The mists of time lend one a certain romance, Alan Bennett
Its that time of year again. Folk are getting excited about the season, buying and wrapping gifts, some have already got a carol service or two under their belt, along with some mince pies perhaps, and there is a general sense of good will in the air. Mormons are no different in this respect. The December Ensign touches on the great themes of Christmas, the birth of a son, the story of shepherds and angels, the visit of kings. Mormons like to think of themselves as just like everyone else at this festive season.
At the same time, the traditional message of Mormonism is one of distinctions, things that set Mormons apart. Think of the founding claims of Mormonism; other churches are corrupt and wrong, Mormonism is “the only true church,” Mormons have the only true gospel, restored to earth after 1900 years of darkness and apostasy.
How do Mormons hold these conflicting ideas at the same time? How can they be like other Christians and yet so distinct as to be “the only true church?” When we read the items in the Ensign the discerning among us will easily identify the distinguishing marks of Mormonism.
The Bible message is of God come to dwell among men to serve and, ultimately, to die for men’s sins, then rise again, breaking the bonds of death and inviting all who would to come to God by grace, through faith in Christ (Romans 10:9-13; Hebrews 4:14-16)
The Mormon message is of the Son of God come to dwell among men, to inform and educate people in the “great plan of happiness” God the Father has devised for us. Mormon “salvation” is no more than resurrection, while what Christians understand to be salvation, eternal life in the kingdom of God, Mormons call exaltation and it is earned.
Henry B Eyring states, “You have felt happiness as you have kept the commandments of God. That is the promised fruit of living the gospel (see Mosiah 2:41)” The first presidency message (p4) mentions happiness no fewer than 13 times in an article just 656 words long. Happiness is the great theme of Mormonism, the gift Mormons bring their neighbours, but where does the Bible say Christ died to educate us in the art of happiness?
The Bible clearly teaches that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control…” (Galatians 5:22-23) Something as trite and temporary as happiness is not found here. Note also that those things that Mormons would regard as the root of their happiness, those acts of obedience demonstrated in kindness, faithfulness etc. are not roots at all but they are fruit of an abiding in Christ, as explained in Jesus’ description of the vine and the branches in John 15.
But isn’t Jesus “the Son of God” as Mormons say? Another distinction is discovered in the visiting teaching message p7, The Divine Mission of Jesus Christ: The Only Begotten Son. Here we learn that the only thing that distinguishes Jesus from the rest of mankind is not his position as the second member of the Christian godhead but because he was born of God the Father and a human mother.
In Mormonism all mankind is literally born of God in a premortal existence and God is as much our Father as he is Jesus’ Father, Jesus himself being our elder brother by premortal birth. In this familiar picture of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” you are effectively seeing a father and two sons. That being so, Mary was also a daughter of God in that premortal existence, which means that for Jesus to be born on earth of a Divine Father and mortal mother the Mormon God would have to have had an incestuous relationship with Mary. Mormon leaders have asserted as much:
“The Only begotten of the Father (Moses 5:9) ‘These name titles all signify that our Lord is the Only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only mean only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine)
“The Saviour was begotten by the Father and his Spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is al the organic difference between Jesus and you and me.” (Brigham Young, JOD 4, 218)
Then there is an article on becoming Better Saints Through Interfaith Involvement (p28) There are two important points I want to raise here. Mormonism is founded on the claim that all churches are wrong and all those who profess the Christian message of the past two thousand years are corrupt (JSH 1:19) That message is being taken to your neighbours as you read this, make no mistake. John Taylor, third Mormon president said of such initiatives:
“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense…Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol (sic); it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.” (JOD 6, 167)
This statement was made in 1893. Exactly 220 years later Mormons find themselves encouraged to join this same parade of pomp and glory.
My second point regards the claim Mormons make that Evangelical Christians “don’t believe in good works.” It is a common enough statement to those who take the trouble to engage with Mormons but it is patently not true. Mormons should know this since it is they who “do good works” alongside other churches that teach a gospel of grace.
They waste no time telling the world how engaged they are with their neighbours of “other faiths,” as they like to call us, and yet they insist we don’t believe in good works. They expect to find us idle even as we work alongside them for the good of the wider community
How do Mormons deal with such cognitive dissonance? To be so conflicted must come at some great cost. They boast they are different yet insist they are like us. They despise our parade and yet they want to join in, bang their drum, and mingle with the crowd. They accuse us of having a cheap grace yet happily work alongside us as we sacrifice ourselves in service to others, all the time boasting of their own works yet failing to recognise ours.
The first thing to realise is that different generations join a different Mormon Church. The Mormons of the 19th century were prepared to go to prison, even to die rather than relinquish their practice of polygamy. Even into the early 20th century Mormon leaders died on the run from the law. A whole package of doctrine supported this faith that polygamy was the order of heaven and no earthly power was going to stop it.
In much of the 20th century, while Mormons no longer practiced polygamy outside their temples, that package of doctrine was till taught and clearly understood by Mormons who looked to a future time when it would be restored, perhaps in the millennium. I remember well and taught enthusiastically all that Mormonism had taught about this “celestial doctrine.”
In the last days of the 20th century and into this 21st century Mormons regard polygamy as an historical curiosity, something of its time but certainly of no great doctrinal significance for them. You will hear Mormons dismiss it and say they don’t even fully understand the whole business other than as something that happened a long time ago. The same might be said, need I remind you, of the Mormon doctrine of denying Black people the priesthood until July 1978.
The second point is demonstrated by another article on page 54, a report about sermons from early church leaders recovered because transcribed from the shorthand in which they were originally recorded. You might expect the Mormon Church to shy away from publishing such potentially incriminating material since the Mormonism of those far distant days is very different from the Mormonism of 2013/14.
But there is something about the passing of time that lends a certain romance to the good bits of history and something of irrelevance to the bad. The Mormon Church plays on this helpful illusion that time lends to just about anyone’s story.
The mists of time allow them to say they don’t really know what was meant so long ago and in such circumstances. Scott Gordon said something like this, as reported in Bobby’s blog post last week. In such ways the different generations of Mormonism are built up, given a new, contextual meaning where once their meaning was timeless.
Where we see Mormons conflicted Mormons refuse to see such conflict. The Mormon Church helps by continually rewriting their history and urging Mormons to think only of what is in front of them, their generation’s story. It depends on where in this web of lies you are but each generation has found comfort in its own untruths. I was thinking of the words of the song Windmills of Your Mind –
Like a tunnel that you follow
To a tunnel of its own
Down a hollow to a cavern
Where the sun has never shone
We can’t assume the Mormon standing in front of us has traversed any particular tunnel or is familiar with the particular dark cavern we first encountered Mormonism. Each will have their own set of ideas, their own understanding to reassure them and it is these, as much as anything, we must first deal with.
What is certain is that the Son has not shone in their lives and it is the message of grace, of the cross that is always our destination as we witness; that never changes. This Christmas lets remember the child in a manger born to die on a cruel cross for the sins of the world, including Mormons who, despite their protestations to the contrary, have yet to know him.
Most of this chapter comprises extracts from a sermon Lorenzo Snow delivered just after he had been called as president of the Quorum of the Twelve in April 1889. That date, that period, is significant because many of the conditions that prevailed some fifty years earlier were again being experienced by the Mormon Church.
In her seminal biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, the historian Fawn M Brodie wrote:
“Mormon theology was never burdened with otherworldliness…Wealth and power [Mormons] considered basic among the blessing both of earth and of heaven…” (No Man Knows My History, 1966 ed. pub. Alfred A Knopf, p.p. 187/8)
A quote from an 1831 letter throws light on the Saints’ view of wealth and entitlement:
“It passes for a current fact that there are immense treasures in the earth, especially in those places in the State of New York from whence many of the Mormonites emigrated last spring; and when they become sufficiently purified, these treasures are to be poured into the lap of their church; to use their own language, they are to be the richest people in the world.” (Ezra Booth, letter written late in 1831. Quoted in Brodie p. 187)
This understanding has bearing on the subject of Snow’s sermon. Here are the salient facts surrounding both periods, 1835 and 1889:
By 1835 Joseph Smith had built his own little kingdom in Kirtland
By 1877, the time of his death, Brigham Young had built a kingdom in the Salt Lake Valley
In 1835 rumours of polygamy were causing problems for the church and Joseph Smith was forced to deny the rumours, even though his denial was a palpable lie.
In 1887 the Edmunds-Tucker Act allowed the government to effectively dissolve the Mormon Church as a legal entity because of the practice of polygamy and, in 1890, it was this that forced the hand of church president Wilford Woodruff who issued the Manifesto abandoning polygamy.
In 1835 a new temple had been completed and had drained church resources
By 1890 the Salt Lake temple was completed and had drained church resources
So, what did the Saints do in 1835 to solve their financial problems? What caused Lorenzo Snow to refer to an apostasy?
in the mid 1830’s Mormons entered a period of frenzied land speculation led by Joseph Smith himself. In other words, if there was an apostasy, Joseph was chief heretic. There was a huge influx of immigration that caused the population in and around Kirtland to jump 62 percent and the question of where they would all live had dollar signs spinning in the eyes of those able to buy and sell property.
In Kirtland, lots jumped from $50 to $2,000, and surrounding farms from $10 and $15 an acre to $150. Joseph began buying and selling land with the rest. His credit, backed by the collateral of the new temple built for some $70,000, was good so he borrowed, speculated to accumulate. Along with three others, he began a frenzy of borrowing and purchasing, hoping to make riches from the incoming Mormon population. Of course, this created a property bubble that couldn’t last but that didn’t seem to trouble the prophet.
Mormon apostle, Parley P Pratt was so concerned he wrote a letter to Joseph Smith in which he declared himself, “…fully convinced that you, and president Rigdon, both by precept and example, have been the principle means in leading this people astray, in these particulars, and having myself been led astray and caught in the same snare by your example, and by false prophesying and preaching, from your own mouths, yea, having done many things wrong and plunged myself and family, and others, well nigh into destruction, I have awoke to an awful sense of my situation, and now resolve to retrace my steps and get out of the snare, and make restitution as far as I can.” (quoted in Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality, p.528)
The level and extent of speculation was so damaging it depreciated paper money going into the United States Treasury. On July 11, 1836 Andrew Jackson issued a specie circular, forbidding agents to accept anything but gold and silver for the sale of public land (specie is a term for money in the form of coins and paper)
According to the History of the Church, Joseph Smith had marked September 11, 1836 as the day God would redeem Zion. Quoting in part Isaiah, he said, “Then, for brass the Lord will bring gold, and for iron silver, and for wood brass…and then the land will be worth possessing and the world fit to live in.” Unfortunately, the prospect facing the Saints was bleak, and they faced being driven out of Missouri as those who once were pleased to shelter them now lost all sympathy for them.
Money had to be gained from somewhere, but the specie ban made it very difficult. It was then that news of buried treasure reached Joseph, first in the form of a story in the Painesville Telegraph.
War treasure was said to be buried beneath a house in Salem, Massachusetts, and a convert named Burgess claimed he was the only one who remembered its exact location. I know what your thinking; he surely isn’t going to fall for this. Well, the pull of the old days was just too strong, the promise of buried treasure too tempting, and he arrived in Salem early in August, 1836.
Joseph’s true objective could not be revealed and in this he faced a dilemma. His initial explanation was that this was a mission tour. The truth had to come out at some time however and, as so often before, he solved his problem by receiving a revelation, Doctrine & Covenants 111 which begins:
“I, the Lord your God, am not displeased with your coming this journey, notwithstanding your follies. I have much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion, and many people in this city, whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion, through your instrumentality.
Therefore, it is expedient that you should form acquaintance with men in this city, as you shall be led, and as it shall be given you. And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours. Concern not yourselves about your debts, for I will give you power to pay them.” (v.v 1-5)
Mormons today who get their Mormon history only from official sources will know nothing of Joseph’s true motives, of the Saints’ true financial and moral dilemma. The heading for section 111 disingenuously reads:
“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Salem, Massachusetts, August 6, 1836. At this time the leaders of the Church were heavily in debt due to their labors (sic) in the ministry. Hearing that a large amount of money would be available to them in Salem, the Prophet, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, and Oliver Cowdery traveled (sic) there from Kirtland, Ohio, to investigate this claim, along with preaching the gospel. The brethren transacted several items of Church business and did some preaching. When it became apparent that no money was to be forthcoming, they returned to Kirtland. Several of the factors prominent in the background are reflected in the wording of this revelation.”
They were not, however, “in debt due their labours in the ministry,” they were in debt because of wild and unsustainable land and property speculations, Joseph leading the charge.
It had been ten years since he had dug for buried gold but he hadn’t left behind his simple faith in the folklore and blind superstitions that had led to his early treasure-seeking adventures in the first place. Unfortunately for him, Burgess soon abandoned this venture, claiming the city had changed so much he could no longer be sure of the treasure’s location. The biter bit? It would seem so, since Joseph had fallen victim to the same scam he had pulled on others and, like them, he walked away without the gold in which he so believed and on which he had so depended to get him out of his dilemma.
Joseph Smith didn’t come back entirely empty-handed, having negotiated more loans from companies in the East. However, he couldn’t go on living indefinitely on borrowed funds. At some point, he knew, his debts had to be liquidated and the Saints’ finances established on a more sure footing. It was now, and in the same spirit of wild speculation, that Joseph Smith established his own bank, the Kirtland Safety Society Bank Company. This wasn’t unusual at the time; the rapid expansion of the West created a demand for money that wasn’t being met by existing banking institutions.
Again, Joseph legitimised this new venture with a new revelation. The Saints were assured that Smith’s bank would “grow and flourish, and spread from the rivers to the ends of the earth, and survive when all others should be laid in ruins.” (Reported in Zion’s Watchtower, March 24, 1838)
The bank’s establishment was announced in January 1837 in the Messenger and Advocate, which issued an appeal…”We invite the brethren from abroad, to call on us, and take stock in our Safety Society; and we would remind them also of the sayings of Isaiah…’Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God.’”
The problem was that this rapid expansion of banking facilities to meet these needs led to a chaotic banking system and on January 1, 1837, the same day the Kirtland bank’s printed bank notes were issued, the Ohio legislature refused the bank’s incorporation.
Joseph told his followers that it was because they were Mormons, but the truth was only one bank was allowed incorporation and the legislature was simply gaining control of a spiralling situation.
To get around the problem Joseph stamped his bank notes with the prefix anti and the suffix ing around the word Bank, creating the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-bank-ing Company. Now it was a quasi-bank, needn’t be incorporated and, if he could pull this off long enough to convince investors his problems might be solved.
The problem was he didn’t have the assets to back up the notes being printed. Bills were being paid, debts cleared and, for a fleeting fortnight, Kirtland was rich; but all on notes not worth their face value.
Joseph Smith confidently assured people he had $60,000 in the vaults and a further $600,000 readily accessible. The truth is he had $6,000 and access to not a penny more. He said there was no more than $10,000 in bills in circulation when, in fact, there was more than $150,000.
By January 27 merchants were refusing notes and the bills were streaming back into Kirtland. Joseph Smith redeemed the notes but soon realised a run on the bank would ruin him so stopped taking his own money. By February 1 every dollar of Kirtland money was worth no more than twelve and a half cents!
The truth is, the bank had always been illegal, the fixed penalty for the crime was $1000 with informers taking a share of the fine. Joseph Smith had enemies aplenty and it didn’t take long for one to swear a writ against him. By March 24 Joseph was on trial and ordered to pay the $1000 penalty, plus costs. The final reckoning established that the Mormon leaders owed non-Mormon individuals well over $150,000.
In 1889 the Mormon Church had arrived at the same place. Church property had already been confiscated under the Edmunds-Tucker Act, the $4m temple had depleted church funds and there was another bubble, this time a railroad bubble, as well as overbuilding that would lead to the panic of 1893. Hundreds of banks would close across America, thousands of businesses go under.
Lorenzo Snow’s sermon was aimed at Mormons who might be tempted to follow the example of their founding prophet and speculate their church out of existence and themselves into “apostasy.” It is clear that he was not impressed by Joseph’s conduct, which he had witnessed first-hand. Nevertheless, he hawked around the “official” account which had been worked up over the years, and that exonerated Joseph and blamed “apostate” church members as well as some leaders.
Mormons were still facing financial ruin and would still need to resolve their financial difficulties. In 1899, now as president of the church, Lorenzo Snow toured the territories preaching tithing. You can read about that in a previous post. There the church’s subsequent change in fortune was described in this way:
“The church’s 1898 deficit of $1.25m became a net worth of $3.2m by 1904 and, while church leaders ascribed the changing fortunes of the church to God’s blessing tithe payers, it may have had more to do with the saints gaining full statehood and involvement in the rapid growth of the US economy from 1897 to 1907. Of course, the eyes of faith would have it otherwise, with the fortunes of the United States tied in with the fortunes of Mormons.”
When Mormons became American Mormonism became financially secure and Mormonism the American Religion.
Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues at The Mormon Chapbook
What you will struggle to find is a reason to rush out and tell anybody about it. If asked about your marathon conference weekend you will search your memory in vain for that weighty nugget of insight you know would be bound to impress your non-Mormon friends; if only you could recall…
Your heart will sink as you hear the especially thick conference edition of the Ensign magazine dropping on your doormat, and wonder if its some sort of test that, having listened to, you now must read those same inane pep-talks you thought were behind you for another six months at least. You wonder if anybody does read the conference Ensign.
That, at any rate, was my experience as I listened to the priesthood session of the conference.
The session was typically avuncular, good ‘ol boys chewing the fat and putting the world to rights, the audience, appropriately suited and booted, awed to be invited to sit on the porch with the big guys, nodding sagely and agreeing eagerly, laughing in all the right places, sharing knowing looks and aping their ‘betters.’
Thomas S Monson was last to speak, sitting sagely as five men took their turn at the podium to present their credentials and give another little turn on the screw that bears down on every faithful priesthood holder, reminding them of their duties, urging them to achievement, setting ever higher goals and informing them that “life is a test!” (Dieter Uchtdorf)
You could almost hear the younger generation fidget in their seats, anxious to get out and get the job done, while the older men, who have been here before so many times, sucked air through their teeth, secretly praying, “How long, oh Lord, how long?”
The Mormon prophet spoke about Home Teaching, a worthy church programme in which every family gets a monthly visit from priesthood holders. The message was, “A home teacher is a friend.”
Anecdotes amply illustrated the right and wrong ways to go about the task, from the home teacher turning up unannounced to be confronted with three apostles and their wives ‘visiting’ in one of their homes, to the man who turned up at the prophet’s home alone to confess that he had only made the visit so he could tick it off his list. These guys always seem to have the best stories.
The message is summed up using the example of Jesus, the Good Shepherd, “Brethren, as the priesthood of God we have a shepherding responsibility. The wisdom of the Lord has provided guidelines whereby we might be shepherds to the families of the Church”
The problem is that, whatever the vehicle, however sincere the sentiment, worthy the cause, or great the sacrifice it is the gospel of Joseph these men bring and not that of Jesus. “Oh, but Mike, isn’t service part and parcel of the gospel?” Well, yeeesss…but….let me explain.
Henry B Eyring, speaking of “overburdened priesthood holders,” used a biblical illustration. “It is a parable for overloaded priesthood holders.” he insists. “We sometimes call it the story of the good Samaritan. But it is really the story for a great priesthood bearer in these busy, difficult last days.” He goes on, “Just remember that you are the Samaritan and not the priest or the Levite who passed by the wounded man.”
The irony here, of course, is that the Samaritan is not a priesthood holder. Indeed, it is the priest and the Levite who pass by on the other side and, like those priests and Levites of Jesus’ time, Mormons make much of their position and authority. It is Mormons who, like the priest and Levite, claim exclusive access to truth and authority. It is they who are rejected by Jesus, and the Samaritan, the one regarded as apostate, who is the exemplar in the story.
The emphasis on duty would have suited the priest and Levite to the ground but Jesus’ emphasis was on the spontaneous, sacrificial act of a stranger and outcast as an example of true, selfless service.
Dieter Uchtdorf insisted, “life is a test!” and urged men to positive thinking and goal setting. “You are stronger than you realise,” he assures them, “you are more capable than you imagine; you can do it…Brethren, our destiny is not determined by the number of times we stumble but by the number of times we rise up, dust ourselves off, and move forward.”
As he spoke, the words of William Ernest Henley’s Invictus echoed in my mind:
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul…
…It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
Is this the good news of Jesus Christ? I can do it? My fate is in my hands? The message of the New Testament is clear:
“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience–among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved– and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them…” (Eph 2:1-10)
We were dead, God made us alive in Christ. We were not capable, we were dead. Christ died because we can’t do it. We now walk in good works, not because we are capable but because we are God’s workmanship, “Created in Christ Jesus for good works…”
[Note to any Mormons reading this: Christians believe in good works. Christians do good works. You see us do them all the time, sometimes you do them alongside us and report on it in your publications and at your conferences. So stop peddling the lie that Christians are somehow antinomian, lazy, sitting light to our duties and responsibilities.]
Randy D Funk insisted that we receive strength by proving ourselves worthy and obeying the commandments, quoting Doctrine and Covenants 112:22:
“Inasmuch as [which means the promise will be fulfilled if] they [meaning the missionaries who are sent] shall [1] humble themselves before me, and [2] abide in my word, and [3] hearken to the voice of my Spirit.”
He goes on, “The Lord’s promises are clear. In order to have the spiritual power necessary to open the door of the kingdom of God in the nation to which you are sent, you must be humble and obedient and have the ability to hear and follow the Spirit. These three attributes are closely interrelated. If you are humble, you will want to be obedient. If you are obedient, you will feel the Spirit.”
Certainly, the Bible teaches us the discipline of discipleship but, while Mormons “strive to be worthy to return to Heavenly Father,” a Christian knows he is already accepted by God through Christ (Romans 8:1; Hebrews 4:14-16) and it is the new nature, what the Christian has become and is becoming that is the motivation to obedience and spiritual growth.
Gérald Caussé confirmed a suspicion for me because, like Dieter Uchtdorf, he seemed warmer, more accessible, his message more sympathetic and appealing. Of course, both men are European and the difference in culture shows. The unremitting demands of Mormonism are very much the product of the burgeoning, can-do America of the past 150 years. European history, longer, bloodier, more mature has, I suggest, produced a more nuanced approach to life. I wonder what this bodes for the future of Mormonism.
Two things stood out for me and they are not insignificant. The first is his handling of the familiar doctrine of Abraham being the father of the faithful, making all who trust in Christ children of Abraham and heirs of the promises made to Abraham. For Christians this is explained by Paul in Romans 4.
The difference here is that he puts this explicit gospel promise into the story and time of Abraham, quoting Abraham 2:10 from the discredited Book of Abraham. “God promised Abraham that ‘as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after [his] name, and shall be accounted [his] seed, and shall rise up and bless [him], as their father.’” Of course, Mormonism is full of such anachronisms and we shouldn’t be surprised but here Mormons are claiming exclusively to themselves those same promises; “As members of the Church, we are admitted into the house of Israel.”
Where Paul declares this promise to be for the faithful in Christ, Mormonism teaches that church membership and faithfulness qualifies them, keeping “the law of the gospel;” an oxymoron if ever there was one. Paul clearly precludes any idea of winning that place “according to the flesh,” and goes on to make plain:
“For if it is to the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring…to the one who shares the faith of Abraham…” (Romans 4:14-16)
L Tom Perry took us back some 80 years to his last days in the Primary organisation of the church. He proved his mettle by confidently handling the thirteen Articles of Faith of the Mormon Church, a tribute, he insists, to his Primary teacher, but…
Where God himself declares, “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god…Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:6-8)
L Tom Perry insists: We learn from the first article of faith that the Godhead is three personages: God the Father, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Three gods.
Where the Bible states, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22) In other words, you are either “in” Adam, or “in” Christ.
L Tom Perry states: The second article teaches us that we are responsible for our own actions on earth. In other words, you we are either good or bad people.
Where the Bible teaches, “…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” (Romans 10:9-10)
L Tom Perry says: The third gives a vision of the Saviour’s mission for the salvation of Father in Heaven’s children. The third Article of Faith teaches a salvation not by faith and confession but by obedience and ritual; “by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.” The next three articles, likewise, teach laws, ordinances, priesthoods, hierarchies. There are, of course, aspirational articles of faith – notably the thirteenth – and very commendable they are but…
When I became a Christian I was astonished, and not a little embarrassed, to find that the old, old story I had so long rejected, reviled and ridiculed as simplistic, easy-believism was actually the true story of salvation – by grace, through faith, in Christ.
The hardest thing about being a Christian is not the weight of duty, the busyness of church involvement, the call to sacrifice, or the responsibilities of leadership. The hardest thing is coming to that place at the foot of the cross and confessing we can’t do it, that all our best efforts count for nothing before a perfectly holy and righteous God. That, far from being able we are poor and needy, helpless and defiled, dead in sin and in need of a Saviour. That is not the story of Mormonism, it is the story of Christians saved, at last, not by works so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)
This month’s chapter is hard to critique and that is no bad thing. There is no spite in what we are doing here, we don’t find fault for the sake of it. The truth is the truth whoever speaks it and a call to selfless service is no bad thing. There is much here to be commended.
There is the call to rejoice in seeing others prosper in ministry (p 217); the reminder that leaders serve a greater good and the good of others (p218); the call to be sacrificial in service (p.219); to appreciate and nurture the gifts of others (p 220) and to lead by example (p 221);
Of course, it does depend on who you are serving. Selfless service to false gods is as much sin as selfishness in service to the true God. It is as wrong to be a Hananiah (Jeremiah 28) as a Diosphenes (3 John 9-10) and I believe this ministry, among many others, has shown over time that Mormonism does not stand up to scrutiny in its claims to having Christian credentials – and the apostle John explains that we are to love “in the truth” (3 Jn.1-4)
True prophets correctly understand and interpret Scripture and I question this “prophet’s” understanding and application of Jesus’ words in John’s gospel. This is really important because if a prophet does not speak according to God’s established word he is not God’s prophet. Lets take a closer look at John’s text and how Lorenzo Snow uses it. He writes (p 218):
“Let every man who stands in an official station, on whom God has bestowed his holy and divine priesthood* think of what the Savior said to the Twelve Apostles just before he went into the presence of his Father—“Feed my sheep.” [John 21:16–17.] And he continued to say this until his apostles felt sorrowful that he should continue to call upon them in this manner. But said he—“Feed my sheep.” That is, “Go forth with your whole heart, be devoted wholly to my cause. These people in the world are my brethren and sisters. My feelings are exercised towards them. Take care of my people. Feed my flock. Go forth and preach the gospel. I will reward you for all your sacrifices. Do not think that you can make too great a sacrifice in accomplishing this work.” He called upon them in the fervor of his heart to do this work.”
Firstly, where Snow has Jesus having this conversation with the twelve, John clearly tells us it was a conversation with Peter, “When they had finished eating. Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, Son of John, do you truly love me more than these?’” (Jn.21:15) “These” are the other apostles. Jesus is either asking, “do you love me more than you love these men,” or, “do you love me more than these men love me?” Either way, he is not talking to the disciples but to Peter about them.
There is an intimacy here rather like the one we find between Jesus and “the disciple Jesus loved” (Jn.13:23-26). While it is true the others might have overheard, much as we “overhear” today through Scripture, nevertheless this is a private conversation with a quite different purpose to that given it by Lorenzo Snow.
The familiar teaching tells of Jesus restoring Peter after Peter’s previous betrayal of his Saviour. You will recall how Jesus had prophesied, “You will all fall away,” (Mk.14:27) Brash Peter loudly protested, “Even if all fall away, I will not…Even if I have to die with you I will never disown you.” (Mk.14:29 & 31)
Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today – yes, tonight – before the cock crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.” (Mk.14:30) And we know Peter disowned Jesus, as prophesied. (Mk.14:66-72) Jesus’ conversation with Peter by the sea shore repeated the charge to “feed my sheep” three times, just as Peter had denied him three times. This was a restoration to fellowship and mission of a fallen disciple. It demonstrates the incredible grace of Jesus that he should so receive his betrayer again. But something else is going on here too.
Three times Jesus asks, “Simon, son of John, do you love me…?” The Greek word for love Jesus uses the first two times is different from the word he uses the third time. You can see the difference in English in the New International Version if you know to look for it.
“When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of John, do you truly love me more than these?’
‘Yes, Lord,’ he said, ‘You know that I love you.’
Jesus said, ‘Feed my lambs.’
Again Jesus said, ‘Simon, son of John, do you truly love me?’
He answered, ‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.’
Jesus said, ‘Feed my sheep.;
The third time he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him a third time, ‘Do you love me?’ He said, ‘Lord you know all things; you know that I love you.’”
Jesus said, ‘Feed my sheep.’”
Did you see it?
“Do you truly love me?”
“Do you truly love me?”
Do you love me?”
The Greek in the first two instances is agape, a word that denotes unconditional love, a love we will to give, obedient, God’s love. Peter’s answer uses the more prosaic phileo meaning spontaneous, romantic love, fondness, the product of emotion rather than an act of the will.
“Peter, do you agape me?”
“Yes, Lord, you know I phileo you.”
The third time Jesus comes down to Peter’s level, asking, “Peter, do you phileo me?” to which Peter replies, “Yes, Lord, you know I phileo you?”
Here is the love Jesus required, and here is the love of which Peter was capable, and here is Jesus condescending to accept what is offered no matter its inadequacy. The message here is one of grace in restoring Peter and infinite patience and condescension in meeting the apostle where he is. This is our God, meeting us in our inadequacy and need.
The example of service is here in the text but this is no didactic from which we take instruction on leadership, no self-help formula, but a story illustrating the intimacy we, fallen sinners, can have with the Saviour because of his amazing condescension and grace. The leadership lesson comes from the confidence that knowledge of his grace gives us, and from imitating him as we deal with others as much in need of grace as we are.
Studies such as this demonstrate the huge gulf between the Mormon Church and the Christian Church. Not only does Mormonism misunderstand Christian doctrine, but Mormonism derives from Scripture instruction that departs dramatically from what would be emphasised in a Christian Church. What is deceptive is that a chapter on selfless service sounds so right that many would not think to question it.
This prophet represents an opportunity lost to speak of grace and one has to question his credentials as he so mishandles a familiar and beloved portion of the Bible.
*Gary wrote last time about priesthood and how Mormons understand it compared with what the Bible has to say: Priesthood – ‘for the Salvation of the Human Family’ It is well worth your time to read it.
Following the peaceful and successful Christian witness at the Mormon British Pageant held at the Mormon temple in Lancashire (right) and led by this ministry (see previous posts for reports) the inevitable and inevitably amateur response has appeared on the internet.
The usual name-calling has been going on, one favourite being “protesters,” which brought a smile to the faces of happy Christians peacefully engaging Mormons in conversation and handing out literature to passers-by. The inevitable, “anti-Mormon” label came out of course and I want to share some thoughts about that.
The Oct. 1997 issue of the liberal Mormon Sunstone magazine (Vol. 20:3, Issue 107) carried an amusing article about alternative names for “Anti-Mormons.” (Thanks to Vince for drawing this list to my attention. Comments in brackets are my own, of course)
Sceptics (And this is a bad thing because…?)
Gentiles (Mormons consider themselves the new Israel)
Mormon-detractors
Counter-Mormons (That’s anti-Mormons to the rest of us)
Anti-Christs (At least we know now what Mormons think of honest critics)
Mormophobes (It isn’t an irrational fear but a healthy scepticism – see 1 above)
Nehors (Nehor is an obscure Book of Mormon character who led an apostate sect)
Avatars of Satan (An avatar is an incarnation of a deity; see comment on temple “minister” below)
Challengers (Fair comment. So stop name-calling and meet the challenge)
The unconverted (Christians? Unconverted? Interesting insight)
Contra-Mormons (pro-Christians)
Post-Mormons (Thank goodness that’s behind us then)
Unwashed heathens (Lets not dignify that…)
Ignorant fools (Mt.5:22)
Tannerites (Sandra Tanner and her late husband Jerald, former Mormons, are the most influential critics of Mormonism in the 20th century)
O Benighted Ones (We are getting into the realms of Twilight here, surely)
Dysfunctional pseudo-Christians (Pardon me? I can dress myself)
Friends of other faiths (FOOFS) (To Mormons other churches are “other faiths,” a telling fact since churches are Christian so what does that make Mormonism except “another faith?” Gal.1:8-9)
Friends of opposing lifestyles (FOOLS) (See Mt.5:22 again)
Patrons of opposing philosophies (POOPS) (snigger)
Acquaintances of negative theological interests (ANTIs)
The Gentile Liberation Front (see 2 above)
CsOTMC (Critics of the Mormon Church) (I can live with that)
Objectivity-challenged Mormon commentators
and, “persons in straw hats who sit upon lawn chairs in the full sun all day long and distribute perversely negative literature about the LDS church at the exits of parking lots of LDS temple open houses, who are otherwise harmless…” (I have never owned a lawn chair in my life, although I do have a straw hat)
Childish, isn’t it? And, of course, you can’t ascribe this sort of infantile nonsense to every Mormon you meet. On the other hand, it is not entirely atypical. If this kind of “critical” response was put on a spectrum most, if not all Mormons would fit on it somewhere.
Typical of the response of Mormons to criticism is to attempt to isolate critics from the mainstream of Christian thought and even civilised society. This is done by labelling critics “anti-Mormon,” defining them in terms of their relationship to Mormonism rather than by their faith, and ascribing to them base motives far removed from those of true, good-hearted Christians.
Mormonism’s critics are portrayed as holding to beliefs that are peculiar even to other Christians, as having problems with Mormon theology that most other Christians would not have. There is a history to this kind of approach, represented by such Mormon books as Offenders for a Word, How Wide the Divide and Are Mormons Christians?
Further, in an attempt to legitimise theology that is peculiar to Mormonism, and alien to historical, orthodox Christianity, Mormons seek first to redefine what are often settled issues for the Christian Church; the nature of God, the nature of man, the person of Jesus, the nature of sin, the significance of the cross, the means of grace and salvation, the work of the Holy Spirit, the reliability of the Bible and the eternal destiny of the saints.
This way they create something more in their own image and call it Christianity. They then compare the views of Christian apologists looking critically at Mormonism with this chimera and represent these apologists as though they are out on a limb as far as most Christians are concerned. I call this the Mormon Great Game.
Anyone reading literature produced by Christian critics of Mormonism, indeed reading this blog, will readily see that these thoughtful critics usually stand squarely within the Evangelical Christian tradition when it comes to doctrine. In challenging Mormon thought they represent accurately the problems most Christians would have with Mormon theology.
Christians would have real problems with the Mormon teaching that God is an exalted man, Jesus his literal physical Son; man an eternal being; sin something we pick up from influences around us; the cross simply the place where Jesus died; salvation as something you earn; the Spirit one of three distinct gods; the Bible as unreliable and godhood the ultimate goal for every believer deemed “worthy” of exaltation. All Mormon teachings, none squaring with historical, orthodox Christianity.
According to the official Mormon web site, there are over seventy thousand full-time Mormon missionaries around the world today, as well as the almost 15million ‘lay members’ to whom the aphorism “every member a missionary” applies (For more on how Mormon demographics don’t add up see the Mormon Chapbook). They are calling on our neighbours with their message of families, temples, extra-biblical revelation and the rest, and insist that, unlike their detractors, they are simply proclaiming their message and sharing what they believe.
However, in “teaching what [they] believe to be the teachings of Jesus Christ”, as one correspondent insisted, they do not themselves simply present their view. Their message is grounded in the doctrine that all other churches are in apostasy; their creeds an abomination, believers corrupt, their practices ungodly and their ministers without authority (Joseph Smith, History 1:19).
The first lesson given by Mormon missionaries emphasises the corrupt, apostate nature of Christian churches. Mormonism is presented immediately as a restoration of truth and authority “after centuries of spiritual darkness.” An integral part of their message is an attack on established Christian churches; tearing down the walls of established truth.
In light of this, I suggest their familiar cry, “why do you have to tear down other people’s beliefs?” is breathtakingly disingenuous. In presenting Mormonism, they inevitably tear down the faith of Bible-believing Christians everywhere. If we are “anti-Mormon” what does that make them?
Many Mormon books have been written about, and web pages dedicated to, the defence of Mormonism against those who criticise it. There are also publications ‘correcting’, in light of Mormon beliefs, ‘apostate’ Christian beliefs and practices and educating people in the ‘restored’ Mormon gospel. All of them compare Christianity unfavourably with Mormonism.
The Book of Mormon, said by Joseph Smith to be, “the cornerstone of our faith,” itself is scathing in its attack on the Christian Church, “predicting” a universal apostasy and condemning Christian churches in the strongest terms:
24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book [the Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God…
…26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away…
…28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
But these plain and precious truths, lost through the corruption of the great and abominable church, would be restored:
35 For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious [The Book of Mormon]; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb [through Joseph Smith]….
…38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren [the Lamanites, or American Indians].
39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.
40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records [The Book of Mormon], which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first [The Bible], which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved. (Words in square brackets added)
Mormon leaders have, over the years, been scathing about the churches. In this same section of the Book of Mormon the writer goes on to talk about “the great and abominable church [being] the mother of harlots” Mormon apostle, Bruce R McConkie commented:
“Speaking of harlots in the figurative sense, he (Nephi) designated the Catholic Church as ‘the mother of harlots’ (I Ne.13:34; 14:15-17) a title which means that the protestant churches, the harlot daughters which broke off from the great and abominable church, would themselves be apostate churches.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, pp.314-315)
Now doubt there about where Mormonism stands in relation to the Christian churches. Speaking in 1893 the Mormon prophet John Taylor said:
We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense…Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbol (sic); it is as corrupt as hell; and the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century” (Journal of Discourses, vol.6 p 167)
Up until 1990 the Mormon temple endowment ceremony portrayed a Christian minister as in the pay of the devil! He was made to look corrupt because he preached for money (see Luke 10:7; 1 Cor.9:7-12 esp.v11); His message of an invisible God “so great he can fill the universe, ye so small he can dwell in your heart” (a grotesque caricature) was mocked mercilessly. This portrayal was only removed after strong and repeated protests from outraged Christians and some Mormons who felt increasingly uncomfortable with it.
If Mormons are permitted to ‘apologise’ for, defend and spread their views by casting Christianity in such a poor light I fail to see any justification for Mormon complaints about works that closely and critically examine Mormonism. We might justifiably claim to be simply defending our own faith against Mormon critics calling at our doors. Instead of manufacturing labels for honest critics I suggest they should use their time and energy bringing honest answers to honest questions. Anti-Mormon? I don’t think so.
The review of the final day of the outreach to Mormons at the British Mormon Pageant 2013, written by Jason Thickpenny, made mention of the controversy surrounding the long discredited Mormon “scripture,” The Book of Abraham. The subject had come up in discussion with Mormons and Jason commented, “They had no idea about the fact it had been proven to be falsely translated.” There was little more on the subject, simply a link through to the CARMS website where further research might be carried out.
The typical Mormon response to criticism is nicely summed up in a short conversation Jason reproduced for us:
“Right at the end we spoke to a Lady who said that we are in error because we don’t accept that today we have a priesthood. I showed her Hebrews 1:1-2, to which she said ‘your not using the Kings James Bible’ – I showed the side of it, and then showed her the front – to which she then said ‘well…that bit must not have been translated right’……..’you young man need to read the book of Mormon’, I said ‘with all due respect why would I need to when God has already given me the answer in the bible?’ She left pretty sharp after that!!”
There is so much that might be said but I want you to note how easily a Mormon dismisses the Bible. It is an attitude you will come across time and again and, as we consider the Book of Abraham controversy, keep in mind that a typical Mormon will even dismiss the word of God in Scripture rather than consider their prophets might be wrong.
Ned Scarisbrick is a Mormon of long experience who began his podcast, The 4th Watch, in March 2013. It is an apologetics programme to help Mormons better understand their faith and, to this end, he has produced, “a compilation response to several articles posted at the anti-Mormon web site, ‘Mormonism Investigated UK’…” (I will have more to say next week about “anti-Mormons” and other epithets so beloved of Mormons)
By the time you come to the end of his podcast, where he deals with the BofA, you are used to his avuncular style and the simple Mormon side-step of answering evidence with unsubstantiated assertions. “No, no, no” he insists as he refutes each challenge with barely more than unadorned denial. As he warms to the subject of the BofA he begins by making an ad hominem attack on the source cited, i.e. CARMS.
“CARMS? You trust CARMS? Matt Slick? No, no, no. It’s just not so.” declares Ned. Well, I carry no brief for Matt Slick but this is not about Matt Slick, it is about the Bof A. Does Ned have anything compelling to say that might disprove what Matt Slick and many others have to say about the Bof A? Well let’s see what Ned comes up with as he commits almost every Mormon faux pas and in mere minutes.
Ad hominem attack: “CARMS? You trust CARMS? Matt Slick? No, no, no. It’s just not so.” declares Ned.
Assertion: “It has not been proven false.”
Appeal to Biased Source: Ned sends us to FAIR, the people for whom he is producing these podcasts.
Opinion: “He wants us to take his own view as fact,” Ned says of Jason’s post, before going on to share his own opinion (another assertion), “But it is not falsely translated.”
False Trail: He then asserts that what manuscripts we have today are nothing to do with the Bof A, as demonstrated in Dr Hugh Nibley’s book, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Again, hardly an unbiased source since Hugh Nibley was the Mormon church’s go-to man for any and every expert opinion. This is the same Hugh Nibley who is quoted in the December 1967 issue of The Daily Universe, pb.BYU, “The Papyri scripts given to the church do not prove the Book of Abraham is true…The church has been caught flat footed by this discovery.”
Rewriting History: “The church,” Ned insists, “has never claimed these have anything to do with the Book of Abraham.” Yet, in the Improvement Era of January 1968 we read,
“Perhaps no discovery in recent memory is expected to arouse as much widespread interest in the restored gospel as is the recent discovery of some Egyptian papyri, one of which is known to have been used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham.
Included in the collection of 11 manuscripts is one identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith obtained Facsimile 1, which prefaces the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Accompanying the manuscripts was a letter dated May 26, 1856, signed by both Emma Smith Bidamon, widow of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and their son, Joseph Smith, attesting that the papyri had been the property of the Prophet.”
It certainly sounds like it it has something to do with the writing of the BofA and the official church Improvement Era says as much.
Lingua Obscura: This is a classic Mormon defence in which the message is – We don’t really know. This stuff is very hard and, after all, translating stuff isn’t easy; culture, language, idiom, historical context, hard stuff like that. Who knows? Lets leave it to the experts to thrash it out, remembering no two experts will give the same translation, nobody agrees, its pretty hopeless really, so just let the Spirit work. Just believe.
So many problems with what Ned is saying here. First, wasn’t there some talk of living prophets? The mantle of Joseph and all that? So, why doesn’t the prophet cut through all this speculation and simply get the job done? Come out and explain what this is all about and put people’s minds at rest for goodness sake.
Secondly, if translation is so fraught with pitfalls and imponderable difficulties how come we have the Book of Mormon in so many languages? That is supposed to be an ancient document. The Bible certainly is an ancient document and we get by somehow in producing modern translations and in different languages that pretty much agree with each other. So where’s the fire?
Thirdly, if you ask any and every Egyptologist worth his salt they will all agree on one thing. The Book of Abraham is a fraud. Do you want evidence of this? Bill McKeever of Mormonism Research Ministry has written a helpful article. (I know Ned wants to say, “MRM? You trust MRM? Bill McKeever? No, no, no.” but maybe he should look at what Bill actually brings to the table before judging. After all, that’s what Mormons would ask for their message)
Bill’s article can be found here. What is interesting is the list of scholars and their unanimous opinion. Here are their comments:
“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.”
Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford, England
“I have examined the illustrations given in the ‘Pearl of Great Price.’ In the first place, they are copies (very badly done) of well known Egyptian subjects of which I have dozens of examples. Secondly, they are all many centuries later than Abraham.”
Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie, London University
“Joseph Smith’s interpretation of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”
James, H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago
“The ‘Book of Abraham,’ it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication.”
Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Assist. Curator, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, Dept. of Egyptian Art
“The plates contained in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are rather comical and a very poor imitation of Egyptian originals.”
Dr. John Peters, Univ. of Pennsylvania
“…the explanatory notes to his facsimiles cannot be taken seriously by any scholar, as they seem to be undoubtedly the work of pure imagination.”
Rev. Prof. C.A.B. Mercer, Ph.D., Western Theological Seminary, Custodian Hibbard Collection, Egyptian Reproductions.
“The Egyptian papyrus which Smith declared to be the ‘Book of Abraham,’ and ‘translated’ or explained in his fantastical way, and of which are three specimens are published in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are parts of the well known ‘Book of the Dead.’ Although the reproductions are very bad, one can easily recognize familiar scenes from this book.”
Dr. Edward Meyer, University of Berlin
“A careful study has convinced me that Smith probably believed seriously to have deciphered the ancient hieroglyphics, but that he utterly failed. What he calls the ‘Book of Abraham’ is a funeral Egyptian text, probably not older than the Greek ages.”
Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, Professor of Egyptology in the University of Munich
Of course, for any true believing Mormon no amount of unbiased, expert opinion will be enough. Remember Jason’s conversation and how ready the Mormon lady was to reject the Bible. But the American theologian John Gresham Machen observed:
“Because argument is insufficient, it does not follow that it is unnecessary. What the Holy Spirit does in the new birth is not make a person a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary, to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.” (quoted in John Stott, The Contemporary Christian, p.59)
Lorenzo Snow
It was in early May 1899, we are told, that president Lorenzo Snow ‘felt prompted to visit the city of St. George and other settlements in southern Utah.’ The president, the story continues, on arriving in St George, received a clear revelation in which the saints were urged to obey the law of tithing:
“The word of the Lord to you is not anything new; it is simply this: The time has now come for every Latter-day Saint, who calculates to be prepared for the future and to hold his feet strong upon a proper foundation, to do the will of the Lord and to pay his tithing in full. That is the word
of the Lord to you, and it will be the word of the Lord to every settlement throughout the land of Zion.”
Snow described this experience, “I never had a more perfect revelation,” he later said, “than [the revelation] I received on this subject of tithing.”
We are further informed, “On July 2, all the General Authorities and representatives from all the stakes and wards in the Church attended a solemn assembly in the Salt Lake Temple, having fasted and prayed in preparation for the meeting. There they unanimously accepted the same resolution [to accept this revelation on tithing].”
Mormonism is founded on the doctrine of continuing revelation and an open canon of Scripture. Why did this revelation not make its way into the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C)?
There are many such instances when claims to have received revelation are not followed by any additions to the increasingly inappropriately described Mormon “open canon.”
On one hand Mormons insist their leaders are prophets and what they say “officially” is binding, on the other hand, when those prophets are quoted – as I am quoting Lorenzo Snow here – Mormons will insist the only truly binding teaching is that contained in the “Standard Works” of the Mormon Church; the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price.
Is this word binding if it isn’t between the bindings of official doctrine? This is a troubling issue for both Mormons and those who question Mormon claims. You can read more about it in The Mormon Chapbook
Some historical context will shed light on these developments in Mormon history. In their book, The Mormon Experience, A History of the Latter-day Saints, Leonard J Arrington, (Mormon Church Historian 1972-1982) and Davis Bitton (Assistant Church Historian, 1972-1982) wrote:
“The financial condition of the church throughout the 1890s was desperate. Contributions had dwindled to a trickle due to hard times and fear that donations would end up with the federal government. When escheated church properties (properties that had reverted to the government) were finally returned after statehood, their value had been substantially reduced by mismanagement and the sale of several revenue producing properties. The prolonged depression of the 1890s cut income from church-supported industry, while calls for welfare expenditure increased.
The completion of the four-million-dollar Salt Lake Temple also helped to deplete the church’s resources. The seriousness of of the situation at the end of 1896 was described in a journal entry by Wilford Woodruff: ‘The presidency of the church are so overwhelmed in financial matters it seems as though we shall never live to get through with it unless the Lord opens the way in a marvellous manner. It looks as though we shall never pay our debts.”’”
In response to Mormon intransigence with regard polygamy the Edmunds-Tucker Act, 1887, allowed the government to effectively dissolve the Mormon Church as a legal entity and required the church to forfeit to the government all property in excess of fifty thousand dollars.
The dire financial straits of the church were the direct consequence of a leadership that thought itself above the law in respect to polygamy. It was this that forced the hand of church president Wilford Woodruff, in 1890, to issue the Manifesto abandoning polygamy, and the Manifesto that led to the return to the church of seriously mismanaged and depleted properties.
The church was on the brink of bankruptcy and the leaders who got Mormons into these shocking circumstances were now insisting Mormons had a duty to get themselves out of it.
The United States was already in the grip of a huge depression, begun in 1893, in which hundreds of banks closed and thousands of businesses went under. The unemployment rate in Pennsylvania hit 25%, in New York 35%, and in Michigan 43%. Soup kitchens were opened to feed the destitute and some women, it is reported, turned to prostitution to feed their children.
For Mormons, added to this was the burden of church property being confiscated and tithes drying up for fear the little the saints were able to give might end up in the coffers of the federal government.
The church’s 1898 deficit of $1.25m became a net worth of $3.2m by 1904 and, while church leaders ascribed the changing fortunes of the church to God’s blessing tithe payers, it may have had more to do with the saints gaining full statehood and involvement in the rapid growth of the US economy from 1897 to 1907. Of course, the eyes of faith would have it otherwise, with the fortunes of the United States tied in with the fortunes of Mormons.
I want to pick up on three Lorenzo Snow quotes from the book:
“If we will keep that law . . . the land will be sanctified, and we shall be counted worthy to receive the blessings of the Lord and to be sustained and supported in our financial affairs and in everything we do, temporal as well as spiritual.”
“Here is a law revealed specially for our protection and safety, as well as for our advancement in the path of righteousness and holiness; a law by which the land on which we dwell might become sanctified; a law by which Zion might be built up and established never more to be thrown down or removed out of her place by wicked and ungodly men.”
“The temporal salvation of this Church . . . depends upon obedience to this law.”
The above quotes chime with everything written in the Old Testament regarding tithing. It is a law that must be obeyed by the people of God, obedience to which will bring temporal blessing in the land to a specific people group. The problem is it isn’t binding on Christians under the New Covenant (Testament means Covenant)
Tithing didn’t originate with the Mosaic Law. Nor was it peculiar to the Hebrews but was widely practiced among ancient peoples and civilisations. When Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek, king of Salem, it was not in obedience to a specific command from God. It was a tithe of the spoils of war, a voluntary act of devotion to God in thanks for the rescue of his nephew Lot (Gen.14: 17-20, c.f. 28:20-22, Jacob does something similar)
Lets take a quick tour through the requirements of the Old Covenant (Testament) regarding tithing and its purpose.
The tithe was of the land, its seed and fruit, and of animals and it related to service in the sanctuary. Given its nature it was almost certainly paid annually. Every year after the land had been harvested, the people would bring to the priests the tithe of their harvest and increase in herds and flocks – Lev.27:30-33
Tithes were given to support the Levites. Because the Levites had no inheritance in the land of Canaan, like the other tribes, God provided for their support through the tithes of the rest of Israel – Numbers 18:21-24
There was a second tithe to provide for the religious feasts and festivals of Israel – Deuteronomy 14:22-27
Every three years the people of the town were to bring a tithe of their crops and herds and gather them together to take care of the poor of their towns including the alien, orphan and widow. There is debate over whether this is a third tithe or the second tithe put to a different use – Deuteronomy 14:28-29
These tithes were lawfully required and not voluntary – Nehemiah 12:44
Malachi 3:8-12 – This is the familiar text used by Mormon to justify their quid pro quo approach to tithing. Lets see what it actually says:
You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it may not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes, says the Lord of hosts. And all the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land, says the Lord of hosts.”
Tithes are the annual, or triennial first fruits of crops and animals. Offerings are the grain and animal sacrifices brought to the temples. If we are to tithe are we to make animal sacrifices? The curse for disobedience was a curse on crops, fields and stock, the very things in which they had sinned in not tithing, “…because you would not obey the Lord your God by keeping His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you” (Deut. 28:18, 23-24, 38-40, 45)
The “storehouses” referred to were chambers in the temple set apart and designated to hold the tithes of the people for the support of the priests (Nehemiah 12:44) It is these that would be filled until they overflowed when Israel obeyed. The “pests” (devourer AV) who would not destroy their crops was the locust (Deut.28:38) Israel’s obedience would result in abundant crops, rain and increase in herds and flocks. Tithe barns can still be seen around Europe. The one on the left is in Great Coxwell, Oxfordshire, England. We are no longer under that system but this is the system prescribed by Mormonism.
I mentioned a quid pro quo approach for Mormons. Mormonism teaches that our obedience binds God to bless us, “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” (D&C 82:10)
This is the lens through which they view the law of tithing: If you obey you are bound to prosper. You will sometimes hear Mormons insist that, “Those who leave the church never prosper,” and this it is that stands behind their salvation by works. The Mormon message is a message of “progression” not salvation, and that progression depends not on the finished work of Christ at Calvary but on their strict obedience to the Mormon Plan of Salvation, including the law of tithing.
There are only four New Testament passages in which tithing is mentioned:
(Matthew 23:23, c.f. Luke 11:42) This text is talking about tithing herbs under the Old Covenant. The New Covenant was not yet inaugurated until Jesus’ death (Lk.22.20; Heb. 7:12)
Luke 18:12: This is the parable about the Pharisee and the tax-collector. The words, “I pay tithes of all that I get,” are put into the mouth of the self-righteous Pharisee who thinks himself justified before God on the basis of his works. Some people are in Scripture as examples, others as warnings. Is this Old Covenant warning our example for Christians living under the New Covenant!
Hebrews 7:1-10 This passage is not about tithing but about the superiority of the priesthood of Christ over the Levitical priesthood, even as Melchizedek was superior to Levi who, being in the loins of Abraham, paid tithes to the priest/king. Even so, the New Covenant is superior to the Old.
So how is giving understood under the New Covenant?
There is no percentage prescribed but, like Abraham and Jacob, Christians are to give voluntarily, “just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7).
1 Corinthians 16:1-2: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.”
Here saints are urged to give proportionately as they have prospered.
Acts 11:27-39 “Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.”
Here we see people giving as they are able. Those with more give more, those with less give less.
2 Corinthians 9:7: “Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.”
Here we are urged to be faithful to give what we have purposed in our hearts. When we see a need we meet it as best we can.
Acts 2:44-45: “And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.”
1 John 3:17: “But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.”
Galatians 6:9-10: “And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.”
1 Timothy 5:17-18: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing’ and ‘The labourer is worthy of his wages.’”
1 Cor.9:11-14: “If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you? If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share with the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.”
So much for the much vaunted Mormon lay clergy. Mormons will often sneer at the idea of a paid clergy, suggesting some sort of compromise with mammon, but the Bible insists “the labourer is worthy of his hire.”
Luke 12:33-34: “Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
Ephesians 4:28: “Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labour, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need.”
James 1:27: “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
New Covenant giving is to meet people’s needs, it is done as we are able, as we have determined in our hearts. It is to be anonymous (Mt.6:1-4); Voluntary (2 Cor.9:7); Expecting and trusting in God’s blessing and provision (2 Cor.9:6); Cheerfully (2 Cor.9:7); sacrificially (Mk.12:41-44) and for the right motives, i.e. following Christ’s example (2 Cor.8:9) and obeying his command of love (Jn.15:12-13)
Just as Christ’s priesthood is greater than the abolished Levitical priesthood, as the New Covenant is greater than the Old Covenant, so the new way of giving is more heartfelt and demanding than the old. The old way was easily fulfilled by the measuring out of stock and crops, the new is measured by the heart and sacrifice of the giver.
Here is the tragedy: Mormons follow the way of the Old Covenant, Christians are free to be generous and sacrificial in the New Covenant. Mormons remain under law, while Christians operate under grace, a grace that equips them for greater responsibilities than were ever required under the Old Covenant.
There is an enlightening and informative article on Mormon finances here. For a fuller treatment of the biblical teaching on tithing and giving read Brian Anderson’s excellent article on The Bridge Online, from which I have taken some of these bullet points.
Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He is an elder in his local church, still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues The Mormon Chapbook
Comparisons are made with other churches that also practiced discrimination. They changed their stance on these issues and so has the Mormon Church. Not an unreasonable argument, we are meant to conclude. But the Mormon Church cannot reasonably make that defence, the comparison doesn’t bear scrutiny.
Christian churches are led by fallible people, depending on centuries of scholarship and a developing theology for understanding and insight. We are led, we would insist, by the Spirit but flawed, we would confess, by the fallen nature of leaders and congregation alike.
That is why we go to great lengths to maintain biblical fundamentals while “allowing” disagreement on secondary issues. We recognise the wisdom of St Augustine who said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
Our standing before God does not depend on our capacity to grasp an exhaustive theology but on our faith in Christ and his simple message of salvation (John 5: 24-25) We confess our sin, run to the cross and throw ourselves on God’s generous mercy (Romans 3; Acts 2:21) Only this way can fallen man, trusting in a risen Lord, have a sure hope.
That said, we are not saved into ignorance but need to grow in the things of God (Acts 2:42-47) That growing happens across cultures, generations and ages and is informed by scholarship that produces better Bible translations and commentary, debate and disagreement that challenge preconceptions, insight and inspiration that shine light into blind corners and experience that humbles us before the towering word of God. For Mormons this is evidence of apostasy.
After the death of Jesus Christ, they claim, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and killed them. Without Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted…Without revelation and priesthood authority, people relied on human wisdom to interpret the scriptures (scholarship, debate, disagreement)…False ideas were taught as truth…The doctrines…became distorted or forgotten. This eventually led to the emergence of many churches – apostasy.
The message of Mormonism centres on “living prophets” (insight, inspiration). John Taylor, third Mormon president, wrote, “the principle of present revelation…is the very foundation of our religion” (Journal of Discourses, p.371). Elder Joseph W. McMurrin was one of the First Seven Presidents of the First Council of the Seventy from Oct.5 1897. In a General Conference address in April 1902 he said:
“A Prophet of God stands in the midst of the people now, clothed upon with every gift, key, power, and authority, that was given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that same inspiration, that same power to penetrate the future, to comprehend the purposes of the Almighty, is with the Priesthood that is in our midst today.”
So, how did Mormonism go from being led by men clothed upon with every gift, key, power, and authority, who can penetrate the future and comprehend the purposes of the Almighty to, “Holy Moroni! What just happened?”
Mormons reject the orthodox churches with their scholars, theologies, creeds and denominations and follow prophets, seers and revelators; one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph.4:5). Books are well and good, scholarship admirable but the sure word of prophecy gives us “the mind of Christ.” ( 1Cor. 2:16) “Surely, the LORD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7 KJV)
But what do you do when those prophets prove less than insightful and inspired? When “modern prophets” can’t explain the “essentials” around which Mormons are to unite? When comprehension, inspiration and penetrating insight fail where do you turn?
The Mormon Church has helpfully published an online comparison of the differences between the 1981 and 2013 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. In the Introduction to the 1981 edition we are told:
“The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days…In the revelations, the doctrines of the gospel are set forth with explanations about such fundamental matters as the nature of the Godhead, the origin of man, the reality of Satan, the purpose of mortality, the necessity for obedience, the need for repentance, the workings of the Holy Spirit, the ordinances and performances that pertain to salvation, the destiny of the earth, the future conditions of man after the Resurrection and the Judgment, the eternity of the marriage relationship, and the eternal nature of the family.
Concerning this publication the elders of the church gave solemn testimony that the Lord had borne record to their souls of the truth of the revelations.” (Emphasis added)
Notable is the unequivocal endorsement of these revelations as coming direct from God, having absolute and unqualified authority. They are divine and inspired in their nature, authoritative in their purpose, revelatory in regards doctrine, fundamental in their matter and comprehensive in their teaching; undiluted by the corruption of having passed through “profane hands,” a popular Mormon description of how we got the Bible.
Unlike the churches of apostate “Christendom”, there is no speculation or disagreement, no recourse to scholars to explain, no equivocation; doctrine and praxis are plainly set forward as they come from the very mouth of God and pen of the prophet. This is the Mormonism of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph F Smith, James E Talmage, Spencer W Kimball and Bruce R McConkie. This is the Mormonism with which I am familiar: reassuringly certain, declarative and dogmatic.
Into this affirmative account these words were inserted for the 2013 edition. I include my own commentary in plain text and brackets:
The revelations were originally recorded by Joseph Smith’s scribes (like the Bible, they are now at least once removed from their source), and Church members enthusiastically shared handwritten copies with each other (like the Bible there were many early copies that may not have all agreed at every point) To create a more permanent record, scribes soon copied these revelations into manuscript record books (like early Christian leaders they selected the best from a variety of copies), which Church leaders used in preparing the revelations to be printed (which selected copies were then published as the ‘authoritative’ version)
In other words, the Doctrine and Covenants was put together the same way Mormons think the Bible was. The difference is, we have thousands of part and full copies of early New Testament texts, which we can compare with our Bibles and which give us confidence in their faithfulness to the original. In a striking parallel with Islam, “early copies” of Joseph’s “revelations” have failed to come down to us and we are left only with what the church “officially” tells us belongs in the book. To continue:
Joseph and the early Saints viewed the revelations as they did the Church: living, dynamic, and subject to refinement with additional revelation (opening the door for scholarship to define doctrine, bearing in mind the 2013 edition is the product of scholarship, not revelation) They also recognized that unintentional errors had likely occurred through the process of copying the revelations and preparing them for publication (they have passed through corrupt hands) Thus, a Church conference asked Joseph Smith in 1831 to “correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the Holy Spirit…”
…The early Latter-day Saints prized the revelations and viewed them as messages from God (note they are now only “viewed” as messages from God). On one occasion in late 1831, several elders of the Church gave solemn testimony that the Lord had borne record to their souls of the truth of the revelations.
Notable now is the apparent equivocation over these revelations coming direct from God, having now a qualified authority. Apparently divine in origin, they seem more capable of interpretation and disagreement in their nature. It is a short step from here to saying that these are true “in the original autographs,” as is said of the Bible. The Bible, however, can appeal to an embarrassment of riches evidentially in manuscript, history, archaeology and scholarship to strengthen its claims.
I suggest the next step in this reassessment of Mormonism will be opening up the secret vaults in church headquarters and bringing out early Mormon documents, diaries and journals we know are there. There is already a work in progress to collate and make public the exhaustive writings of Joseph Smith. What a resource for those now seeking to reinvent Mormonism for the 21st century.
Against these early Mormon Church documents official Mormon writings and claims can be compared. This will give space for Mormons to move from a fundamentalist, literalist view of their faith to something that builds more on mythic truth than its traditional dogmatic truth.
It was felt necessary in the 1981 introduction to give an unquestionably positive account (some might say a selective account) of the publication of these revelations. Why, if not to instil in Mormons the thought that nothing qualified the utterances of their prophet. The substantial account inserted in 2013 offers considerable qualification of everything in the book and makes it capable of “explanation” by scholars in a way it never was before, and that puts scholars, not prophets, in the place of authority for the 21st century Mormon.
Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues The Mormon Chapbook
The unique claim of Mormons is that they are led by “living prophets.” Prophets are integral to their claim to be a “Restoration” church, prophets are what distinguish Mormonism and prophets are foundational to their claim to, alone in this world, have authority to speak and act for God. It is understood, historically, that when a Mormon scholar speaks on Mormon issues, no matter how illustrious his or her career, how impressive their curriculum vitae, it is still “only their opinion,” albeit a professional opinion. Prophets alone make doctrine.
However, Mormon prophets have come up with pretty wacky ideas and practices. The list is long: Polyamory, polygamy, polyandry, banking scandals, institutional racism, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The exposure of the much vaunted Book of Abraham – “written by [Abraham’s] own hand” according to Joseph Smith – as an Egyptian Book of Breathings circa 50BC to 50AD. The infamous forgery scandals that hoodwinked Gordon B Hinckley and led to the tragic Salt Lake City bombings of 1985.
Mormon prophets have increasingly proved a liability and it has been the church’s practice to bury their dead prophets’ ideas along with them. Mormons are used to explaining away the embarrassing statements and practices of past leaders, from the sexually predacious Joseph Smith and the monomaniacal Brigham Young, through the rabid dogmatism of Bruce R McConkie, the bogus claims of Paul H Dunn and his “Early Life and War Experiences,” to the inability of Gordon B Hinckley to stay away from TV cameras, opening his mouth only to change feet.
I want to point out two developments I consider significant in this regard with the publication of their 2013 edition of the Mormon scriptures. Mormon prophets are so wrong as to be a liability and Mormons now admit it, and the Mormon Church is looking to academics to do what, in a more innocent time, prophets once did.
On June 8, 1978 a statement was issued from church headquarters declaring the long standing ban on men of African descent holding the Mormon priesthood lifted. This statement is found in all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), along with the earlier declaration of 1890 abandoning, officially, the practice of polygamy.
What is effectively a colour bar has been a thorn in the side of the Mormon Church and stood for most of that church’s history. Historically, it has been founded on Mormon Scripture and teaching. Generations of Mormon leaders have developed and at length taught the reasons for the bar to black priesthood holders.
In the 2013 edition of the D&C, to the original declaration has been appended a preface purporting to explain the background to this development:
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.
Gone is the, the elaborate story of war in heaven, less noble pre-mortals, the curse of a black skin, talk of the negro being a descendent of Cain and a representative of Satan on the earth, key elements of the Plan of Salvation. Worse, gone is the confidence in prophets as the church openly “admits” it has no idea why this teaching held sway for almost 150 years of its 180 year history. Where once any Aaronic priesthood holder (age 12-17) might have explained it now even prophets cannot.
This is nonsense, of course, and they know and understand full well the elaborate theological arguments for the bar. As you scan the faces of Mormon General Authorities on the stand at conference time you are looking at men who grew up being taught and went on to teach the Mormon mythology regarding ignoble premortal lives, the consequent “curse” of black skin and its resulting proscriptions. This is a public relations exercise designed to distance today’s church from its own history, rather like Nazi’s burning documents when it became clear the war wasn’t going their way.
What is significant is the unqualified admission that prophets at the head of God’s only true church cannot understand or explain Mormon doctrine. Further, Mormon Church history, which has always been in the hands of a fastidiously “record-keeping” Mormonism, can shed no light on the matter. It comes to something when feigning such ignorance is better than owning your own church’s history and teaching.
Mormons, it seems, cannot look to their prophets, nor can they rely on their own historical records to help them understand their own church and doctrine. Where, then, are they to look for guidance? If not to prophets, past or present, where are Mormons to look for revelation? That’s the next post.
I have picked out for comment some themes I see running through the Saturday afternoon session of the Mormon conference. The theme of families increasingly causes problems for them and I touch on the changes made in their new edition of the Scriptures, a subject I will be covering in more detail soon. Particularly interesting are the “dry” statistical reports which, if you know what to look for, can be very enlightening, not so much for what they say as for what they don’t say.
In May my church will hold its AGM where the financial accounts will be made available to members. We do this because the church is the people, not the building or the institution, and church leaders are servants of the people, the church, to whom we are accountable.
The Saturday afternoon session began with the sustaining of church officers and a report from Robert W Cantwell, Managing Director of the Church Audit Report:
“Based upon audits performed, the Church Auditing Department is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church have been recorded and administered in accordance with appropriate accounting practices, approved budgets, and Church policies and procedures.”
Short on detail this wouldn’t inspire confidence in anyone but a true believing Mormon. The Mormon Church was incorporated in Utah as early as 1851 by Brigham Young and has several tax-exempt corporations including the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized in 1916 to handle property, the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints organised in 1823 to handle money and Intellectual Reserve Inc. organised in 1997 to handle intellectual rights.
While UK law requires limited companies to submit accounts to companies house for public scrutiny no such legal requirement is made in US law. Businessweek produced an interesting study on the subject in July 2012. The Mormon corporation, therefore, is accountable neither to the the public from whom it derives tax benefits nor to its own members whose money they collect and use. By comparison a telling state of affairs.
The statistical report was as opaque. When Brook P Hales, secretary to the first presidency, reports that as of 31 December 2012 there were 3005 stakes and 29,014 wards and branches of the church those are simple facts but significantly short on detail. For instance, of the 29,014 wards and branches 17506 are in the United States (including Canada), 5,617 are in South America. This leaves, according to their own newsroom stats, 5,891 across the rest of the world. This is still an American church.
When he reports that “total membership of the church was 14,782,473” he is not telling the whole story. Historically it has been shown that, across the board, as much as 2/3 of that number have no meaningful involvement, are “inactive.” You can read how this works out in an article I wrote back in 2009. The numbers have changed but the working of them remains more or less the same. You can get the most recent stats by following this link.
December 2012 saw the launch of a Mormon website, mormonsandgays.org, dedicated to open dialogue between the church and members experiencing same-sex attraction. It is worth noting, therefore, how much emphasis is placed on families in this session.
The nuclear family is the ideal for Mormons (Elder Richard G Scott). The missionary enterprise is represented as being the product of the nuclear family (Elder Russell M Nelson), with mum and dad, grandparents saving to send their children, and young couples preparing to serve as mission president and companion, older couples serving in retirement. The importance of mum and dad in raising children is emphasised and families can bless a local ward of the church (Elder Stanley G Ellis)
I hold the biblical view of marriage being between one man and one woman and, of course, Mormons have always emphasised families. “Families are forever” they say, referencing their controversial doctrine on the eternal nature of families based on the idea that God has a wife/wives and we are literally his children; you can read something about it here. But consider those in your church who are single for various reasons, perhaps divorced, never married, called to singleness, perhaps single parents, and how they would be made to feel if the nuclear family was preached as being only and always God’s plan.
David A Bednar of the twelve speaks of chastity outside marriage and the command to Adam and Eve to procreate as a sacred duty. A questionable use of 1 Cor.11:11, “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord,” is marshalled to promote marriage relations as “the only authorised channel through which premortal spirits enter mortality.”
The use to which the text is put is questionable because it comes in the middle of a passage about conduct in public worship and equality of men and women before God and not marriage. Again, I believe that children are best raised in that family setting with a mum and dad. But the focus on marriage and procreation as sacred and eternal duties puts the emphasis on what men and women do and not on what God has done in Christ. It is also exclusive of so many for whom marriage and families are not practical, possible, or something to which they feel called.
The eternal family is the family of God and not the family of man. When we become Christians we are adopted into God’s family (Eph.1:5) and, while in this world God has placed many in earthly families, the family of God is for “whoever believes” (John 3:16) The Mormon/Gay initiative is laudable enough but sinners of all stripes need to be brought to Christ and not necessarily to marriage and parenthood.
What most caught my attention was Elder John B Dickson’s talk, The Gospel to All the World. He gives a thrilling account of the early Christian Church, Jesus’ 40 day post-resurrection ministry (Acts 1:3), his commissioning of men to take the gospel out to the world (Mt.28:18-19), the revelation that included Jews and Gentiles as its recipients and Jesus’ words of commission:
He told them that, “. . . ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8)
…as well as the words of the angel on the Mount after Jesus’ ascension, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9-11).
Elder Dickson declared, “We know that the gospel then went rapidly to the nations of the Gentiles.”
He goes on however, “… Now let us move 1,800 years forward to the time of the restoration of the gospel or the restitution of all things prior to the Second Coming.”
Having painted such a positive picture of the early Christian Church he, at a stroke, wiped out 1800 years of Christian history. God could not keep his church over a period of 1800 years when he had promised to keep it (Mt.16:18) and when he had kept Israel for more than twice that time? Christ’s commissioning, empowering and filling with the Holy Spirit of men and women of God to “go into all the world” somehow resulted in failure? The very thing they were sent to do they did but then there was a complete apostasy?
But where do Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty come into it?
That arch-villain and Sherlock Holmes’ nemesis Moriarty has become so integral to the canon of Holmes’ stories that most people think he is a primary figure in the great detective’s tales. The truth is Conan-Doyle invented him and put him in one story (The Final Problem) for the sole purpose of killing off Sherlock Holmes. He did such a good job in creating this character, however, people who don’t know better make him more. They imagine his influence reaches back beyond the one story in which he appears, filling in the gaps left by the fact he is actually not there.
In the same way, when a Mormon leader presents the idea of apostasy Mormons will happily fill in this black hole in Christian history with dark tales of corrupt Medieval popes and priests and general apostasy before Joseph Smith came along in 1820, never once realising that, as Moriarty was created for the sole purpose of killing Sherlock Holmes, so apostasy was introduced into the story solely to create a reason for Joseph Smith.
In Mormon teaching, once that hurdle has been got over, almost 2,000 years of Christian history can be ignored, all those teachers, preachers, commentators, reformers dismissed. The only subject for discussion is what happened post 1820. Church history for a Mormon is Mormon Church history.
They know nothing of Clement, Ignatius or Polycarp, Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom. Nothing of church movements and initiatives in history (summed up only in that one, to a Mormon, desultory word “reformation”). Church councils are misrepresented as solely divisive and political, people like Wycliffe, Zwingli, Calvin, even Luther are mere names, no more than markers along the road to Joseph Smith.
Elder Dickson informs us, “From the time of the organization… in 1830 the Church has moved steadily across the world from nation to nation, culture to culture, people to people on the Lord’s calendar and in his time.” But he began by setting out the Lord’s calendar and saying it was all going according to God’s plan in “the Meridian of time.”
Think back on those statistics. In fact, if you took the first 180 years of the early Christian Church and compared it with the first 180 years of Mormonism the former had crossed and travelled outside a vast Roman Empire, becoming truly international. Christianity began as a Jewish sect but in that time established itself firmly in the Greek, Roman and Eastern worlds. Mormonism started as an American cult and is yet to establish a truly international presence, despite inflated claims to the contrary – an American religion even yet.
Elder Dickson goes on, “Then in 1978 following the established pattern of revelation through the Senior Apostle, this time President Spencer W. Kimball, came the Revelation on Priesthood allowing all worthy males across the world to receive the priesthood and every blessing of the restored gospel…
… As a people West Africans believe in God, have absolutely no shame in declaring and sharing their belief with others and have tremendous leadership capacity. They are coming into the Church by the hundreds and every week or so a couple of wards or branches are created somewhere in the Africa West Area with, in nearly every case, all African priesthood and auxiliary leadership.”
You might be aware that the Mormon Church has just this year released a new, “English edition of LDS scriptures, pointing to new wording about race and polygamy…” You can read about it in The Salt Lake Tribune. One of the most significant changes made was to the heading above the 1978 Declaration referred to:
“The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.”
This has to be the most shameful piece of mendacity I have seen in a long time. If you want a clear account of what is behind this racist Mormon doctrine they are trying to dissemble over you can visit The Mormon Chapbook and read about Mormonism’s real secret doctrine.
But more telling perhaps than even this appalling misrepresentation of history is the admission that the Mormon Church, led by prophets, practiced and clearly taught this doctrine from 1848 through to 1978, 130 years out of its 180 year existence, without apparently knowing why! Their Scripture texts are clear on the issue, their traditional teaching is unequivocal, generations of Mormons (including me) could explain it in a five minute talk on a Sunday morning yet now it seems even prophets can’t explain it.
And so they celebrate their move into Africa, failing to tell the truth about how generations of Mormons, people and prophets alike, were taught to think of people of African descent as inferior and unworthy. I suppose the American dollar, the promise of prosperity and purpose on a continent so bereft of both is enough to make most people believe those nice American boys at their door and not ask too many questions. Not the fault of a sometimes desperate and ambitious continent but of an already well-fed and greedy for more corporation. Read more about Mormonism in Africa.