“You get what you pay for”

(HT: Kyle)

This kind of talk doesn’t sound like the gospel. (And to top that off, it sounds creepy!)

I simply cannot imagine that a man truly heart-broken by his own sin, truly heart-broken by the unbelievable grace of Jesus, truly liberated by free forgiveness, truly melted by God’s astounding patience through over-and-over again sinful habits, truly indebted in love to neighbors and spouse and family, confessing sins daily, celebrating grace and pursing a life that honors Jesus out of joy… I cannot imagine such a man speaking like this. To me it is inconceivable.

I am too much of a piping hot mess of a sinner to be a Mormon. I need a Physician whose scalpel goes much deeper, whose forgiveness is given much more freely. I need the kind of grace that offends people. I need grace that is even more unbelievable and shocking than my sin:

“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,  just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered! Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin!” (Romans 4:4-8)


Adding this one in response to Kate’s comment:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 76 Comments

13 reasons to believe that God never sinned

Regular audio starts at minute 4.

For a written synopsis of the thirteen reasons visit GodNeverSinned.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 118 Comments

In Mormonism God is a Saved Soul

MarionGRomneyIn the 1974 October General Conference of the Mormon Church Marion G. Romney (Second Counselor in the First Presidency) said,

“I am going to talk about some of the very fundamentals of the gospel of Jesus Christ of great importance…

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

‘We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.’ [A of F 1:3]

“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.

“To get a glimpse of what this means requires a knowledge of the form and nature of God and of man and their relationship to each other.

“Man is a soul, that is, a dual being, a spirit person clothed in a tangible body of flesh and bones. God is a perfected, saved soul enjoying eternal life. He is both immortal and exalted to the highest glory. He is enjoying that blessed condition which men may attain to by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. (“How Men Are Saved,” Ensign, November 1974)

Broken down, then, what Mr. Romney taught about God is this:

  • He is immortal.
  • He is perfected.
  • He is exalted.
  • He is saved.

Because God is saved (per Mr. Romney’s stated definition),

  • He is resurrected (immortal).
  • He is sanctified.
  • He is celestialized.
  • He is returned to the presence and society of [his?] God.
  • He is to progress eternally.

Therefore, in Mormonism, God the Father was “saved,” that is, “resurrected and returned” to the presence of God with several new attributes, including sanctification. Bruce McConkie defines sanctification:

“To be sanctified is to become clean, pure, and spotless; to be free from the blood and sins of the world; … a state attained only by conformity to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. The plan of salvation is the system and means provided whereby men may sanctify their souls and thereby become worthy of a celestial inheritance.” (Mormon Doctrine, “Sanctification,” 675)

If “to be sanctified” is to become clean, pure and spotless, then there must have been a time when Heavenly Father was not clean, pure and spotless.

Is this what Mr. Romney intended to teach the Mormon membership about the LDS view of the nature of God? Whether that was his intent or not, it seems that this is actually what many Mormons believe about Heavenly Father – that he was, perhaps, once a sinner.

Posted in General Conference, God the Father, Nature of God, Nature of Man | Tagged , , | 85 Comments

Elizabeth Smart’s Courage Within the Tragedy of Mormonism

Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped when she was 14-years-old. She was held captive for nine months by Brian David Mitchell, a man who believed 1) that he was a true prophet of God, and 2) that Elizabeth was to become his (plural) wife. In March of 2003 the police rescued Elizabeth in Sandy, Utah.

Elizabeth Smart 2013On May 1, 2013 Elizabeth Smart addressed a human trafficking forum at Johns Hopkins University. She spoke of the sexual abuse she endured during her captivity and how it made her feel. Elizabeth addressed something she has been asked repeatedly during the ten years since her rescue: “Why didn’t you run away? Why didn’t you yell? Why didn’t you scream?” Her answer was two-fold.

First Elizabeth spoke of fear stemming from threats made against her life and against the safety of her family. So in an effort to protect her family and herself, she said, “I always did what my captors told me to do.”

Then Elizabeth explained that what kept her from running or screaming “goes even beyond fear.” Though she wanted to be rescued and reunited with her family, as a young Mormon girl she believed that the sexual abuse she had suffered had made her “worthless.”

During her address, Elizabeth spoke of her upbringing in “a very religious household” in which she was taught that sex was to be reserved for marriage. She had every intention of maintaining her chastity until her wedding day, but Brian David Mitchell took that away from her. After the first rape, she explained, “I felt crushed. Who could want me now? I felt so dirty and so filthy.” She felt “devalued” and reluctant to try to reenter her old life. “Can you imagine turning around and going back into society where you are no longer of value, where you are no longer as good as everyone else?” she asked her audience.

Elizabeth related a lesson on abstinence that she had been taught as a girl. In this lesson the teacher likened a young woman to a piece of gum; after sex outside of marriage it was as if the gum had been chewed; and after being chewed and passed around, the gum (i.e., the young woman) became worthless. This lesson stuck with Elizabeth, and after being raped by Mitchell, she questioned if it would even be worth being rescued since she was now a chewed-up piece of gum worthy only of being thrown away. So Elizabeth did not run or scream for help.

Chewing gum stuck to a shoe in DublinBecause of Elizabeth Smart’s courageous remarks earlier this month, Mormon women are talking about this and sharing their own experiences. While Elizabeth said her chewing-gum lesson was taught in school, other Mormon women describe lessons they have been taught in LDS meetings where similar analogies were presented including mashed Twinkies, half-eaten candy bars and man-handled roses. A woman named Cindy wrote,

“I remember my beehive teacher bringing in a beautiful red jello in a clear crystal bowl–and then dumping the contents of a vacuum cleaner bag on it. It was awful–such a visual contrast. But even then I knew that there was something wrong with the analogy–and later I realized that her analogy made no provision for repentance.”

Indeed. Elizabeth Smart, a victim of her captor, did not need to repent of engaging in pre-marital sex with Brian David Mitchell. But setting that aside, she still didn’t know that her life could be redeemed. Where would she get the idea that her situation was so hopeless?

Elizabeth was reared in a time when the official teachings of the Mormon Church were more tempered than in earlier years. But those who raised her, and those who taught her, learned their lessons in a harsher environment. Just 6 years before Elizabeth was born, an article appeared in the Ensign magazine as a First Presidency Message. It said in part,

“You will recall Alma’s teaching his son Corianton that unchastity is the most serious offense there is in the sight of God, save murder or denying the Holy Ghost… Some years ago the First Presidency said to the youth of the Church that a person would be better dead clean than alive unclean… I remember how my father impressed the seriousness of unchastity upon my mind. He and I were standing in the railroad station at Rexburg, Idaho, in the early morning of 12 November 1920… ‘remember this, my son: we would rather come to this station and take your body off the train in a casket than to have you come home unclean, having lost your virtue.’ …President Clark, in a conference address in October 1938, said: … ‘Please believe me when I say that chastity is worth more than life itself. This is the doctrine my parents taught me; it is truth. Better die chaste than live unchaste. The salvation of your very souls is concerned in this.’” (Marion G. Romney, “We Believe in Being Chaste,” Ensign, September 1981).

Consider some of the other statements made by Mormon Prophets and Apostles that have helped form today’s Mormon culture in Utah:

“Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, 196).

“Loss of virtue is too great a price to pay even for the preservation of one’s life — better dead clean, than alive unclean. Many is the faithful the Latter-day Saint parent who has sent a son or a daughter on a mission or otherwise out into the world with the direction: ‘I would rather have you come back in a pine box with your virtue than return alive without it.'” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 124.)

“…There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity — realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world.” (Heber J. Grant, Gospel Standards, 55)

FuneralProcessionNo wonder Elizabeth Smart believed there was no hope for her, no reason to be rescued and released from the horrible captivity and abuse she suffered. If she understood that she was better off dead than sexually impure, that her parents would rather bury her than have her back in her unclean state (as she saw herself), there was no reason for her to think she could ever find peace or forgiveness in this life.

The Mormon Church does teach that one can repent from sexual sin, and that those who are forced into sexual relations are not guilty of sexual sin, but Elizabeth Smart didn’t get that message. Instead, she got the harsh and graceless message that one’s worthiness and eternal hope is anchored in one’s ability to perfectly obey the rules as set forth by the Mormon Church.

This is one of the tragedies of Mormonism: False prophets teaching harmfully false ideas under the guise of speaking for God. Elizabeth Smart was a victim of more than just the abuses of Brian David Mitchell.

My friends, there is no circumstance in which a person’s sin or life situation is beyond the reach and redemption of Jesus. “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—crownnailsbut God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” (Romans 5:6-11)

Posted in Forgiveness, Mormon Culture, Worthiness | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 76 Comments

David Bartosiewicz on going through Jesus as our temple

“The NT clearly teaches that we do not need physical temples of any sort to save us. In Hebrews we become completely aware that Jesus is the altar, the tabernacle, His flesh the veil, His heaven the holy of holies, the only High Priest over the house of God. He is our confession, there is no need to go to a temple to receive a sealing since the believers are promised by God that His Spirit, the Holy Spirit of Promise resides in us and we become sealed by Him through our belief as an eternal companion, an eternal bride, with Him our bridegroom forever. Read Eph 1: 14. Temples in the past were only for sacrificial gifts for the redemption of sin through the unblemish blood of lambs. Jesus is our last sacrifice and paid the last drop of blood for our sins. Praise Him..It is completely finished. He fulfilled everything and nailed it to the cross. If we don’t go through Jesus as our temple, we miss out on salvation.” – David Bartosiewicz

Posted in Uncategorized | 88 Comments

Sin entered, blood formed.

Adam and EveThe Mormon Church recently released an updated edition of its scriptures. One of the resources that underwent some change is the Bible Dictionary, found in the back of the LDS edition of the KJV Bible (print editions). In reviewing some of the changes made to the new digital edition I found one of particular interest in the entry titled “Fall of Adam and Eve.”

The entry previous to the new changes said (in part),

“Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam,” 670)

This doctrine, blood forming as a direct result of the Fall, is consistent with the teachings of other Mormon authorities. Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the tenth President of the Mormon Church, was firmly convicted of this doctrine. He wrote,

“We are also taught that, not being subject to death, Adam had no blood in his veins before the fall. Blood is the life of the mortal body…There is no blood in an immortal body, and when Adam transgressed the law and ate the fruit that had been forbidden there came a drastic change in his body and it was transformed from the condition where there was no death to a condition where it became subject to death, or mortality, and from that time forth blood was the life-giving fluid.” (Man, His Origin and Destiny, 362-364)

“We know that when Adam was placed on the earth it was pronounced ‘good,’ and he, as well as the earth, was not subject to death. There was no ‘curse’ on the earth. There was no blood in his body, but he had a spiritual body until it was changed by the fall. A spiritual body is one which is not quickened by blood, but by spirit. Before the fall Adam had a physical, tangible body of flesh and bones, but it was not quickened by blood. The partaking of the forbidden fruit caused blood to exist in his body and thus the seeds of mortality were sown and his body then became temporal, or mortal, subject to the vicissitudes of mortal change. The Lord created all things upon this earth physically and immortal, or free from the seeds of death. The fall of Adam brought the change upon the earth and all things upon its face partook of the conditions imposed upon Adam in the fall.” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 2:5-6)

“Now when Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations… After the fall, which came by a transgression of the law under which Adam was living, the forbidden fruit had the power to create blood and change his nature and mortality took the place of immortality, and all things, partaking of the change, became mortal.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:77)

“Since it was by the creation of blood that mortality came, it is by the sacrifice of blood that the redemption from death was accomplished, and all creatures freed from Satan’s grasp. In no other way could the sacrifice for redemption of the world from death be accomplished. Blood being the agent of mortality, it had to be returned to Satan and to death, whence it came… Jesus obtained his blood from his mother Mary; he obtained his power over death from his Father. Therefore he could and did voluntarily surrender himself to his enemies who crucified him by the shedding of his blood. When he arose from the tomb, he was free from blood, and his body had become subject to eternal law henceforth and forever.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:109)

Red AppleMormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie supported Joseph Fielding Smith in this doctrine, as he included the teaching in several of his own books. For example, in Mormon Doctrine, he wrote,

“Adam, our first parent (1 Ne. 5:11), a ‘son of God’ (Moses 6:22), was first placed on earth as an immortal being. His coming was the crowning event of the creation; and as with him, so with every department of creation — immortality reigned supreme. (2 Ne. 2:22.) There was no death, no mortality, no corruption, no procreation. Blood did not flow in Adam’s veins, for he was not yet mortal, and blood is an element that pertains exclusively to mortality…

“In conformity with the will of the Lord, Adam fell both spiritually and temporally. Spiritual death entered the world,… Temporal death also entered the world, meaning that man and all created things became mortal, and blood became the life preserving element in the natural body.” (“Fall of Adam,” 268-269)

Mormon Apostle Alvin R. Dyer also jumped on this doctrinal bandwagon. In his book, Who Am I?, he wrote,

“By their own act of transgression, Adam and Eve brought mortality upon themselves. This imposed conditions causing blood to flow in their natural bodies. But it also rendered them capable to fulfill the greater commandment they had received from God to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’” (247-248)

That blood formed in the bodies of Adam and Eve at the time that they became mortal seems like a pretty solid doctrine in Mormonism. Perhaps it remains so, but the new edition of the Bible Dictionary contains no reference to it. The new entry states (in part),

“Before the Fall, there were no sin, no death, and no children. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam and Eve,” new online edition)

Interestingly, a similar change was made in the Bible Dictionary entry titled “Resurrection.” Compare the previous edition and the new edition:

“Others had been brought back from death, but were restored to mortality (Mark 5: 22-43; Luke 7: 11-17; John 11: 1-45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, without blood, yet with a body of flesh and bone.” (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” 761, emphasis added to aid comparison.)

“Others had been brought back from death but were restored to mortality (Mark 5:22–43; Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1–45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, with a body of flesh and bone.” (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” new online edition)

The Mormon Church explains that the Bible Dictionary “is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine” though it is “based primarily on the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other standard works” and “the work of Bible scholars.” Nevertheless, the Church says the Dictionary is “subject to reevaluation as new research or revelation comes to light.” I wonder whether it was research or revelation that precipitated the changes to the Bible Dictionary that I’ve discussed here. Either way, one usually thinks that research or revelation will add information, rather than having it taken away.

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, Bible, Mormon Scripture | Tagged , , , , , , | 108 Comments

Finding Emma

jm_400_CH1.pd-P6.tiffLast week Jana Riess (Flunking Sainthood) wrote about “The Mormon Reinvention of Emma Smith.” Recapping a recent lecture by Emma Smith’s biographer Linda King Newell (co-author with Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 1984), Ms. Riess noted that before the publication of Ms. Newell’s book, “Emma had been largely written out of official LDS history.”

Emma had been disappeared. Why?

We all use history to suit our purposes, and Emma simply did not suit the purposes of the LDS Church in the years following her husband’s death.

  • It wasn’t just that she was the mother of a boy whom many Saints felt to be Smith’s rightful prophetic heir, rather than Brigham Young.
  • It wasn’t just that she clashed with Young so severely that he once claimed that “more hell was never wrapped up in any human being than there is in her.”
  • And it wasn’t just that she later helped her son found a rival church, coalescing the support of many former Mormons who had stayed behind in the Midwest.

It was that she hated polygamy and flatly refused to countenance its presence among the Mormon people. (“The Mormon Reinvention of Emma Smith”)

And though Emma Smith shows up in Church materials and talks more often these days than in the past, the Mormon Church continues to present a “reinvented Emma Smith.”

One example provided by Jana Riess is found in the “official narrative” on Emma Smith at lds.org:

After Joseph’s death on 27 June 1844, the Saints knew they would have to leave Nauvoo, so they began to make plans. In 1846 they headed west. Emma, a 41-year-old widow with her aged mother-in-law and five children to care for, chose the security of her home in Nauvoo rather than the unknown perils of the frontier and did not accompany the Saints. (GAK405: Emma Smith)

But in fact, it was Mormon polygamy that held Emma back.

07-03The Mormon Church paints a radiant picture of Emma’s and Joseph’s marriage — he the loving and devoted husband, she the supportive and dedicated wife. While there is every reason to believe Joseph and Emma loved each other deeply, their marriage was filled with turmoil. When Joseph took his first plural wife just six years into his and Emma’s marriage, Emma found the strength to forgive him. This was in about 1833; the young woman was Fanny Alger.

“Mrs. Smith had an adopted daughter, a very pretty, pleasing young girl, about seventeen years old. She was extremely fond of her; no own mother could be more devoted, and their affection for each other was a constant object of remark, so absorbing and genuine did it seem. Consequently it was with shocked surprise that the people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night…it was felt that she [Emma] certainly must have some very good reason for her action. By degrees it became whispered about that Joseph’s love for his adopted daughter was by no means a paternal affection, and his wife, discovering the fact, at once took measures to place the girl beyond his reach.” (Ann Eliza Webb Young, cited in Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 34)

Emma knew about Fanny and forgave Joseph for his indiscretion, but she was unaware of many of the additional plural wives Joseph secured over the following years. On July 27, 1842 Joseph married his 15th bride, 17-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney. Her parents fully approved of the union and were called on to help Joseph and Sarah find a “safe” time to be together. On August 18th, Joseph wrote to Sarah and her parents:

I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of affliction, or not at all. Now is the time or never, but I have no need of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes, then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety; only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible…I think Emma won’t come tonight. If she don’t, don’t fail to come to night. (Cited in Gary James Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum, 27-28; spelling and grammar standardized)

Emma did not know, and it was important to Joseph that she not find out. Yet just a few months later Joseph had persuaded Emma that the doctrine of celestial (plural) marriage had been revealed by God. Emma agreed to allow Joseph to marry two young women, Emily and Eliza Partridge. Some weeks later Joseph married another set of sisters, Sarah and Maria Lawrence, wives #24 and #25. But the Smith family began to unravel at the core.

About six weeks after his marriages to the Partridge and Lawrence sisters [March and May 1843, respectively], Joseph dictated the plural marriage revelation to his scribe William Clayton, perhaps in an attempt to give weight to his arguments with Emma…Emma refused to accept the written version with the same vehemence she accorded Joseph’s verbal arguments. A month later, in August 1843, Emma went to St. Louis to buy supplies for the red brick store that Joseph operated in Nauvoo…On her return to Nauvoo she gave Joseph a drastic ultimatum: get rid of the plural wives or she would leave him. William Clayton’s journal entry for August 16, 1843 documented Emma’s threat. To keep her, Joseph promised Emma he would “relinquish all,” but in recounting the incident to Clayton, Joseph admitted his subterfuge; he would “not relinquish anything.” David Smith’s parents [Joseph and Emma] thus continued a relationship characterized by falsehood and deception on his father’s part and anger and frustration on his mother’s only fifteen months before his birth. (Valeen Tippetts Avery, From Mission to Madness: Last Son of the Mormon Prophet, 14)

Emma may have believed Joseph, or she may have decided to appear to believe him, but the issue of Joseph’s polygamy could not stay dormant in Joseph’s and Emma’s marriage.

At some point during the early spring of 1844, Joseph apparently ordained his young son Joseph to succeed him as eventual president of the church. His move triggered Emma’s determination to rid the church of polygamy, for now it threatened to become her son’s inheritance. She intensified her campaign to force Joseph to end the practice…Unable to terminate Joseph’s plural relationships through persuasion, Emma threatened violence, apparently her own suicide…Emma won. (From Mission to Madness, 14)

Joseph sent the sisters away, but tranquility did not reign for long in the Smith household.

The situation in the Law family [spring 1844] created yet another crisis for the Smiths. Joseph was accused of being too familiar with Law’s wife, Jane. Emma learned of a visit Joseph made to the woman and angrily prepared to return to her family in Pennsylvania. Joseph’s associate, Ebenezer Robinson, reported, “It was a time when [Emma] was very suspicious and jealous…for fear he would get another wife,…[If he did] she was determined to leave and when she heard [of Joseph’s visit to another woman] she Emma became very angry and said she would leave and was making preparations to go to her people in the State of New York. It came close to breaking up his family.” Joseph once again turned the situation around, and Emma remained with him, but it was a tenuous peace. (From Mission to Madness, 15; brackets and ellipses retained from the source cited)

Not long after this Joseph died, leaving Emma in the company of perhaps another 33 grieving widows. Brigham Young soon took on the mantle of leadership for the Mormon Church and began preparations to take the Mormon people west, away from Nauvoo.

[Emma] differed sharply with Brigham Young over the direction he appeared to be leading the church. She firmly opposed the principle and practice of plural marriage, which she was certain would continue under Young’s leadership. Emma saw no reason to travel any great distance with her young family, only to face the same polygamy controversies. Nor was she reticent in voicing her opinion to Brigham Young, who, along with other church leaders, assumed the responsibility for many of Joseph’s other plural “widows” by marrying them in the spirit of the Old Testament leviratic requirements that a man take responsibility for his dead brother’s wife and family. Emma refused to marry any of the church leaders as a plural wife as so many of Joseph’s other wives had done. Disappointed that even Joseph’s death had not eliminated polygamy and alone with five children to support, Emma decided to remain in Nauvoo. (From Mission to Madness, 27)

Joseph and EmmaThe 17-year marriage of Joseph and Emma Smith was punctuated by deception, subterfuge, betrayal, infidelity, threats, suspicion, secrecy and anger. This is not a picture that matches the warm and devoted family life the Mormon Church presents in its reinvention of Emma and Joseph Smith.

Posted in Joseph Smith, Mormon History, Polygamy | Tagged , , , | 61 Comments

A reference-recipe for well-rounded engagement of Mormonism

Want to do a well-rounded engagement of Mormonism? Study and quote:

  • General Conference talks
  • “Correlated” priesthood and relief society manuals
  • Institute and seminary manuals (what the teens and college students are being taught)

This is what makes Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson so awesome — they work hard to keep abreast of LDS literature, with a special focus on the manuals that are actually being used to teach Mormons.

And then, if possible:

  • 19th century LDS scripture
  • Popular literature found at Deseret Book, etc.
  • Works of LDS neo-orthodoxy (generally BYU professors)
  • “Mormon Doctrine”, by Bruce McConkie
  • Works of James Talmage (pivotal theological figure of the “reconstruction era” of Mormon history)
  • Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought

It also helps to be able to summarize the historical development of a particular doctrine (using the term loosely here). A really helpful work on this is This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology, by Charles Harrell. Quoting from the Journal of Discourses (essentially the 19th century “Conference Reports”!) also is relevant when surveying historical LDS teachings.

A sloppy countercultist will overly depend on 19th century quotes of brazen leaders like Brigham Young and Orson Pratt. Conversely, a quasi-ecumenical liberal will tend to only quote from 19th century Mormon scripture and the works of neo-orthodox BYU professors.

Posted in Uncategorized | 144 Comments

“You are a part of that process.”

Mitz Nelson

Quoting Mitz Nelson:

I think it is a process. I don’t think too often they get that one big “ahah!” moment. But it is a process.

And that is what you guys have to remember: You are a part of that process. Just because someone doesn’t have that “ahah!” moment with you doesn’t mean what you did wasn’t completely profound in their life.

My daughter was prayed for at Pageant — oh, four years before we left. A Christian woman tried to talk with her. She wasn’t really getting what she was saying. But then she just said, “Can I pray with you?” And she prayed for her. And that stuck with my daughter. It didn’t pull her out. It didn’t change her entire life right then, but it was part of that process. God used that woman to pray with her then, which just validated her later, where she had those things to look back on.

So don’t get frustrated. Be bold.

And remember, they are captives. They are the beautiful walking dead. They are. It’s a beautiful religion. It’s a beautiful people. It’s a beautiful organization. But they’re dying. And you guys know the only Physician that can heal them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

What They Really Mean: The Eight Article of Faith

SVG version available here

Posted in D&C and Pearl of Great Price, Mormon Scripture, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 113 Comments