’ material needs? (see D&C 24:3).

• What does it mean that ‘he who is appointed to administer spiritual things . . . is worthy of his hire’? (D&C 70:12). (Church leaders who are called to serve the Lord full-time should have their needs supplied by the Church.)

• According to Doctrine and Covenants 70:16, what should be provided for these Church leaders?” (Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Resource Manual, pp. 120-121. Emphasis in original.).

BrighamYoungStatueSLCNotice these words once more: “Church leaders who are called to serve the Lord full-time should have their needs supplied by the Church.” I can’t say for sure how much time my neighbor spends on his calling, but I guarantee you it’s not “part-time” hours. And I’m sure he feels that he could spend much more time—if he had it—on issues involving both his congregation as well as his family.

This is a “Norma Rae” moment if I’ve ever seen one! (If you haven’t seen the 1979 movie with Sally Field, rent it.) Bishops, unite! If you are expected to fully “administer spiritual things” to your congregation, the church manual I’ve cited says that you are “worthy of (your) hire.” Your needs—in context, this refers to physical needs and not just spiritual—ought to then be “supplied by the Church.” If mission presidents are getting six figures—a number from which they are not required to tithe—shouldn’t you get at least half?

Perhaps it is time for the thousands of bishops to request their church leaders to follow through on the teaching of this LDS scripture. At the same time, my advice is for them not to hold their breath.

For more information on this topic, see chapter 10 (“Why are your clergy members paid?”) in our book Answering Mormons’ Questions (McKeever and Johnson, Kregel, 2013).

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Culture | Tagged , , , , , , | 27 Comments

“Absolutes” About the Mormon Gospel

In 1999 James E. Faust, member of the Mormon Church’s First Presidency, counseled new mission presidents at the annual Mission Presidents Seminar in June of that year. According to LDS Church News,

LDS Missionaries“The word gospel means ‘good news’ and missionaries ought to be radiant and upbeat as they reach out to share the gospel, said President James E. Faust…” (6/26/99, 3)

Mr. Faust told the mission presidents “missionaries need to teach absolutes about the gospel.” As Church News reported,

“These absolutes, he explained, are:

“’First, that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior, the Redeemer of all mankind through the Atonement. Second, that Joseph Smith was the Prophet who restored the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullness and completeness. Third, the Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Christ. Fourth, that all the presidents of the Church since Joseph Smith have been successors to the keys of the authority that Joseph Smith restored. Fifth, President Gordon B. Hinckley is the prophet, seer and revelator to the world at this time.’” (12)

It’s difficult to understand exactly what Mr. Faust meant by the phrase “absolutes about the gospel.” Perhaps something got lost or jumbled when the journalist reported Mr. Faust’s address. Be that as it may, as we have it, the absolutes Mr. Faust lists are at least the basic or fundamental doctrines about the good news that Mormon missionaries are to teach with radiance. I summarize them here in a numbered list:

1. Jesus Christ (Redeemer)
2. Joseph Smith (Restorer)
3. Book of Mormon (Testifier)
4. Prophet-Successors (Proprietors)
5. Current Mormon Prophet (Seer and Revelator)

I’m struck by the content of what this modern Mormon apostle considered foundational truths concerning the gospel. After the honorable mention of Jesus Christ, the other four points focus on the Mormon Church, and almost exclusively on the men who lead the Mormon Church. I guess Mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “The true gospel of Jesus Christ…is found only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, 334), for four of the five gospel absolutes listed by Mr. Faust are indeed found “only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (although numbers 2 and 3 might also be found in other denominations of Mormonism in various forms).

Biblical apostles had a different focus when it came to the gospel. Consider what the apostle John presented as absolutes in John 3:16 (summarized here in a numbered list):

1. God (so loved the world that He gave)
2. Jesus (God’s only Son, that whosoever believes in)
3. Jesus (shall not perish but have eternal life with)
4. God

Or the absolute truths of the gospel that the apostle Paul told Titus to “insist on” (Titus 3:4-7):

1. God (our Savior appeared and)
2. Jesus (saved us according to the mercy of)
3. Christ (by the regeneration and renewal of the)
4. Holy Spirit (poured out on us richly through)
5. Jesus Christ (our Savior so that being justified by)
6. Jesus (by His grace, we have the hope of eternal life with)
7. God

For the biblical apostles, the beginning, the end, and everything in between, was focused on, centered in, and fulfilled by God. The Good News isn’t about prophets. It isn’t about books. It isn’t about church leaders. It is, start to finish, as the biblical writer Luke noted, “the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35). Assuredly – absolutely — it’s really all about Him.

Posted in Gospel, Mormon Leaders, Mormon Missionaries | Tagged , , , , , , | 38 Comments

Michael and Lynn Wilder’s Testimony

Link to their book

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Late War and the Book of Mormon

A 19th century book, The History of the Late War Between the United States and Great Britain, has been mentioned before now as a possible source for the Book of Mormon, most notably by Rick Grunder in his 2008 work, Mormon Parallels: A Bibliographic Source. But the suggestion that Joseph Smith may have used this book in his writing of the Book of Mormon hasn’t seemed to gain much traction until now.

At the 2013 Ex-Mormon Conference in mid-October, former Mormon Chris Johnson presented findings he and his brother, Duane, uncovered in their study and analysis of a comparison of the two books. Mormon discussion forums and blogs are now in serious dialogue about how Gilbert Hunt’s 1819 New York textbook relates to the Book of Mormon, and in some cases more specifically, how it undermines the popular apologetic reliance on Hebraisms to substantiate the ancient origin of this Mormon scripture.

TheLateWar1Gilbert Hunt wrote The Late War in imitation of the “biblical style,” in the hope that any young student reading the book would acquire a love for the style and it would become “an inducement to him to study the Holy Scriptures.” Consequently, The Late War employs word structures and ancient-sounding language that reads very much like the Bible (KJV) – and the Book of Mormon.

Some people see the strong Book of Mormon parallels in The Late War as proof that Joseph Smith, a person with easy access to Gilbert’s book, used it in composing the Book of Mormon – thus negating any pretense that the Book of Mormon is divine. Others merely shrug and dismiss the whole thing as unimportant. The actual significance of The Late War is more likely somewhere in between. Yet one thing is certain: Hebraisms found in the Book of Mormon do not prove a thing about its origin. In fact, they shouldn’t even be presented as any sort of persuasive evidence.

On the Mormon Dialogue & Discussion board, canard78 asked, “There is clear evidence that the claimed Hebraisms found in the Book of Mormon are also found in 19thC literature. With the emergence of ‘The Late War…’ will there now be less emphasis placed on Hebraisms as evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient Hebrew text?” Canard78 provided a few examples of these parallels that he gleaned from “other sites.” In the following examples, canard78 took the information regarding the Book of Mormon from John Tvedtnes’ book, The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon.

 Adverbials

Tvedtnes: Hebrew has fewer adverbs than English. Instead, it often uses prepositional phrases with the preposition meaning in or with. The English translation of the Book of Mormon contains more of these prepositional phrases in place of adverbs than we would expect if the book had been written in English originally—another Hebraism. Here are some examples:
“with patience” instead of patiently (Mosiah 24:15)
“with much harshness” instead of very harshly (1 Nephi 18:11)
“with joy” instead of joyfully (Jacob 4:

The Late War: Ch VII, p.46, 43. “So William was ordered to depart to the land which lieth in the east, where he remaineth unto this day, and his name shall be no more spoken of with reverence amongst men.”
Ch XIX, p.101, 20. “And the men of Columbia rushed forward with fierceness, and drove the men of Britain from their strong hold.”

Compound Prepositions

Tvedtnes: Hebrew often uses compound prepositions, made up of a preposition plus a noun, in places where English would normally use just a preposition. For example, Hebrew uses compound prepositions that would be translated literally as by the hand of and by the mouth of. English would normally use just by. The Book of Mormon contains many examples that appear to show the influence of this Hebrew use of compound prepositions:
“ye shall be taken by the hand of your enemies” (Mosiah 17:18)
“I have also acquired much riches by the hand of my industry” (Alma 10:4)

The Late War: Ch XLIII, p.222, 2 “But it was lighted up by the hand of heaven, and not to be extinguished by the insignificant and self-created gods of the earth.”

Tvedtnes : Hebrew uses another compound preposition that would be translated literally as from before the presence of or from before the face of. English would normally use simply from. The influence of the Hebrew can be seen in these Book of Mormon passages:
“they fled from before my presence” (1 Nephi 4:28)
“he had gone from before my presence” (1 Nephi 11:12)
“they were carried away . . . from before my face” (1 Nephi 11:29)

The Late War: Ch XLVIII, p.255, 34 “Now when the men of Columbia heard that Ross, the chief captain of the king, was slain, and the host of Britain was compelled to flee from before the city, they were exceedingly rejoiced.”

As the discussion on the forum developed, participants presented additional interesting parallels and comparisons between the Book of Mormon and The Late War, all worthy of consideration. But for this blog post, one thing I found quite notable was a comment made by Mormon apologist Daniel O. McClellan. Responding to another commenter who suggested that people in Joseph Smith’s time would have been crying “Plagiarism!” had the Book of Mormon strongly reflected the content of The Late War, Mr. McClellan (posting as “maklelan”) wrote,

“It’s not plagiarism that’s the question here. The question is whether or not The Late War is an indication that Hebraisms can crop up in modern non-Hebrew compositions that are being patterned after the linguistic style of the KJV, and I think the answer is certainly yes. There have been many Latter-day Saint scholars who have argued that Book of Mormon Hebraisms are of no apologetic value if they can be shown to be found within the KJV. They can arise just from the couching of new ideas in KJV-sounding language. The Late War certainly shows that, since many of the putative Hebraisms that people have pointed to before as an indication of the Book of Mormon’s ancient provenance are also found there. Appealing to Smith’s lack of education is no help here, as it doesn’t take formal education to repeat grammatical patterns you have had ingrained in you your entire life.”

Mr. McClellan said in another comment found a little further on,

“It’s my impression that the Hebraisms arise almost entirely from the mimicking of biblical prose. The presence or absence of a Hebraism from any given segment of text is a function of the proximity of Smith’s choice of prose to particularly Hebraic constructions from the KJV.”

Rick Grunder’s Mormon Parallels quotes BYU professor Donald Parry who, in 2002, wrote that that Hebraism’s in the Book of Mormon “attest to the book’s Near Eastern background and antiquity. Their presence cannot be explained as a matter of coincidence, nor could a modern writer have integrated them so effectively (naturally and correctly) throughout the narrative.” These literary forms, Dr. Parry wrote, “were generally uncommon in, if not altogether foreign to, the English of Joseph Smith’s day.” Dr. Parry was mistaken. The Late War demonstrates that writing done in the biblical style, complete with integrated Hebraism’s, was a genre employed during the time, and in the place, of Joseph Smith’s youth. Therefore, Hebraism’s do not persuasively attest to an ancient origin for the Book of Mormon.

Posted in Book of Mormon, Mormon Scripture | Tagged , , , , , | 22 Comments

The Teachings of Joseph Smith and His Apostles

The following illustration is found in the Instructor’s Guide for the current Mormon Institute manual, “The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, (Rel 211-12)” [The posted scan is from the print edition, page 110]. Found in a section of the manual that is discussing 2 Peter and “Partaking of the Divine Nature of God” (2 Peter 1:4), it clearly illustrates classic Mormonism.

DivineNatureCropped

Under a section titled “Study Sources,” the instructor’s manual suggests that teachers consult Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (pages 345-348) in order to answer the question, “What must we do to partake of God’s divine nature and become like him?” Found on these pages of Teachings is part of Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse. Here are some excerpts from the cited pages:

 “God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”

“…it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God.”

”…he was once a man like us, yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did…”

“Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”

“…although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die anymore; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when the worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and so I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children.”

Joseph Smith has done a pretty thorough job of explaining what the manual illustration seeks to depict. Indeed, about his teaching Joseph said, “It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the Gospel, about which so much has been said” (Teachings, 348).

Just for fun and for the sake of discussion, how would you explain the doctrines of Mormonism that are taught via the illustration found in this teaching manual? In addition to what it teaches about man’s potential, what is it saying about Christ?

For a Christian perspective on 2 Peter 1:1-4 and Peter’s teaching on becoming “partakers of the divine nature,” check out John Piper’s sermon, “Liberating Promises” at desiringgod.org.

Posted in God the Father, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse, LDS Church, Nature of God, Nature of Man | Tagged , , , , , , , | 33 Comments

Do Mormons Really Believe They Have the Truth?

This past summer I was in Nauvoo, Illinois to distribute Christian information and answer questions about my faith and how it differs from Mormonism. This I did each evening for a week, standing adjacent to the outdoor Nauvoo Pageant grounds as pageant-goers arrived to enjoy the night’s performance. The majority of people who attended the pageant were Mormons, or investigators flanked by Mormon missionaries.

Talk_to_the_HandAs I offered my information to pageant-goers (along with a friendly “hello”), they would reach for the paper, and I would tell them that it was from the Nauvoo Christian Visitors Center. At this, many would pull back their hands, eyes wide, as if they had almost touched a hot stove. With eyes darting about, they would turn a shoulder toward me and hurry away.

Some folks at first didn’t register the fact that the paper was not Church-produced. When they saw the identifying Nauvoo Christian Visitors Center information on the paper and realized what they had in their hands, they would immediately, and with a posture of great alarm, look about for a trashcan to throw it away.

Certainly not everyone reacted this way. Some seemed genuinely pleased to receive the information, and a few folded and tucked the paper away so their fellow Mormons would not know they had it. Others would just walk by without a glance in my direction.

I admit that I, too, sometimes ignore people on the street who are trying to get information into my hands. I might be annoyed. I might be disgusted. But I can’t think of a time when I’ve been afraid of the information someone has offered; and fear is a reaction that I saw from a lot of Mormons in Nauvoo. Not merely disinterest. Not simply irritation. Fear.

The fear might stem from a member’s commitment to be obedient to Church leaders who tell them to stay away from people and information that are critical of Mormonism, or perhaps it is born out of an apprehension of having their faith challenged. Either way, I find it somewhat paradoxical.

Mormonism is founded on severe criticism of the Christian faith. Joseph Smith’s First Vision story is one of condemnation of Christian “creeds,” “professors,” and “doctrine” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19). The Book of Mormon criticizes and ridicules traditional Christianity, saying those who believe that the Bible is sufficient are “fools” (2 Nephi 29:6). The Book of Mormon denounces non-Mormon churches as “the Church of the devil…which is the mother of abominations; and…the whore of all the earth” (1 Nephi 14:10). For decades the Church has sponsored the Mormon Miracle Pageant in Manti, Utah in which Christian doctrines on the nature of God and eternal punishment are scorned, and Christian pastors are mocked.

The interesting thing is that the Mormon Church uses all of these things in its proselytizing efforts. It expects and encourages non-Mormons to read information critical of their own Christian faith, while yet encouraging Mormons to shun information that might be critical of Mormonism.

The Mormon Church tells its own members to “ignore…anti-Mormon literature” (Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 233), describing it as “theological pornography that is damaging to the spirit” (Vaughn J. Featherstone, “The Last Drop in the Chalice,” a BYU devotional given 9/24/85). The Church implies that material should be discarded if its claims do not “build a person’s faith and strengthen commitment [to Mormonism]. If what a person is claiming weakens faith in Christ or resolve to follow the leaders of the Church…it is not of God” (Ryan Morgenegg, “Five Ways to Detect and Avoid Doctrinal Deception,” Church News (online), 9/17/2013).

MagnifyingGlassThe paradox is that the progress of Mormonism depends on non-Mormons being willing and unafraid to have their own faith challenged. If everyone were afraid to look at (or were discouraged from looking at) materials critical of their faith, no one would read the Book of Mormon or allow Mormon missionaries to present the story of the foundation of the Restoration — Joseph Smith’s First Vision. If everyone dismissed out of hand anything that did not strengthen their resolve to follow their current church leaders and their commitment to the faith they already had, no one would convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Why should non-Mormons be encouraged to accept material critical of their faith while Mormons themselves are told to shun it?

I can imagine Mormons saying, “This is different. We have the truth and therefore have no need of examining criticisms of our faith.” If this is truly what Mormons believe, why are they so unwilling to examine critical materials in order to “correct those who are in opposition,” as the Bible instructs (2 Timothy 2:25)? Why do they “answer” questions with nothing more than an assertion that the question is but a clever trap? If Mormons have the truth, why are they so reluctant to confront criticisms, even if they believe (as they’ve been told) that critical material “uses lies or half-truths; it distorts, sensationalizes, or misinterprets Church teachings and history” (“Questions and Answers,” New Era, 7/07)? If Mormons really have the truth, surely they have answers to every lie.

Mormons, if you believe you really have the truth, why are you so afraid? Come — let us reason together. Let’s examine the truth – wherever it is found.

“One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” -Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:499

“Our doctrine and practice is, and I have made it mine through life—to receive truth no matter where it comes from.” –Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, 11

Posted in Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism, Mormon Culture, Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 72 Comments

Horrific Tragedy in Mormon History

Haun'sMillIn two days, on October 30, 2013, the 175th anniversary of a very dark day in American history will pass mostly unnoticed. On this date in 1838, 18 men and boys were murdered at Haun’s Mill on the western Missouri frontier. Of the 18 victims, 17 were Mormons – mercilessly shot and killed by a group of 240 Missouri militiamen. The Haun’s Mill Massacre marked the turning point of the Mormon War, bringing about the surrender of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that of his followers, soon after. (Readers unfamiliar with the 1838 Mormon War in Missouri can learn about it here.)

Mormons to this day remain appropriately outraged over what happened at Haun’s Mill. The people at this small settlement were attacked without provocation as they went about their daily business. And when it was over, most of the families in the little settlement of Haun’s Mill found themselves fatherless.

As horrific as this event was, the Haun’s Mill Massacre was not entirely unique in early America. As a result of 19 years of continuing expansion and settlement of the United States, by 1857 the frontier had moved about 1,000 miles to the west. It was on this frontier that another massacre occurred, culminating in yet one more very dark day in this young nation’s history. The Mountain Meadows Massacre of Utah Territory saw the murders of 120 souls who were also attacked without provocation as they went about their daily business. This time, however, it was a Mormon militia that did most of the killing. (Readers unfamiliar with the Mountain Meadows Massacre can learn more about it here.)

These two incidents of extreme and senseless bloodshed were well separated by both time and distance, yet were eerily similar in many ways. Consider the following.

The historical context for both massacres included provocative preaching by Mormon leaders.

In the case of Haun’s Mill, three months before the attack, while Mormon and non-Mormon settlers were at peace, Mormon leader Sidney Rigdon preached, “…that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them until the last drop of their blood is spilled; or else they will have to exterminate us, for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed” (A Comprehensive History of the Church 1:441). This aggressive sermon fanned flames of suspicion and unease in the Missourians toward the Mormons.

A few weeks before the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Mormon prophet Brigham Young preached, “I am at the defiance of all hell [and] Governments, but especially ours….[they] raise a force to come and slay all the Latterdaysaints, men, women and children…they shall not come to this territory. I will fight them and I will fight all hell….I shall lay my dwelling house in ashes, I shall lay my mills in ashes…Can you flee to the mountains, men, women and children, and lay wast[e] and desolate everything before them?” (Unpublished sermon quoted in Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, 89-90). This alarming sermon fanned flames of suspicion and unease in the Mormon communities toward any outsiders entering Utah Territory.

Both massacres were set in motion by rumors of impending doom.

In Missouri, the non-Mormon residents of Livingston heard (falsely) from Mormon dissenters that the Latter-day Saints at Haun’s Mill were planning to attack the settlers in Livingstone County.

In Utah Territory, Brigham Young (falsely) told the Mormons that the approaching US troops were planning to hang Mormon leaders, disperse or kill all the Latter-day Saints, and “break up the Mormon kingdom.”

In each massacre, the militias acted without orders.

At Haun’s Mill, Missouri militia Colonel Thomas Jennings led the attack on the settlement; he acted on his own initiative without authority or orders from his superiors.

Mormon militia Colonel William Dame gave the order to attack and murder the emigrants at Mountain Meadows; he acted without authority, without definitive orders from his superiors.

Both massacres included strong elements of betrayal and deceit.

In Missouri, the people at Haun’s Mill and the Livingston militia had signed a peace treaty pledging an end to hostilities between them. But the Livingston militia attacked anyway.

At Mountain Meadows, the emigrants were promised that the Mormons would protect them from harm; but instead, the Mormons attacked the emigrants.

The aggressors in both massacres prepared for the attack by altering their appearances.

At Haun’s Mill, the militia “blackened their faces and attached red cloths to their hats” to distinguish themselves from the Mormons.

At Mountain Meadows, some of the Mormons disguised themselves as Indians, using war paint on their faces to deceive the emigrants.

Initially, both groups of victims were not alarmed as their attackers approached.

At Haun’s Mill, due to the peace treaty in place, the settlers viewed the arriving militia with cautious interest, not with fear.

At Mountain Meadows, though wary, the emigrants were actually thankful for their Mormon “rescuers.”

Both groups of victims were caught by surprise when attacked.

Wreath at Mountain MeadowsIn Missouri, the militia approached the settlement, stopped some distance away, and formed into three companies. The captain fired his gun into the air and all was silent for ten seconds as the Mormons waited and tried to determine what was going on. After this “solemn pause,” the troops raised their guns and commenced firing as the people ran for their lives.

At Mountain Meadows, unarmed emigrants walked in a single file line to what they supposed was safety: first, wagons filled with children and the wounded; next, the women; and finally, the men at the rear. Each man walked beside an armed Mormon escort. A Mormon major stopped and fired a shot into the air. When he ordered, “Halt! Do your duty!” the Mormons turned on the emigrants and began shooting as the people scattered and ran for their lives.

In both massacres, the victims sought to defend themselves, though that defense came at different points in each attack.

When the shooting began at Haun’s Mill, the Mormon men immediately ran to their pre-determined stronghold from which to defend the settlement – the blacksmith shop. Once inside the building, the Mormons pointed their guns through the cracks between the logs and returned fire.

Four days before the massacre at Mountain Meadows, the emigrant camp came under attack in what the emigrants thought was an Indian assault. They circled their wagons and returned fire with a counterattack that lasted several days before finally surrendering their weapons to the Mormons that they believed were there to rescue them.

The fatalities in each massacre were made up of captive victims.

The blacksmith shop at Haun’s Mill that was supposed to provide cover for the Mormon defenders actually became a deathtrap when the Missouri militia advanced enough to put their own guns through the cracks between the logs and fire at the men inside. The shooting was so intense that the Mormons were unable to return fire or flee.

At Mountain Meadows, the Mormon militia that promised to provide rescue for the emigrants actually became the emigrants’ executioner. Because the emigrants were required to surrender their weapons to their supposed deliverers, they were defenseless and vulnerable when they were betrayed.

In both massacres children begged for their lives – and were ignored.

At Haun’s Mill, after the shooting ceased a 10-year-old boy was discovered hiding beneath the bellows in the blacksmith shop. He begged for his life, but his pleas were ignored.

At Mountain Meadows, children reportedly clung to the legs of their attackers, begging for their lives and, in exchange, offering themselves as slaves. But their pleas were ignored.

Both massacres saw children viciously slain.

At Haun’s Mill, young Sardis Smith was brutally murdered. A Missouri militiaman held a gun to Sardis’ head and fired.  To justify his brutality, the Missourian reportedly said, “Nits will make lice, and if he had lived he would have become a Mormon.” Thankfully, Sardis was the only child that died at Haun’s Mill.

At Mountain Meadows, 18 children remained alive after the attack. One was a girl of about 11-years-old. Believing she was too old to be left alive, her murderers executed her in front of the other surviving 17 children in order to ensure that the children would keep quiet about all they had seen. Another (approximately) 50 children died during the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Extreme brutality was exhibited in both massacres.

Thomas McBride was a 62-year-old Mormon who managed to escape and run from the blacksmith shop at Haun’s Mill. When he was wounded and overtaken by militiamen, he surrendered. A Missourian took McBride’s gun and killed him with it. Then the attacker used a corn knife to hack and disfigure McBride’s body.

John Higbee ordered the killing of the women and children at Mountain Meadows. Some had their throats cut “from ear to ear” and “their heads severed from their bodies.” Others were “hacked to death with tomahawks” while Samuel Knight used the butt end of his gun to crush the skull of a 14-year-old boy.

Though pandemonium reigned throughout each massacre, neither attacking militia employed indiscriminate slaughter; their killing was selective.

The Missouri militia at Haun’s Mill killed 17 men and 1 boy, purposefully leaving the women and other children alive.

The Mormon militia at Mountain Meadows killed everyone over the age of 7 years (approximately 120 people:  40 men, 30 women, and 50 children), purposefully leaving the 17 younger children alive.

Following both massacres, the aggressors robbed their victims.

In Missouri, some of the militia looted the deserted homes at Haun’s Mill and stripped the victims’ bodies of valuables.

In Utah Territory, the militia looted the scene, taking the livestock, wagons and money that the emigrants carried with them. They also stripped the victims’ bodies of clothing and valuables.

The bodies from both massacres were hastily covered in mass graves.

Memorial CrossesAt Haun’s Mill, the surviving Mormons returned to the settlement the next day and quickly gathered their dead, threw them in a well, and covered them lightly with straw. The grieving families were never able to retrieve the bodies to give them proper burials.

At Mountain Meadows there were no survivors to bury the dead. Instead, those responsible for the deaths tossed the bodies into a ravine and covered them lightly with dirt. The remains were soon uncovered and ravaged by wolves then, 20 months later, reburied in new mass graves by U.S. soldiers.

In both cases, those responsible for the murders were never brought to justice.

The members of the Missouri militia that attacked Haun’s Mill were never investigated regarding the massacre, and no court of inquiry was ever held.

Of the dozens of Mormons responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, none were ever convicted and punished for the crime but one — and this not until 20 years after the killings.

Two massacres. Two heinous and horrific crimes. Two heartbreakingly senseless tragedies perpetrated by men who believed what they were doing was right. The Prophet Jeremiah spoke God’s truth when he said the hearts of men are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). The Haun’s Mill and Mountain Meadows Massacres were manifestations of the deceit and wickedness that inhabits every heart, including our own (Romans 3:10-12).

What, then? As we cry out with the apostle Paul, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” we can rest in the answer: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus — He sets His people free from the law of sin and death. And even more, He takes our sinful, wicked hearts and gives us new hearts with which to love, honor, and praise Him forever. Yes, thanks be to God for His merciful gift of new life, for His amazing grace in bestowing His riches on all – even the worst of sinners – yes, on all who call on Him.

(Bible references for the last paragraph above: Romans 7:24-8:2; Ezekiel 36:26-27; 2 Corinthians 5:17; John 10:10; Romans 10:12)

[The idea for this blog post came from our Mormon Coffee friend, spartacus. I thank him for his valuable help and encouragement. While I consulted many sources for this article, most of the information on the Haun’s Mill Massacre is from Stephen C. LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, 163-168, 216; and most of the information on the Mountain Meadows Massacre is from Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, 4, 15, 132, 149-158, 171ff, 226, 315.]

Posted in Early Mormonism, Mormon History | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments