The following message (though not this picture) was posted yesterday on the Mormon Church's public affairs blog. It explains the group's unhappiness with recent news reports that refer to "splinter groups" which hive off from the Salt Lake City-based "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (AKA "the Mormon Church") as "Mormons."
These splinter groups (AKA "Mormon Fundamentalists") assiduously devote themselves to the practice of the doctrine of polygamy (which was renounced by THE Mormon Church in 1890) and around whichever Viagra-addled alpha male has set himself up as the prophet, seer, and revelator for that particular harem.
Yes, it's kind of weird, especially since the real Mormon Church used to officially teach (and practice with gusto) the doctrine of "plural marriage" (c.f., D&C 132:51-52, 61-64). But when you consider this issue from the standpoint of the LDS Church, their concern makes sense. And in any case, I personally find the whole wild and wonderful world of Mormonism rather fascinating anyway.
During the past few years most journalists in the U.S. have done an excellent job in clarifying the differences between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and small, polygamist, splinter groups that often call themselves "Mormons" but have no connection with the Church. Since these groups are covered in the press frequently, we appreciate journalists' efforts to make this distinction.
However, today The Times in London ran a story about a polygamist group, not at all associated with the Church, with the headline "Mormon polygamist Raymond Jessop on trial after raid on sect's compound." Journalists who use the word "Mormon" in relation to polygamist groups unassociated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cause enormous amounts of confusion in the minds of their readers. Particularly internationally, readers do not distinguish between these groups and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which there are over 13.5 million members worldwide.
A few weeks ago I was in Korea and spoke with some of the Church's Public Affairs media representatives there. They expressed frustration with international wire services that inappropriately use the term "Mormon" in their stories in association with fringe polygamists groups. The Korean press often reruns these stories with the wire service inaccuracies. The effect of such misinformation in Korea, and other countries where the Church has fewer members and is less well known, is much greater. . . . (continue reading)
Posts
.jpg)
61 Comments:
So? They want to call themselves Christian when they are not even monotheists.
If they get to call themselves Christian, then why should they object when fringe groups are identified as Mormons?
Mormons are Christians. They believe in the teachings and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Wake up. Caholics are Christians for the same reason. Wouldn't you be upset if some fringe wacked out group decided to call themselves Catholics even though they did not preactive the faith you love?
It seems to me that Catholics don't like to call the folks who broke away from their church Catholics--that's why they called them Protestants.
The offshoot sects from the LDS Church are no more "Mormon" than a Baptist would be a Catholic.
The point of your article seems to be an excuse for a thinly veiled, bigoted poke at Mormons. How very "Christian" of you.
Well, as a Catholic I don't want Episcopalians, schismatics, and so forth calling themselves "Catholic." So I completely understand the LDS Church not wanting to be incorrectly identified with their schismatics, either.
Patrick,
E-book on Mormonism: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm
As a believing Mormon, I frankly don't care if I get the coveted "Christian" label. As long as people acknowledge that I claim to worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, it's all good in my book. Mormonism can stand on its own two feet without begging for table scraps from Catholicism or Protestantism.
I also don't care if you call the polygamists in Texas "Mormons." As long as you keep the two groups straight, it's all good for me on this score too.
I think Patrick is well aware that Mormons do not, in fact, believe in the teachings and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
"Particularly internationally, readers do not distinguish between these groups and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which there are over 13.5 million members worldwide." That reminds me of something.
As long as I can remember, which I guess is about 30 years, I recall hearing two facts about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. What are they? you ask.
First, LDS is the fastest growing religion in the USA. Yep, I've been hearing that for 30 years.
Second, LDS has about 10 million members in the USA. Yep, I've been hearing that for 30 years, too.
Go figure.
Re: "Wouldn't you be upset if some fringe wacked out group decided to call themselves Catholic even though they did not preactive the faith you love?"
You mean like how Mormons call themselves Catholic? Yes, I am upset. The sin of self-righteousness angers me. They dare to call themselves the Church of Christ, which, according to the early bishop Cyril, is properly named Catholic Church. And according to the early bishop Augustine, every Christian is Catholic and every Catholic Christian, for he calls the members of the Church "Catholic Christians". So the Mormons are calling themselves Catholic, yet they are not, and you have proved that my anger over the sin of self-righteousness is just. Thank you for that.
But the off-shoot groups are actually following the original teachings of the church. Doesn't that make the relationship more like Baptist:Catholic than Catholic:Baptist? It would as I see it. Our Church doesn't have to denounce its own teachings and then claim to have nothing to do with those who follow the original teachings of the Church!
As a Christian who can trace his tradition back to the first century I object to Mormons calling themselves Christian. The problem is that SLC Mormons cannot make that same claim even for the brief 170 years or so of their history since the so-called breakaway groups adhere more closely to the teachings of Joseph Smith than SLC Mormons. These other grops can just as easily counter with calling the SLC Mormons a breakaway group on that basis.
These polygamist groups are an accurate representation of early Mormonism and help educate and remind people where this cult came from and what they would rather we didn't know.
Mike, the FLDS are NOT a time-capsule of Mormonism "the way it used to be."
Late 1800s LDS did not live all crowded together in a fenced compound. They did not have a problem with "lost boys" (due to population dynamics of the day). They did not forbid contact with outsiders or outside ideas. To the extent it was available, they availed themelves of everything modern education (as it existed at the time) had to offer. Women in Utah were at the head of the Suffrage movement and were independent and strong-willed. High levels of education were common and encouraged among 1800s LDS women. Visitors from back east were routinely surprised at how little polygamous LDS women matched the stereotypes they expected.
1800s LDS lived shoulder to shoulder with "gentiles" (even if they didn't particularly like it). They had friendly relations with competing religions like Catholicism (Brigham Young and the local Catholic clergy were on amiable terms and the local Catholic priest was even allowed to preach from the Mormon Tabernacle pulpit).
Late 1800s LDS were individualistic and self-reliant farmers spread out over millions of square miles, on isolated and largely self-reliant farmsteads. They were fully capable of making a living even after essentially flipping the local Stake President the bird (like my great great granduncle essentially did when he had a fight with the Stake President over irrigation allotments).
And the late 1800s LDS had no systematized method of withholding wives and children from men they didn't like.
Finally, the vast majority of late 1800s polygamist men had only two wives. Higher numbers of wives were largely a legacy of the short-lived "Nauvoo Period" of Mormon history. Only a few men within the LDS Church had more than two wives, and almost all of them had their wives from the brief period in Nauvoo. And polygamy was only ever practiced by a small percentage of the men in late 1800s Utah.
There's really not a lot of useful comparison to be had.
And one of those LDS members with way more than two wives was Joseph Smith - who tended to favor them on the underage and near pubescent side.
The ages of Joseph Smith's wives (in order):
22
16
37
26
20
31
33
23
23
47
27
50
53
37
38
17
37
33
16
19
22
30
17
17
19
14
29
29
58
32
27
19
14
56
Actually it appears that he preferred them mid 20s to mid 30s. Percentage-wise, the layout in age of his wives actually matches up fairly closely with the ages of the American bride population in general. You'll find similar percentages in the American bride population in the early 1800s in teenage brides, brides in their 20s, and brides in their 30s as the percentages in Joseph's own marriages.
Seems like he was just following the general trend (except in having more than one).
I love the way Mormons "correct" comments as though to inject reason into a conversation that started with Joseph Smith marrying two fourteen-year-olds and altogether marrying 32 women aged from 14 to 58!
The average age of women getting married in the US in 1900 was 22 and for men it was 25. In Europe the average age at marriage was:
1566-1619 27.0 years
1647-1719 29.6 years
1719-1779 26.8 years
1770-1837 25.1 years
The notion that it was typical for very young and barely pubescent girls being pressed into marriage is a fiction (BTW pubescence in girls at that began later and not earlier).
But it doesn't serve the Mormon cause to appeal to this because Joseph Smith practiced and taught polygamy and polyginy at a time when it was socially unacceptable and illegal.
I didn't mention the FLDS so I don't know where you get that from. I simply assert that such groups are more true in their teachings and practices to the teachings of their founding prophets.
The issue of compounds is not an issue at all. The equivelant would be the iron regime of Brigham (I can beat Joe in the wife stakes) Young. Need I mention Dannites? Oh, and BTW the wrecking of a printing press at the behest of a megalomaniac by the name of Joseph Smith. I think compounds and a penchant for cotrolling people represent in microcosm what in Joseph and Brigham's days was writ large across large tracts of the midwest.
More true in their teachings if you only count one doctrine Mike. I don't deny that polygamy was an important aspect of 1800s Mormonism. But I think people critical of Mormonism make it a little more central to the whole enterprise than it really was.
I really have no idea what you mean by "iron regime of Brigham Young." Do you mean he actually bothered to try and govern rather than follow the model of barely suppressed anarchy typical of the rest of the American frontier?
As for wrecking the printing press... bravo to Joseph Smith for destroying it. It was a dangerous hate-filled publication advocating for physical violence against the Mormons living in Nauvoo. Good riddance I say.
As for the Danites, sure you can mention them. And I can ask why you think after we had our farms burned, our women raped, and our men beaten within an inch of their lives, you seem to think it unreasonable that elements within the Mormon community would want some payback.
Tell you what Mike. You take a mob of men into an American town and start beating them, robbing them, and stealing their homes. And then when some of them start fighting back, whine about how they're "being too violent."
Yeah, see how that plays in the press. Good luck to ya.
Your appeal to the median age of marriage is rather pointless, because the median obscures how common marriages in the other age brackets were. As I said, the age breakdown of Joseph Smith's sample wasn't that different from the age breakdown in the population at large at the time.
Really, the only weird thing about Joseph Smith was that he had more than one wife.
No one at that time gave a damn how old they were.
PS: I can’t remember if I made this point clear but, for those who don’t believe that Mormons worship Christ: our ENTIRE religion is on the basis of becoming like Christ. We find joy in Christ, our aim (and my whole reason for continuing my life on earth) is to find our imperfections (and they are as most of our brothers and sisters) and to repent. The central point of our religion is the atonement. Everything else is of secondary importance; period. Through it, we believe we can be with our loved ones forever and live for the rest of eternity in Joy; for we can either chose to live in happiness or we can live in misery. If you could only get one thing from this entry it’s this: that we’re are a people striving to become like Jesus Christ and to come back to him through his sacrifice.
Ok, for any of you who happen to come across this: I just want to put something strait.
1-The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a church of ADAMANT Christianity: Our whole religion is centered on him, becoming like him, and returning to him. In short, no we're not Catholics, Baptist or what have you; we ARE Christians
2-LDS members are FREQUENTLY branded as polygamists; this is what started this article in the first place. The FLDS and The LDS religions are two COMPLETELY separate religions. The LDS not only believe AGAINST the practice of polygamy, but we also believe in the existence of a prophet, just like the prophets of old, who is to guide us in these latter-days and help us prefect our lives (a process, we believe, tends to take a VERY long time). This is one of the fundamental differences that separate the FLDS and the LDS: we believe in our current prophet, the FLDS do not. (In fact, they broke away from our church not when we denounced polygamy but when Joseph Smith, our "first" Prophet died)
4-Polygamy was NOT a practice neither taught nor even ALLOWED during the funding of the church. This was so for many years, but then our Church began to be persecuted, beaten, tarred and feathered, (you get the idea, America wasn't doing a good job of defending its citizens)for various reasons; the chief reason being: the Book of Mormon (in which we get our controversial little nickname). The Book of Mormon is a Second Testament of Jesus Christ. We believe that the book was written by the prophets God sent to the Americas during the same time of the Bible. The Book of Mormon (which was written primarily by the prophet Mormon) is a record of God's dealings with the inhabitants here in the Americas. At one point the last Saint in the Americas (Mormon's son: Moroni) finishes the record, seals it, and hides it in the earth until the time comes that The Lord Jesus Christ reveals it to the Gentiles and restores a Prophet and Apostles to the earth once again. Joseph Smith was the Gentile we revealed it to.
THIS is what begun the Controversy: Joseph Smith had first begun to become a Prophet (though he didn't know it at the time) while he was but a teenage boy
(Please. Before you continue to read, I would ask you to remove yourself to somewhere quite. I beg of you. It’s more important than I can possibly communicate to you.)
There you go again Seth, rewriting history. Do you wonder Christians get fed up with Mormons and just "tell it like it is?" It is a popular Mormon ploy to suggest that Christians are making more of this or that, than there really is and it is truly disingenuous.
To characterise polygamy as "just one doctrine" as though there were better and more important things to talk about is just misleading. Mormonism clearly teaches that polygamy is essential if you want to go to the celestial kingdom and be with God.
It was taught and practiced in the 19th century with the that conviction. Given all Joseph Smith taught about polygamy (usually to avoid the ire of his wife Emma) to deny its central role in Mormonism is akin to denying the central role of the Cross in Christianity.
I know it is a comparison that will aggravate you but when you consider D&C 132 and all that was preached from and around this “scripture” it is difficult to draw any other conclusion:
“For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.” (D&C 132 4-6)
I don’t know how Mormons can be so complacent about something that, if it is not believed and abided by, will determine damnation for the heretic. In my day at least we believed in and understood it and excused its absence by referring to AofF 12. Today Mormons typically talk about it as though it was a 19th century aberration and I am sick of reading these lies.
I didn’t write about the median but the average. Understanding the difference will argue my point for me. The average, or mean, is the total when you add the numbers in a list by the total number of marks. The median is the middle value in a list. The difference is important when you understand the “mode” in this list. If the median is the middle number and the average the result of dividing the total by the sum of marks the mode is the number (or numbers) that occurs most frequently.
In your list the mode works out at 14, 16, 19, 23, 27, 33, 37, each number occurring twice in the list. Smith married two fourteen year old and two sixteen year old girls, a seventeen, a 19 and a 20 year old at a time when the average age for marriage was 22.
This means that he didn’t straddle the median equally as you suggest but was below the average in choosing very young girls who would normally have waited longer for marriage to someone more their age (the average age for men marrying being 25)
Now, either he was obeying God in doing this, or he was a pervert with a penchant for young flesh and Mormons should stop being mealy-mouthed about it.
Regarding the so-called “persecution” of the saints there are two sides to every story and it is well to remember that the Mormons were the otherwise innocent party in all this. You put a scenario to me let me put one to you.
Imagine you have worked hard to make a life, build a community and secure a future for your family when a large group of polygamists move into your area proclaiming from their pulpits that the land was to be theirs as Canaan was Israel’s. Imagine hearing all the stories of underage brides, questionable banking practices and failed banks, of a man determined to raise his own militia to achieve “God’s purposes” (echoes of Muhammad here).
Do you just give up your land, surrender your daughters and walk into the sunset? Of course there is wrong on both sides but I don’t think an influx of Presbyterians would have provoked such a reaction as greeted the Mormons.
"Mormonism clearly teaches that polygamy is essential if you want to go to the celestial kingdom and be with God."
Who's rewriting history?
Brigham Young and multiple other LDS leaders repeatedly taught that mere heartfelt acceptance of the doctrine of polygamy was necessary for exaltation. They did not require it as a PRACTICE for any wishing to obtain exaltation.
This is consistent with D&C 132 that you cited.
And as for rewriting history -
The Missourians who raped and murdered our people weren't generally even aware of polygamy. It wasn't openly taught at that point in LDS history. Nor was it widely known.
The main reason that the LDS were persecuted in Missouri was because they were clannish, kept to themselves, tended to vote similarly, and - above all - were anti-slavery.
Being anti-slavery was a hugely distasteful thing to the existing Missourians. Don't forget that this was in the middle of the whole slave state-free state balancing game that ultimately led up to the Civil War. A large, clannish, voting block moving in next door with strange doctrines and anti-slavery.
It doesn't take a genius to see where the violence came from. But polygamy was never more than a vague rumor during this period. The real public outcry came during the Nauvoo period.
And there was nothing all that questionable in Joseph's banking practices given the time period and the need for capital in new frontier communities.
what... the... HECK!!!! They removed my whole entire testimony!!!!! (how dare you!)
also, [Mr. Editor] please let the people know that I tried to send more but that you found it unnessary (that would be the "what the heck" message...yes I know that was a bit obsene, but I poured my heart out into that long entry and you denied it to the public (no I'm not trying to despute anything with you or be disprespectful, I just wanted you to know that that hurt). Please post that one comment(NOT THIS ONE) so that people know that the list didn't end with please "remove yourself to somewhere quite".
(I edited the whole "history" part ok [person who deleted it befor] blease at least put this much into the blog the four page blog entry) NOW TO GET BACK ON THE SUBJECT OF POLYGAMY (I capitalize this for the sake of skimmers) the practice was in response to the fruits of hate form those who did not know the truth of our religion. There were many instances of LDS being shot, tarred and feathered and driven from their homes. As a result we had a vast amount of martyred men. Their wives would then be cared for by another LDS member. This was NOT something that everyone was allowed to do and was NOT something done due to men lusting after multiple women! It was something done out of compassion and love for the many, many, many widows our church had. (The commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” was another reason but not the primary one) This is the polygamy we DID practice, but eventually (while we were STILL being persecuted) the fourth president of the church, Prophet Wilford Woodruff, denounced it after a fit of fervent prayers. We hold true to that today and that is why we don’t want to be associated with the FLDS! They are NOT the same religion!!! I have had to tell people that I do not practice polygamy and that no Mormons do! I’M SIXTEEN!!! Yet when you have Shows like “Big Love” depicting polygamist FLDS members as “Mormons” now wonder people are confused!
Now before I conclude I have one more thing to say: if you want to know about a Mormon, ask a Mormon, for there are very few people who actually know what a Mormon IS unless they are a Mormon themselves or have a Mormon friend (you have no idea the amount of rumors people come up with to describe us… =P). And if there is anything else I haven’t cleared up with you I firmly beg of you to contact a LDS ward and ask for a missionary; tell them you have some question about our religion you want answered. Our Missionaries are men and women who have dedicated two YEARS of their life to preaching the gospel and (more importantly for you) answering questions. Please. If you have felt something as you read this, I beg of you to seek them out. Do not hesitate, for if this Church is true, the Devil and his demons will try to stop you. This will most likely start with a thought like: “I don’t feel like it”, “I don’t want to talk to anyone!” or “I’ll do it latter”. For such instances I ask, with all my heart, for you to seek out a missionary (go to LDS.org if you must and click on the “about the church” thingy on the left of the Jesus Statue). Please don’t delay, for every second you wait you’ll find yourself less willing to do so, and you’ll find your memory, of anything you’ve felt during this whole ordeal, beginning to wane.
He was raised in a farm, by a father and mother that believed in the teachings of Jesus and lived by it (if none else). He lived in a community that was HEAVY his various religions; all firm in their beliefs, yet each preaching doctrines that contradicted the teachings of other churches. Naturally, as someone concerned for his soul, he begun to search out which church was THE right one (and not the just the right one for HIM). He thus turned to the Scriptures to find a way to know which church was right. And so he studied; and studied; and studied, until one day he came across a scripture in the Epistle of James, Chapter 1, verse 5: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally , and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." and I continue with verse 6 "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." This scripture hit Joseph with a resonate force. He felt that if anyone "lacked wisdom" he most certainly did. He soon decides that that is what he would do and with firm sense of determination, he removed himself to the woods by his home, and begun to pray. (I'm going to quote from a record on Joseph Smiths words on what happened next.) "I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction--not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being--just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear him!” They then answer Joseph’s prayer and tell him to join none of the Churches. Eventually they depart. When the community eventually found this out, Joseph came under an astonishing amount of persecution as it is generally believed at the time that all visions and revelations had ceased with the apostles. He was but 14, 15 years old at the time. This continued throughout his life. Not once in his life would Joseph deny that he saw a vision. In his own words: “For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.”
Seth
So you believe in polygamy and that polygamy is the order of heaven, as taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? Then why are Mormons so coy when the issue is raised?
Regarding the Mormon fiction about early Mormon abolishonist sentiments I find Brigham Young's 1852 speech on slavery enlightening. He said:
"I am as much oposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over them, and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown to mortall beings of the human species. Under these sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in proportion than those who have to provide the bread and dinner for them" (you can read the speech here I am as much oposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over them, and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown to mortall beings of the human species. Under these sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in proportion than those who have to provide the bread and dinner for them" (You can read the speech here: http://www.mrm.org/topics/documents-speeches/brigham-youngs-1852-speech-slavery)
By this he means that "the African" is naturally a slave and the only thing about slavery to which he objected was the inhumane manner in which slaves were used. Otherwise he makes clear in the speech that the servant condition of the blackman was natural and right and he stood opposed to any effort to make him equal in society.
I know Mormons are fond of the presumed abolitionist reputation but consider that until 1978 the Mormon Church adhered to Young's views in allowing the Negro nothing beyond baptism in the privieges afforded by church membership. The scandal after 1978 is that while other sections of society, including Christian churches, who previously endorsed and practiced slavery have repented, the Mormon Church has hidden behind the fiction of being abolitionists and pretending that there is nothing to repent of.
The Book of Mormon was brought unending affliction to the LDS religion; but his also brought limitless joy to our lives, with both the teachings there in, and the fulfilling truth it brings when paired with the Bible. During Joseph Smith’s time the Book of Mormon, along with unfounded beliefs that “Mormons”: worship Smith; are demon worshipers (in fact, there are people now, who believe we have horns and have had them “surgically removed”); and various other (seemingly random) assumptions about this strange group of people, led to a great deal of our persecution, execution, and affliction.
NOW TO GET BACK ON THE SUBJECT OF POLYGAMY (I capitalize this for the sake of skimmers) the practice was in response to the fruits of hate form those who did not know the truth of our religion. There were many instances of LDS being shot, tarred and feathered and driven from their homes. As a result we had a vast amount of martyred men. Their wives would then be cared for by another LDS member. This was NOT something that everyone was allowed to do and was NOT something done due to men lusting after multiple women! It was something done out of compassion and love for the many, many, many widows our church had. (The commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” was another reason but not the primary one) This is the polygamy we DID practice, but eventually (while we were STILL being persecuted) the fourth president of the church, Prophet Wilford Woodruff, denounced it after a fit of fervent prayers. We hold true to that today and that is why we don’t want to be associated with the FLDS! They are NOT the same religion!!! I have had to tell people that I do not practice polygamy and that no Mormons do! I’M SIXTEEN!!! Yet when you have Shows like “Big Love” depicting polygamist FLDS members as “Mormons” now wonder people are confused!
Now before I conclude I have one more thing to say: if you want to know about a Mormon, ask a Mormon, for there are very few people who actually know what a Mormon IS unless they are a Mormon themselves or have a Mormon friend (you have no idea the amount of rumors people come up with to describe us… =P). And if there is anything else I haven’t cleared up with you I firmly beg of you to contact a LDS ward and ask for a missionary; tell them you have some question about our religion you want answered. Our Missionaries are men and women who have dedicated two YEARS of their life to preaching the gospel and (more importantly for you) answering questions. Please. If you have felt something as you read this, I beg of you to seek them out. Do not hesitate, for if this Church is true, the Devil and his demons will try to stop you. This will most likely start with a thought like: “I don’t feel like it”, “I don’t want to talk to anyone!” or “I’ll do it latter”. For such instances I ask, with all my heart, for you to seek out a missionary (go to LDS.org if you must and click on the “about the church” thingy on the left of the Jesus Statue). Please don’t delay, for every second you wait you’ll find yourself less willing to do so, and you’ll find your memory, of anything you’ve felt during this whole ordeal, beginning to wane.
I love you all, hopefully this helps clear up any confusion you feel about us.
Three years later, after enduring increased persecution due to his continued affirm that he had seen a vision and after keeping to God’s commandment to join none of the churches, more was revealed to him. He admits to have “frequently [fallen] into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth.” He continues “In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature.” One night, he retired to his bedside and begun to pray for forgiveness for his weakness and various imperfections. He also asked for a sign, that he might know of his state in the eyes of God.
An angel appeared to him that day; this is how he described him: He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me.” The angel told him of the Book of Mormon. He made it known unto Joseph that his name was Moroni, though it wouldn’t be until many years later that Joseph found out that this was the very man who sealed and hid the Book of Mormon. Twice more that night would Moroni appear before him, each time revealing a little more, including the location of the Book of Mormon. He was not yet permitted to take the record. He was even told that if he did so he would be destroyed! (As he had been told that the record had been written on plates of gold and that the devil would tempt him to take and sell the gold thereof)
Eventually (several years later) after having been directed and tempered into a more righteous soul then he had been, He was directed to take and translate the plates. And eventually the translation was completed and latter The Church was organized; with Jesus at its head, Joseph Smith as its prophet and twelve apostles to help lead the Church.
It's pretty well-known that 1830s Mormons were anti-slavery. Joseph Smith himself including purchasing the freedom of all slaves with proceeds from sale of Louisiana Purchase lands a part of his presidential platform.
I figure that Brigham Young's hang-ups were Brigham Young's hang-ups. Somehow they wound up being institutionalized as Church policy. But Brigham Young's racial statements in 1852 are well after the time period we're talking about, so I'll thank you not to try and change the subject here.
I also think that the rest of Christianity likes to forget that Mormons BORROWED racist doctrines from their Protestant neighbors (who inherited them from Catholicism). So it's not like we came up with the idea. But for some reason, we're the only ones required to apologize for it.
Besides, your response ignores that nothing in Brigham Young's statements precludes him or any other Mormon being abolitionist in sentiment. Plenty of 1800s abolitionists still considered African Americans inferior. Even the vaunted Abraham Lincoln held views about race that would get him immediately thrown out of office today.
So, I fail to see how your comment is even relevant to the point I was making.
Gerald R. McDermott, the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College and author, with Robert Millet, of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, addressed the question of whether Latter-day Saints are Christians in an article "Is Mormonism Christian?" published in First Things magazine (October 2008).
By examining Professor McDermott's critique in light of the Bible, one can see that Mormonism differs from historic Christian orthodoxy to the degree that historic Christian orthodoxy diverges from Biblical truths. See the following link:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2mH1gj1Vq-BYjczOWYyMDItNDE5NC00YzAxLTgxZDUtZGZhN2IxMzc2MjIz&hl=en
Most points where sectarian Christians have problems with LDS doctrine illustrate the departure of sectarianism from the Bible.
Mike
To answer your "So you believe in polygamy and that polygamy is the order of heaven, as taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? Then why are Mormons so coy when the issue is raised?" question: We do not. However one of the chief practices our religion encourages is making self sacrifices to return to our Heavenly Father and Savior. If we are commanded to become polygamists in order to do so; then we would do it and endure the affliction the world would put on us. (no matter how disgusting we would find the prospect...) I think that is what Seth (?) was refering to.
Seth, you said: "I also think that the rest of Christianity likes to forget that Mormons BORROWED racist doctrines from their Protestant neighbors (who inherited them from Catholicism). So it's not like we came up with the idea. But for some reason, we're the only ones required to apologize for it."
Is that so? Then please cite for me one of those Catholic doctrines that are racist.Provide any example you can find from official Catholic teaching: an ecumenical council, a papal decree, or even just a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church will do fine. And if you can't locate such a doctrine (I'll save you time here and let you know that you can't), then I ask you to to publicly retract your erroneous claim that the Catholic Church has "racist" doctrines. The Mormon Church surely does, but you cannot blame that on the Catholic Church.
Actually Patrick, this brings up an interesting point.
What is "official doctrine?"
I noted that you carefully worded your rebuttal to exclude a whole list of Catholic sources that you would probably label "unofficial." I would imagine that your list excludes statements from prominent figures in Catholicism who simply wrote about or taught racist doctrine that you would not consider "officially declared." Am I right?
But the same considerations apply to the LDS Church as well. Brigham Young's declarations about blacks being excluded from the Priesthood (and therefore temple ordinances) came not by way of revelation, or even by way of an official forum. But from an address that he made to the Utah Territorial Legislature.
Hardly the sort of place from which to derive "doctrine."
From that point, Brigham Young's opinions grew into hardened church policy. But they never were adopted as canon. These doctrines remained absent from our scriptures. Of course, various LDS authorities made repeated assertions about blacks bearing the "Mark of Cain" or the "Curse of Ham" (which we did actually borrow from other Christian sources - whether you consider them "official" or not). They backed this up with the same sort of misreading of Mormon scripture that religious advocates for Segregation did with the Bible.
In the end, this unofficial racist stance was so entrenched in the practice of the LDS Church - and in the minds of many of its followers - that it took a revelation to get rid of it in the 1970s.
But I am not in the slightest convinced that these were ever legitimate LDS doctrine to begin with. Just misguided policy, that then became tradition layered in misread scripture.
In the end Patrick - this is my view of Catholics, Protestants, and the Churches they belong to.
They are not generally racists. They've moved beyond such sentiments. And by and large, their Churches have put the ugliness of the past behind them as well, and are moving forward. I don't require an apology for racism from either Catholics or Protestants (at least, not most of them). We've moved on.
And I think similar courtesy might be extended to the LDS Church.
I notice that you never did supply an example of the alleged "racist doctrines" of the Catholic Church. Why not?
A doctrine is a formal teaching. I gave you a very wide avenue of opportunities (councils, popes, catechism, etc.) within which to make good on your charge.
Again, if you are unable to cite a specific example of the Catholic Church having a racist doctrine, then I call on you to do the right thing and publicly retract your claim.
I'm waiting to see whether you will do the right thing.
I didn't supply it because I knew what your answer would be - "that's not doctrinal."
My initial post wasn't actually trying to peg any particular portion of the Catholic tradition. I wasn't trying to make the case that this was "official" or not, "canonized" or not. So the use of the word "doctrine" was probably sloppy on my part.
Hope that clarifies things enough for you.
No. You didn't supply it because you can't.
No such doctrine exists or ever has existed in the Catholic Church. You know it, I know it, and those who've been following along here know it.
So now it's time for you to retract your claim that the Catholic Church teaches "racist" doctrines. Let's have it.
Young Mormons understandably wish to think well of their church. perhaps it would open their eyes if they looked at this
http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_racism.htm
As a codicil to my last statement perhaps it woluld enlighten the young and naive Mormon who wishes to think well of his church that Mormonism taught racist doctrine officially if they looked here:
http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_racism.htm
Bagmon
You really must learn that asserting a thing doesn’t make it true. Mormons are not Christians because they say they are Christians. That is a great mistake and Mormons need to put up a better defence than simple assertion and the lame notion that using the name of Jesus makes you Christian.
Do you read Mormon Scripture? If you read D&C 132 and the accompanying teaching you would know that polygamy was not the product of necessity in this life but qualification for the next. The notion that it was the product of expediency is laughable.
Seth
The teaching on Negroes was official doctrine and Young’s teaching on the subject, far from being aberrant, was taught consistently and defended fiercely right up to July 1978. McConkie, that apostle the Mormons love to hate, along with “the brethren” had made such strident statements over the years that he had to make a special statement to the effect, “I know what I have said and what the brethren have said in the past but you must forget that and fall in line with this.”
If it was never official doctrine why have the Mormons not repented and apologised like other churches that you insist influenced Mormons so? And what exactly is the purpose of “restoration” prophets in the Mormon Church? Surely it is to guide Mormons right when apostate churches have gone wrong? To suggest that other churches taught Mormons racism is ridiculous. The doctrine is official and based on the Book of Abraham and countless statements by Mormon leaders all the way up to 1978; the list is formidable and the racist sentiment unmistakably official. To try and wipe it off the map with a wave of the hand and an appeal to cultural mores of the time is dishonest and inexcusable.
Mealy-mouthed: overly wary of speaking plainly or openly, especially of admitting unpleasant truths
That’s Mormons for you, overly wary of speaking plainly or openly, especially of admitting unpleasant truths.
Seth, you did in fact say that. Here's the exact quote from your earlier post:
"I also think that the rest of Christianity likes to forget that Mormons BORROWED racist doctrines, from their Protestant neighbors (who inherited them from Catholicism). So it's not like we came up with the idea. But for some reason, we're the only ones required to apologize for it.
The only thing I'd expect you to apologize for now is your claim which, by your own failure to back it up with evidence, has been shown to be false.
So, let's have a your retraction, Seth.
"it's time for you to retract your claim that the Catholic Church teaches "racist" doctrines."
I can't retract something I didn't say. I never said the Catholic Church teaches racist doctrines in the first place.
Here's what I had in mind:
Origen (circa 185-c. 254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur].” Homilies on Genesis 16.1
Anne Catherine Emmerich - Augustinian Nun, beatified October 3, 2004 wrote:
"But God replied that it would not be so; that whoever should kill Cain should himself be punished sevenfold, and He placed a sign upon him that no one should slay him. Cains posterity gradually became colored. Hams children also were browner than those of Shem. The nobler races were always of a lighter color. They who were distinguished by a particular mark engendered children of the same stamp; and as corruption increased, the mark also increased until at last it covered the whole body, and people became darker and darker. But yet in the beginning there were no people perfectly black; they became so only by degrees."
and
"I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang"
Don't try to make me claim more than I'm really claiming.
My original point was not one of placing blame for these notions on any particular church. My point was simply this - Mormons didn't invent these ideas. We got them from other Christians.
Yeah, Patrick.
And as I already explained, calling it a Catholic "doctrine" was sloppy on my part.
So if that's all you wanted, I already retracted it several posts ago.
Mike
1-What is your definition of a christian?
2-Yes, I've read D&C 132.
3-Polygamy is NOT taught as a requirement to heaven.
4-I've read the Book of Mormon, I know about how the curse of (my) dark skin originated.(Yes, I am black. My parents moved here from Jamaica roughly a year before I was born. My Mom is a convert my Dad is a non-member). I also know that Mormon's are not racist's. The Book of Mormon is a RECORD. It's not doctrine preached, it's HISTORY. If you have any more "racist" comments from either LDS Apostles or Prophets, please... let me know. I find this preaty interesting... (I'm being perfectly honest)
Also, on the regard of "the young and naive Mormon who wishes to think well of his church": I haven't for a moment believed that every member of my Church is perfect. Ask any Mormon who knows anything about the LDS religion and they'll tell you that NONE OF US ARE. That's the whole point of our religion, Mike. To take our sins and come onto Christ. To follow his teachings, repent, and become like him; a process--that I've allready stated--takes A LIFETIME. One thing I'll defend the Prophets for however is that not one of them hates blacks. I make the same testiment about them not seeing Blacks as "inferior"--as I don't have a testimony--on that yet, but I do know that one of the reason's they supported (and *I*) support slavery (to a degree) is due to the meekness it allows the slave to have. Moroni 7:43 "And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek and lowly of heart". (hopefully this Blog helps me get there...)
Bagmon
I haven't the time right this minute to respond properly to your comments but want to say how much I appreciate them and the integrity that attends them. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I will be back soon with a response and I am sure there is more to be said.
I'm waiting for you Mike
Bagmon
I am sorry for the delay but a very close friend has gone to be with the Lord and I am wrestling with preparing the sermon for the funeral. Your reminder has come as a welcome distraction.
To answer your points:
A Christian is one who trusts fully in the finished work of Christ on the Cross (Ro.10:9-13), depending wholly on him and not one jot on anything in themselves for salvation (Ro.3:21-28). Someone who has been Born Again (John 3:5-6), who has crossed over from death to life and no longer fears judgement (John 5:24), who has peace with God through faith in Christ and stands in a place of grace and assurance (Ro.5:1-2) and knows free and open access to the Father because of Christ our great high priest, approaching God with confidence (Heb.4:14-16). Someone for whom the journey of faith is a walk of service and sacrifice and who, because of God’s grace, abounds in good works, the fruit of salvation and not the root from which salvation springs (2 Co.9:8).
A Mormon is one who trusts in his own efforts to gain a place with God, who is “saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the [Mormon] gospel” (8th Article of Faith) and not by grace; someone who believes that Christ’s work on the Cross is insufficient to atone for all sins, that for certain sins a man must atone for himself:
“Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins...that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offences are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone...on their behalf” (JFSmith, Doctrines of Salvation, vo.1, p.135)
A Christian has a Saviour who saves to the uttermost while the Mormon saviour fails to atone for the uttermost offense no matter that the sinner repents in tears.
Re. Polygamy, you fall for the lie that it was a practiced as a matter of practical need but BY disagrees. In responding to the call of Congress to relinquish it he said;
“We have shown that in requiring the relinquishment of polygamy, they ask the renunciation of the entire faith of this people. No sophistry can get out of this. Mormonism is true in every leading doctrine, or it is false as a system altogether!”
Jedediah Grant said:
“A belief in the doctrine of the plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they are Mormons”
BY said:
“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned”
You insist that polygamy was not a teaching in the founding days of the church but issued from a practical need to provide husbands for widows of Mormon martyrs. But Joseph F Smith said:
“To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on 12th July 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the prophet as early as 1832”
You say that one is only required to believe it as a principle but Joseph F Smith said:
“I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this church, who has the ability to obey and PRACTICE it in righteousness, and will not, shall be damned”
And Orson Pratt said:
“The one wife system did not originate in the Christian Church, but was adopted from the practice of the Roman nation by the Romish priesthood and by them palmed off on the nations originating in Christianity”
Racism: The principle is established in the Book of Abraham, ch 1, where the sons of ham are mentioned. I will come back with more on that but I am probably running out of characters.
"A Mormon is one who trusts in his own efforts to gain a place with God"
That's a bald distortion Mike.
Mormons trust in Christ for salvation.
We have been commanded to do good works as a part of accepting Christ. But don't for a moment think that this equates with not giving Christ his full and due credit.
We don't earn salvation.
We do good works because we are so commanded. But those works do not "earn" us anything. It is only through a loving relationship with Christ that salvation is given - and "exaltation" (used in the LDS sense).
Explain "Saved by obedience" would you?
Sure. It's an expression of our love of God.
It is that relationship that saves - not the merit of obediance.
We are only "saved by obediance" in the sense that we are saved by our relationship with God - and obediance is a part of that. Obediance does not save us on its own merits. It saves us as a part of that relationship.
Bagmon
You asked about racism in the Mormon Church. First let me point out that acknowledging the racism of BY as though the problem begins and ends with him presents two problems.
First there is the problem that a Mormon "prophet" was so thoroughly racist that his views and reputation have blighted the church to this day. And you are alright with that? OK with the idea that God had his church led by such a man for decades?
Then there is the problem that this does not begin and end with him, as these quotes show:
"Is there any reason why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of the worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life...We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in the pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments." (Mark E Peterson)
"Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth...he came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshipped Lucifer, and slew Abel.
As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who were not worthy to receive the preisthood are born through his lineage" (Bruce R McConkie)
"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God"
"Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness, he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has continued through his lineage and must do while time endures" (Joseph Fielding Smith)
"Now, Pharoah being of the lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharoahs would fain claim it from Noah through Ham, therefore my father was led away by idolatry" (Abraham 1:26,27, cited in a 1939 church manual on "Priesthood and Church Government", pub.1939)
It gives me no pleasure to point out these things and I am painfully aware that the Mormon Church I joined taught these things as a matter of routine. It wasn't a "mystery", or a product of cultural mores, or an anachronism harking back to BY. We knew and understood fully why Negroes were denied the priesthood and it had nothing to do with the peculiar views of one man or one generation.
Seth
Now you know that your take on Mormonism is less than orthodox. You almost express yourself like an Evangelical but you know that is not what Mormonism teaches.
"Saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel"
This means that without laws and ordinances you are not saved, which means they are essential to salvation. This what the BOM means when it tells us "we are saved by grace after all we can do" But Paul wrote:
"It is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph.2:8,9)
Contrast these two simple sentences:
"Saved by obedience, to the laws and ordinances of the gospel"
"By grace you are saved...not by works"
It is not a question of interpretation but of plain English. One says, "saved by obedience" and puts an emphasis on works while the other says "saved by grace" and explicitly excludes works.
As I've told you before Mike, I don't really care what the popular view in Mormonism is.
This is my Church. My scriptures. My interpretation.
The end.
And I do think you are misreading the Book of Mormon scriptures you are using.
Seth
There you go again. You should know better and I suspect you do know better. I am not addressing the "popular view" I am addressing the "official view" and if you can't bring some clarity on that basis I wonder what matters to you at all.
I was a Mormon so you can't pull the old "if you want to understand Mormonism ask a a Mormon" stunt (which is a load of nonsense anyway). Its no good playing the old "people just don't understand and misrepresent us" game. I know what Mormonism teaches and it is this I am addressing. You are just being mealy-mouthed but then I suppose I should be used to it by now.
I have answered bagmon's questions at length, giving quotes from a number of "official" sources and leaders across several generations and all you can do is come back with "I don't care what is popular." Perhaps you don't care what Mormonism teaches full stop?
The Mormon Church has taught for most of its existence that polygamy is the order of heaven. It was routinely taught when I was a Mormon and this was the way it was always understood.
It taught right up until July 1978 that the Negro was barred from the priesthood because he carried the mark of Cain, was disobedient in the pre-existence and was a representative of Satan on the earth.
It was taught Seth, officially, not as a popular idea among the great unwashed of Mormonism, who seem increasingly to get the blame for the errors of their leaders, but as a precept by leaders and teachers.
Now both polygamy and racism are being portrayed, with shameful dishonesty, as products of C 19th circumstances and prejudices. This is a lie from the pit!
I am glad I am not a Mormon today, mainly of course because there is no salvation in the Mormon Church, but also because I couldn't stand to see such a lack of conviction and integrity and show of dishonesty and misrepresentation as I see from the Mormon Church today.
The Mormon Church is founded on the claim that the first century church abandoned truth in apostasy within a couple of hundred years. Mormonism has cut itself loose from its founding teachings within 179 years. Your canon is closed, your prophets are administrators at best, your doctrine and apologetics are being written by para-church organisations like FARMS and FAIR, your flagship magazine, once a great source of Mormon doctrine, is little more than a glossy brochure and "every [Mormon] is doing what seems right in his own eyes."
People are pinning their eternal hope on these things and it is just a shame that all today's Mormons can offer is speculation, superior looks, adumbration and specious nonsense about persecution and victimhood.
You sound like some sarcastic ex-spouse Mike.
I was only talking about your misuse of the scriptural phrase "all you can do."
As it so happens, polygamy IS still the order of heaven. Nothing the Church has done since the US government crushed us into submission over it has changed that theological stance. People are being sealed to multiple spouses in temples right now.
The doctrine hasn't gone anywhere. It's simply been suspended as an earthly practice in the face of the worst episode of systematic religious persecution in United States history - bar none.
And I'm aware that racist doctrines were officially taught.
They were wrong.
It happens.
This is a living religion Mike - not a wax museum of your own personal theological insecurities.
Seth
Why do I hear Mormons repeat ad nauseum the nonsense that polygamy was nothing more than an earthly expediency? Why do you feel comfortable with the fact that your church was led by a racist for thirty years whose teachings were considered so inspired that a man could be excommunicated, or worse, for defying them?
Why, if it was only BY, was racism was taught right up to the July 1978 deadline when the Mormon Church had 100 years in which to put it right after Young's death? Why did the civil rights movement have to bully and shame Mormons into changing the doctrine?
For that matter, where is the "revelation" that effected the change? It can't be read and studied in this fabled "open canon". Can't you see that this calls into question the whole claim of Mormonism to being led by inspired prophets who would not lead people astray?
This was not simply an unfortunate sideshow in an otherwise good circus. This was the main event and people for 148 years were invited to sign up to something that defined Mormonism just as much as the BOM and the First Vision.
Regarding your claim that I have twisted scripture, I stand on the same ground, i.e. I know what Mormonism teaches and issue again the challenge to explain "saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." That makes about as much sense as "saved from drowning by your profficient use of the breast stroke!"
You are doing what most Mormons do, making an assertion rather than engaging in a discussion. Assertions don't establish anything beyond the fact that this is the way you think; so what!
Why do you think that way? How do you understand matters? How do you reconcile Nephi with Paul? How do you explain a message of grace against the clear background of "saved, by obedience..." I am presenting what I was taught and believed as a Mormon.
Joseph F Smith said:
"Men can stop sinning and can do right in the future, and so far their acts are acceptable before the Lord and worthy of consideration. But who shall repair the wrongs they have done to themselves and to others...? By the atonement of Jesus Christ, the sins of the repentant shallbe washed away."
This is a gospel of faith and works. Jesus washes our sins away and we make every effort to prove worthy of gaining God's approval. Talmage wrote:
"Some degree of salvation will come to all who have not forfeited their right to it; exaltation is given to those only who by active labours have won a claim to God's merciful liberality by which it is bestowed."
This is a gospel of works, "saved by obedience..." I know the nice distinction Mormons make between "salvation" and "exaltation" but this distinction flies in the face of what Paul writes in Ro.7 where he describes perfectly the plight of the sinner who can't do the good he would do and can't help but do the evil he would resist. Contrary to Joseph F Smith, Paul declares that men can't help but sin, indeed can't do anything else!
Contrary to Talmage, Paul writes in Ro.3:24 "We are justified freely by his grace" and in Ro.5:21"the gift of God is eternal life"
Define "free" and "gift", and ask yourself how these words relate to "grace". How is "Gracious liberality" earned?! It is in the nature of a gift to be free, it is in the nature of a free gift that you don't earn it and it is in the nature of generosity that it is not deserved but liberally given. In this case not because of the indolence of the recipient but because of his helplessness.
Mormons don't, it seems to me, feel so needy as they should.
Mike, I already spelled out for you why Nephi and Mormon are perfectly at peace with Paul some time ago.
It's not my fault you don't remember it.
Prophetic personality faults simply aren't a problem to me.
So, let's take your assertion here for the sake of argument. Let's say that for well over fifty years the LDS Church was in gross error on something theologically viable (I'm not conceding anything - it's just for the sake of argument). Let's say they were that messed up.
So what? Why is it supposed to be a fatal problem to me?
Honestly Mike, I don't think my church's history presents any greater problem for me than the theodicy does for ALL religions in general.
Have you lost your faith in God because there is evil in the world and God allows it to happen Mike?
If not, why?
It's exactly the same for me.
And believe me, to a devoted atheist, your rationalizations for continuing to trust God will sound just as strained, stupid, and desperate as my rationalizations no doubt sound to you.
Little self-reflection here please.
Seth
If you want to have a discussion about our respective views on a variety of spiritual issues I am sure it would be interesting and fruitful for both of us. However, you are not the subject of discussion here but Mormonism. It is not Seth that people are being invited to join or pin their eternal hopes on but Mormonism.
You ask for a little reflection well reflect on this. You wrote:
Prophetic personality faults simply aren't a problem to me.
Since when has false doctrine been a "prophetic personality fault"? When God's prophets teach error isn't it apostasy?
You wrote:
"Let's say that for well over fifty years the LDS Church was in gross error on something theologically viable (I'm not conceding anything - it's just for the sake of argument). Let's say they were that messed up. So what? Why is it supposed to be a fatal problem to me?"
Just fifty years? I think it is telling that you concede nothing, indicating perhaps that this matters to you more than you let on. But whether it matters to you is not the main issue. The question is does Mormonism live up to its promise? (see below)
You write:
"I don't think my church's history presents any greater problem for me than the theodicy does for ALL religions in general."
The point of Mormonism surely is that it isn't like all other religions? Mormonism claims that it will not be subject to the same problems evidenced in Christian Churches because led by prophets. If your prophets have "prophetic personality faults" so extreme I wonder what Mormonism has to offer exactly. Broken promises it seems and no inclination to discuss them honestly.
I also wonder, if the Mormon Church is comparable in all its faults to Christian Churches why Mormons make a point of criticising and rejecting Christianity when you have nothing one jot better and, some would argue, a lot worse. Maybe you should come to my church.
You asked:
"Have you lost your faith in God because there is evil in the world and God allows it to happen Mike? If not, why? It's exactly the same for me."
My faith is intact because I put my faith in God and not men, in Christ and not an institution. The problem is not the evil in the world, which is grist to the mill to any Christian, but the evil in the Mormon Church and Mormonism's refusal to be wrong about anything.
Have you any idea how the glossy brochure, Amway door-to-door, product placement, self-aggrandising image of Mormonism compares with the gritty, life-by-the-throat, wrestling with issues, community-based Christian communities across the world? Mormonism is a lot of things but it is not honest enough to be Christian. I am glad it remains an American religion.
That's right Mike. You put your faith in God, not men. Which is why it ought to be an even bigger problem for you that there are problems with your God, than it is for me to have problems with my Church.
I'm not dissing God here Mike. I have my reasons for believing in him despite the existence of evil in the world, and I'm sure you do too.
What I am saying, is that problems with a church run by mortals are of far less concern than problems with God himself. That is the case even with a Church that claims divine guidance.
Anyway Mike, I seem to be really, really getting under your skin, because your veneer of civility about Mormonism seems to be slipping quite a bit. Your posts have become increasingly bitter and angry.
Look Mike, I'm sorry that I'm not bowing down the same graven image of what you THOUGHT was the Restored Gospel when you still had a temple recommend. I'm sorry that you felt you had adequately refuted the "definitive version" of Mormonism, only to find out that the religion was a little broader than you gave it credit for. I'm sorry that I'm not following the stupidest version of Mormonism possible and making your job in this debate easier. I'm sorry that Mormonism turned out to be a bigger tent than you gave it credit for. And I'm sorry that you thought you had refuted every last bit of an entire religious tradition, when in fact, you had only been attacking a rather recent neo-orthodox McConkie-ite FACTION of it.
But these are your problems to sort out - not mine. It's not my fault that your view of the Church was so narrow when you were in, and has only narrowed further since you left.
Seth
I won't even dignify your remarks about my "veneer of civility" with a response. What I am interested in is the fact that while I address the issues you dance around them.
Are you saying there is no "definitive version" of Mormonism? In which case are you implying that the Mormonism taken around the doors is just one version among many? An interesting thought.
You write that Mormonism is broader than I had thought. It seems to me to be not so much broad as malleable, adaptable. Now you see it, now you don't. Now its clear, now its obscure.
Joseph and Brigham taught no exaltation without polygamy, today it is an excommunicable offense
Pre-1978 leaders declared that the Negro would not receive the priesthood, not while time endures, today he has the priesthood
These things, once clearly understood and faithfully believed, are portrayed as cultural, temporal, the product of a prophet's ravings, or mysterious and inexplicable. I think Gordon B Hinckley said, "We don't understand that much" more than anything else.
Pre-1990 temple attenders (like me) were expected to make blood oaths and vows that are not required of today's Mormons
The historian Fawn Brodie was excommunicated for writing a book that portrayed Joseph Smith as gold digger, this week non-Mormon historian, Jan Shipps, was lauded in SLC for writing a book that portrayed Joseph Smith as a gold digger.
But, of course, none of this is up for discussion, people are discouraged from asking questions and when people like me attempt to engage in intelligent debate we are dismissed as paranoid, contentious, bitter and angry. Again, I suppose I am a fool for expecting anything different.
However, as I keep repeating, people are pinning their eternal hopes on this Mormon message and rejecting the Christian gospel in doing so. Is it unreasonable to expect some degree of consistency, clarity, integrity anf honesty from a church that makes such promises?
"Joseph and Brigham taught no exaltation without polygamy, today it is an excommunicable offense"
Absolutely false Mike.
Joseph never required polygamy of all the saints. And Brigham Young made it clear that merely being WILLING to enter into the practice was enough. He made it plain that not all had to actually DO it to receive exaltation. Both Brigham and Joseph's statements on polygamy being a requirement usually focused on the aspect of being obedient to God.
I think even a Protestant would agree that an unforgiven state of disobedience disqualifies you for living with God.
Our religion does not exist to sooth your insecure demands for continuity Mike.
Enjoy the facade of continuity and security of Protestantism if you will. I have little use for it.
Sigh...
Sorry Mike. I'm getting a bit uncivil too.
The demand for perfection in religion is probably one of my biggest irritations in inter-faith discussion/debate. It's just not an impulse that I have myself, or one that I really understand.
I always felt stifled within the LDS Church by the expectations I felt were all around me for continuity, predictability, certainty, and a safe religious experience. I always felt held-back by it - all those people who wanted their religion to be static, immovable, and impassible. And there were certainly plenty of people like that in LDS congregations.
Imagine my delight when I discovered that Mormonism was not as set-in-stone as I had previously thought. My excitement at discovering that there were actually people in standard LDS wards who did NOT think the same as the stereotype of "Mormon" that I had built up in my mind throughout adolescence. I discovered a whole new wild and changing religion full of possibilities and potential.
It was like a breath of fresh air. Like being stuck in a broom closet for a week and then coming out and seeing the clouds for the first time in ages. I absolutely loved it.
Ironically, I think it was a frank look at what Joseph Smith's life, mission, and message really was that broke me out of that mold. His life was an invitation to throw off human error, prejudice, and convention and look God straight in the face for answers.
I will always be grateful to him for providing that example.
Once I had busted out, I started to see things in Mormonism that I had always missed before. The whole religion took on a new meaning to me. I saw clearly just how inadequate my own stereotypes of Mormonism had been.
I had spent my whole life in the Mormon faith - consistently the kid with all the answers to doctrinal questions, the kid who had read ALL the LDS scriptures more than my peers, son of one of our stake's most formidable scriptorians (he even taught religion at BYU once for a few semesters).
And yet, for all that, I had let my own prejudices blind me to what the Restored Gospel really was, and what it could be.
I always felt a bit crushed by the weight of Mormon convention and orthodoxy as a kid.
Coming out into the fresh air was such a blessed relief to me. I just can't understand people who have come out of that closet and seem to be bitterly regretting the loss of that crushing embrace.
I guess it's a hot-button issue for me.
6-Yes. If God had a man, who thinks of my race as inferior, lead this Church, then I know Heavenly Father had a really good reason to do so. I don’t have even an iota of God’s intelligence but I do know that he commanded us to accept the Prophet as HIS servant. I doubt that those Prophets who had “racist” (I put that in quotes because I don’t agree with how the term is used) hated Blacks. If they thought of them as inferior, then it was because of the “evidence” that came into their thoughts. Also, for some reason, God has afflicted my race for millennia. I have yet to develop a testimony as to why that is, but I’m currently assuming it has something to do with the souls that he gave black bodies. One thing that I’ve noticed is that we are rather prideful (though this doesn’t apply to ALL Blacks), which might be one reason… Anyway, one thing I can be sure of is that slavery, racism, and a general reputation of being “inferior” isn’t something we’ve received for one reason; it’s definitely not something simple, and as such I resort to faith that God’s reason for such things is for the good of the majority of souls born, living, and waiting to be.
7-As for what you said to Seth about the “definitive version” of the Church: there is one: Come unto Christ. Now it’s pretty obvious how broad that is but it’s the truth. THAT is core of “Mormonism”. The reason why our religion seems to be so infrequent is because there is SOOOOOOO MUCH that falls into it. There is so much knowledge graced upon us through the servants of the lord, revelation and from prayer, that it’s tremendously difficult to communicate everything. This is one reason why personal scripture study is so important.
8- And as for the whole “saved by works” discussion: we do indeed teach that if a person is to come into heaven, they have but to believe in Christ. BUT! Do you, honestly, believe that the rapist and the murder could sit down with the Jesus, and Abraham and Paul on equal terms because they just believe that Jesus is their Savior? NO! They have to repent! And “WORK” towards the exaltation and security that God wants of them! I’m going to assume that you know about the 3 degrees of Glory. Well, wouldn’t a belief in Christ be able to get anyone into at least the Telestial Kingdom? That alone will bring a soul onto Salvation. But, there is so much more that can be had! Many, if not all, of the Prophets of old devoted their lives to following God’s commandments and acting as his LITERAL servants. The glory that they have received is, in no doubt, FAR greater than the person that comes to Church every Sunday, yet refuses to obey even the most well-known commandment. THAT is what “saved by obedience” is: Exaltation; and it’s not something easily come by. Surely, the process of changing ALL of one’s actions, beliefs and THOUGHTS can be described as “work”!
Mike
1-I wish you patience in your wait to see your friend again. He’s in a safe place.
2-Regarding Christianity: My head is spinning at the moment, so I’ll come back to that later, but do tell me: how many Christians do you know that fall into this description?
4-Polygamy: firstly, take heed that in our Religion, to be damned isn’t to go to hell, per say, but to stop progressing. Now when you have the ability to take care of a woman, who in those times of trials, needed someone one to protect them, and yet you refused to take them under your wing… Well, I can easily see why you would be “damned”: you’re leaving women helpless before a slaughter. This is just my opinion thus far, however. I have yet to research that topic because until recently it hasn’t really affected my life or even came across to me as something I should think about in depth. So please give me a bit more to think about that one as well.
5-Rewinding slightly to the “Doctrines of Salvation”… never heard of it.
Seriously.
I’ll have to look into the history around that time period and the actual writings themselves before I can have any adamant views on what he meant. Something is definitely off, that’s for sure… * shrugs * it doesn’t really matter what he meant though; my testimony of this church remains strong. If Heavenly Father is going to use this blog as a trial of faith, then bring it on.
Post a Comment