Mormon FAQ

Do you believe the Book of Mormon is a literal history?

2012-02-02T13:42:00.000-08:00

Yes, I do.

There has been quite a discussion lately about the Book of Mormon. The attitude of some people, including parts of the scientific community, is that the Book of Mormon has “finally” been definitively proven wrong and we can “move on” without having to walk on eggshells around the faith of this strange religion full of angels, gold plates, and polygamy.

Not so fast.

The Book of Mormon itself has always stipulated that the remnant of its people were changed genetically between the time of their departure from Israel and their discovery by Columbus. Joseph Smith never asserted that the Jews and the American Indians even looked alike physically, much less genetically. Quite the opposite; the Book of Mormon is full of assertions that the people were changed dramatically in appearance. How else would God carry that out without rewriting their genetic code?

In fact, the Book of Mormon’s assertion that the Lamanites’ physical changes (specifically, their darkened skin) was a curse due to wickedness is a politically-incorrect concept that has been criticized vocally (by the same people who point to genetic research as evidence of Book of Mormon flaws!)

Additionally, the Book of Mormon is not the story of a single group of people. Nor is the known secular history of the indigenous peoples that was collected during the European exploration and conquest the story of a single group of people. Admittedly, members and even some high ranking leaders have been quoted attempting to shoehorn genealogies and geographies to make the specific American Indians that we have today pure descendants of specific groups in the Book of Mormon. And there may be some errors in those statements. Fortunately, Mormons do not believe their leadership is infallible.

Critical to an understanding of the doctrines and thought of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an understanding of two topics: agency and revelation.

Agency is this: The ability to make decisions for ourselves. In order to progress and grow as children on this earth, we had to be separated from the presence of God to be tested and tried. If God interferes in our agency – our ability to choose - it would inhibit that growth. The expectation that faith must be provable is unreasonable under that system.

A real understanding of that teaching means that members should not expect their religion to be provable by a genetic test. Or by an incontrovertible prophetic prediction. Or a large-scale carefully attributed miracle. I would go so far as to say that if the Lord had expected genetic tests to demonstrate to the world that the American Indians are pure descendants of the house of Israel, he might have prevented those tests from becoming developed.

That is not to say that we do not have plenty of evidences for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. But it is to say that they will likely not be strong enough by themselves (that is, without a witness by the spirit) to prove our case. For example, part of the evidence that has convinced me personally comes from the textual understanding of human behavior and motive and interaction. I am impressed and even awed by the insights there – things that would not have been available to the experience of the text’s young, relatively uneducated frontier translator. The older I get the more it awes me. The very best fiction writers of our day all lack something that the Book of Mormon has in terms of depth.

On to Revelation: Revelation, whether written scripturally, received as impressions personally, or announced prophetically, has never been a simple thing. It is nuanced. It is complex. It is revisable. It is revocable. It is local, variable, applicable. There are cultural and linguistic imperfections introduced by its recipients and its interpreters.

Our belief in a pure source and pure revelation, and in the designation of an authorized mouthpiece of it for governing the church (a Prophet) does not mean we believe in any sort of infallibility other than the Savior’s. It takes a lifetime of effort to learn to receive, interpret , act upon, and interpret revelation. People –individuals and even prophets – make mistakes. Misapplication, misinterpretation, mispronunciation, and misattribution plague the process.

The only way to eliminate all of those things is to have God himself appear and speak on every subject at every time in perfect language… and that would interfere with our development and our agency. One cannot expect revelation to come easily, to be easy to recognize, to be fulfilled the way we expected in each instance. One cannot hope to put time frames to it, or to be able to test it and prove it scientifically.

Be assured that that does not make revelation – scriptural, personal, or prophetic – less real, less pure, or less relevant. It just makes it harder. But that is as it is supposed to be. That approach to revelation is not new; it is Biblical. The reformers understood it. The Savior understood it. Moses understood it.

We are all born (whether “Mormons or not”) with an innate sense of revelation (we call it the “Light of Christ”). When we become old most all of us seem to draw toward it again. It is magnified further if we choose to be baptized under proper authority and to make and keep covenants to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. We enhance its usefulness and our understanding of it as we gain experience, struggle to understand it, and use it to bless others.

I am confident that, for all of its "problems", revelation is alive and well in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and in my own life.

I acknowledge that some may see this as a cop-out. A blanket explanation for failed prophecies, for religion generally, for the so-called conflicts between faith and science. I suppose that is in how we choose to see things. I choose to see things through a lens of faith. That has served me well throughout my life. It has not removed life’s difficulties, but it has given me tools for enduring it well and for blessing others in the process, and for feeling peace. So I am going to stick with it.

Now, I know that some members of the church have taken an even more progressive approach to dealing with some of these topics. They believe that we should see the Book of Mormon as parable, perhaps a well-inspired metaphor. And that reconciles the account in their minds. That is up to them. Perhaps they are right and I am wrong. They are welcome to believe as they choose. But for me, I still have more than enough evidence that the Book of Mormon, with all of its oddities and whatever imperfections it may exhibit, is exactly what it claims to be – a translation of the sacred understandings of a few different groups of people and their dealings with our God.

Why don't Mormons like "The Book of Mormon Musical"?

2012-01-20T09:57:00.000-08:00

[Disclaimer: Like many if not most Mormons, I haven't seen The Book of Mormon Musical, so I'm depending on here-say to form an opinion. Very unfair, I know. But all will be explained.]

The simple answer: I think Mormons dislike the Book of Mormon Musical because it makes fun of us. No one likes being made fun of.

Are we uptight? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. As a culture, Mormons have had plenty of self-deprecating humor. I've seen little skits at activities at church, comics drawn by members (some of the tamer ones even published in our own magazines), and in the last fifteen or so years an entire genre of Mormon humor flicks has developed in the film-making world, all poking fun at our culture. The only reason that you haven't heard of movies like the "Singles Ward" or "Church Ball" or "The RM" is that the humor is largely lost on people outside the culture. (The movie names themselves are the first indicator that cultural understanding is prerequisite to enjoying the humor).

Is it the vulgarity and the profanity? Many articles have pointed that out. Lacing a show about Mormons with profanity and grotesque or sexual humor is like filling an Amish show with references to technology and automobiles. It just doesn't fit. In fact, its presence in the musical is why we won't go see it. Despite being a very musical-friendly culture, we don't even get to laugh along at ourselves with our friends in the arts, while they make fun of us, because the language is so bad.

For me there's something even more personally offensive than the vulgarity. It is the stereotyping of Mormons as naive. But perhaps I shouldn't be offended by that; in its own subtle way it may actually be the funniest thing in the whole Book of Mormon Musical.

Perhaps, to some degree, many missionaries start out with a certain naivete; most are unscarred by addictions or extramarital intimacy and too young to have seen much of death or illness. But that criticism evaporates rapidly as Mormon missionaries live among the people in nearly every country in the world, speaking their language, wrestling with not only religious questions but unimaginable social and economic and familial problems.

I and my companions come home at 21 years old knowing more about the world than most Americans will know in a life time. In my small congregation there are fluent speakers of Korean, Japanese, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Croatian. And among my closest friends are fluent speakers of Russian, Afrikaans, Dutch, French, Arabic, Chinese, and Mongolian.

In the 24 months that straddled my exit from teenager to full adulthood, I saw it all. I counseled with families who had seen their own children and brothers murdered in a popular uprising, with the victims of rape, with children who had become addicted to crack cocaine by the age of 8, Dads who lost their jobs or struggled with alcoholism, moms struggling with the emotional aftermath of an abortion, families wrestling with revelations of an adulterous affair or a teenage pregnancy, with victims of sexual abuse and incest, with the loved ones coping with a suicide, a miscarriage, death from accidents or incident to old age. I have helped bail people out of jail. I have seen down the wrong end of the barrel of a gun and felt one pressed at the back of my head on more than one occasion. I have been explicitly propositioned (by both genders, by the way), I know what a crack pipe, cocaine, marijuana, and acid look like, and I can tell when someone is on one of them (and probably even distinguish which one). I can pick out a glue huffer from a mile away. I know what anxiety, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders look like when there's no medicine to treat them. I know what dying from cancer and AIDS look like too.

By the way, it's not all bad: I have also played chess with professors, engaged diplomats in conversation on history and world affairs. I have trained teachers, taught English, represented my church in an appearance before a world religion class at a catholic seminary. I have played soccer in the streets with children and in formal games against Chilean men (including a police precinct. We won.) I have climbed a small mountain, eaten foods that we don't have time to describe here, washed clothes on a board and showered in cold water (many times), and knelt in prayer with many, many people of varying ranks in Chilean society.

And I have done all of that in a second language. Before the age of 21.

I would love to know this: How many languages do the writers and producers of The Book of Mormon Musical speak? How many years have they spent fully devoted to helping others? Are any of them qualified to counsel people struggling with addictions and relationship struggles? Or do they perhaps belong on the other side of the table? By the way, a couple of years of high school language classes and camps does not make you a linguist or even count as "speaking a language", despite what you have posted on the "Info" section of your Facebook Page. Nor does "having a friend who comes to you for help and has lots of problems" make you a counselor. Only naivete could produce such a delusion.

The rest of the world (outside the U.S.) laughs not at Mormon naivete but at American naivete; at best a nation of tourists, and at worst viewed as a very sheltered and arrogant people. Mormon Missionaries are the only demographic in American society that are a meaningful exception to that rule. We Mormon Missionaries are in many ways the cultured, the cosmopolitan. (That's why Salt Lake City was so ideal for hosting a Winter Olympics, by the way.)

Fortunately for you, Mormon Missionaries aren't the types of people to make a whole production of mocking the rest of you for your naivete.

Don't you ever wonder if it isn't all just made up?

2011-12-28T12:14:00.000-08:00

Put another way, do I experience crises of faith?

Yes, I do. Occasionally. But not very often.

One of the crises of faith I have experienced has to do with academic scholarship in the church. On occasion I have come across mediocre work by LDS scholars that attempted to shoehorn history in to a pro-LDS view, or to explain it away in a disingenuous manner. I remember one such work specifically; it was a text by a prominent BYU professor that set out to prove the events of the restoration using the prophetic texts of the book of Isaiah. While there can be no doubt that certain portions of the text point to events like the period we refer to as the restoration, there are some parts where he seemed to stretch some ideas pretty thinly, and twist them to the breaking point.

I do not say this to cast aspersions on BYU scholars. I think they are largely well-intentioned, and I don’t doubt that their credentials far outweigh my own. I have seen some truly well-researched and inspired defenses of our doctrine come out of the Neal A Maxwell Institute at BYU (formerly known as FARMS). But I have also seen some clunkers.

One thing that I am grateful for is that the internet has made these debates so much more accessible. Unfortunately, especially in the hands of young, untrained minds, these debates can also be dangerous. For example, when a mediocre piece of LDS scholarship is pulled apart by a well-credentialed and sometimes highly intelligent opponent, it can lead to a weakening of faith. In a broader example, popular, well-spoken cosmologists have made more than a few disciples for atheism, marching under the banner of science (or, at least, the banner of theoretical physics, which ironically borders in places on being a religion itself).

Occasionally we are accused of allowing faith to overcome that which is rational. When we cannot explain something, we file it in the mental cabinet of unexplained problems next to ‘supernatural’, and forget about it. “Blind faith”, they call it. I take issue with this. For some problems there is not enough evidence yet to make a decision. Certainly the current evidence may point us in a different direction, but unlike constitutionally-derived criminal rights, I do not believe that religion requires a ‘speedy trial’ of ideas.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” In my view, opposing ideas do not have to inhibit the development of real faith. Quite the contrary; they are necessary to the process. The ability to exercise discipline, to bear a burden, to achieve a high goal, depends on our ability to withstand challenges over an extended period of time.

And then, in the case of gospel truths, we overcome all. Not only do those challenges eventually become the substance and outcome of our faith, but they become the fuel for withstanding future challenges. Remember pre-columbian horses and elephants? The church took an enormous amount of academic mocking for that claim in the Book of Mormon… and then when they were discovered the critics were more than silenced. Those who believe that today’s scientific “facts” are final and cannot be turned upside down are naïve or ignorant of history.

One example that troubled me at one time was our assertion that we believed in the “same organization that existed in the primitive church”. Not only were there titles listed in that Article of Faith that I did not believe existed in our church, my readings and understanding of the early Christian (Catholic) church seemed to not match up in many places. After struggling with it for some time, I submitted it to revelation, received a confirmation that the modern LDS church was in fact the order that Jesus Christ intended, and forgot about it. I reconciled it in my mind in part by recognizing that certain aspects of the church are programmatic and not doctrinal, and that some things do evolve; even in my own lifetime I can remember when there were Seventies ordained at the Stake level, and I can remember when Regional Representatives instead of Area Authority Seventies provided administrative leadership at the local level.

Recently, I’ve begun opening up some of those things again. Of course I haven’t solved everything (there are many things I’d like to learn and understand and reconcile in my mind). But I felt it was time to address some of these academically. Now, I have not even begun to dig deeply and I have already uncovered striking similarities that exist between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the primitive Apostolic church. Not only do they reconcile the church I know with the church that Christ established in his ministry, but they provide ample evidence that Joseph Smith was in fact working by revelation, because he did not have access to what I have today.

Access, through electronic publications and more widely, cheaply available texts, is only one of the things that has changed to make this transformation possible for me. The existence of some texts is also different; from the time of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls until the early 1990s (when I was in High School and College) those texts were not available publicly at all. The gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi library were not available in translation until the 70s, and now scans of the actual Coptic texts are even available freely. Additionally, in the intervening years my understanding of language and history has changed. I can read a little Greek and a little Latin, and my fluency in the English and Spanish languages allows me to see the different possibilities that result from translation. And my understanding of the Church itself has changed dramatically as I have spent time much time in the Temple, served in higher callings and had access to some of the great leaders of the church, and as my reading has matured my perspective of church history.

What amazes me about this process is not that the church has been proven true. I already have a testimony – given by the Spirit and confirmed by research – of that fact. What amazes me is what the process of holding those ideas has done for me spiritually and emotionally. Holding those ideas over time has strengthened my resolve, tempered my emotions, and given me patience (a virtue that I had not ever planned on developing).

I am grateful for those things, not because they help me reconcile sterile academic questions in my mind, but because of their impact on my life. We don’t choose patient faithful endurance just so that we can determine whether or not the calling of “Evangelist” has equivalents in the primitive and modern church. We choose it so that we enjoy all of the blessings of fidelity and reap the benefits of faith and integrity in our marriages and children and work and community. My witness is that those blessings are real.

Mormons aren't Christians.

2011-10-10T08:39:00.000-07:00

Really!?

Well, that's at least what's being argued about everywhere. One coworker mentioned it to me in an e-mail. He said "When did the Mormon Faith become non-Christian? I must have missed that day……"

I'm glad someone knows who we are.

Apparently having the words 'Church of Jesus Christ' in the church's name doesn't clarify that enough. Or the fact that never wanted to be called 'Mormons' in the first place because we think it detracts from Christ too much. (I'd like to suggest that these 'real' Christians should stop calling themselves Baptists or Lutherans, or someone might wonder who they worship.)

The fact that Mormons claim to be Christian is not being questioned. The problem is who gets to define what a "Christian" is.

The first argument of the protestants is that we are not 'biblical' enough to be called Christian, but when we point out our expertise in the bible (namely, that our 10-year-olds know the good book better than most protestant adults), or our considerably more devout adherence to its teachings (such as pre-marital virtue, Sabbath observance, and Tithing) they retreat to positions of doctrinal disagreements... but they choose those that they in fact even have among themselves: Literal or figurative resurrection? Trinity or Father-Son? Grace or works? Funeral potatoes or green-jello with shredded carrots on top?

I think their real problem with us is that we sometimes proselytize in their flocks (I've actually heard they accuse us of 'sheep stealing'), which means that they lose income to a church that seems to run fine without a paid ministry. Religion is a comfortable way to make a living these days, unless you're Mormon.

If they ever saw me preach, they'd know where I stand on the question of who Christ is and what my dependence on him is. But the non-Christian argument has reduced them to spending their time researching in the 100 year old diaries of obscure frontier mormons for snippets that they can argue with.

Is the Temple really necessary since the Temple Veil was rent at Christ's death?

2011-08-05T07:05:00.000-07:00

This was a great question posted as a comment to the blog, and I thought I'd answer it here to give everyone the chance to read it.
Many Christians regard the rending (tearing) of the veil of the temple at Christ's death as a sign that the temple was no longer necessary. An understandable interpretation, without a context for temple worship. As the commenter shared, she believes that "God tore the Temple veil in two after Jesus died so that the common man can come to Him without ceremony".

Simply put, I do not interpret the veil as representing the whole ceremony of the temple. I do not believe it was ceremony itself that separated us from God. I believe that the tearing of the veil symbolized Jesus overcoming the things that do separate us from God - namely, death and sin. Without Jesus' sacrifice, we would not be able to overcome that separation.

The temple ritual was a progressive ceremony, which symbolized man's return to God. The opening in the veil simply meant that man could now complete that journey, thanks to Jesus. If you've ever read about the ancient temple ritual, you might remember that there was a part of the temple that the Jews were generally not allowed to enter. In my incomplete understanding, the rending of the veil ended that restriction.

Now, the protestant aversion to ceremony is understandable. In parts of the old Catholic church, the authority to effect necessary ceremonies was abused and used to oppress at times, and the Protestant Reformation was in part a response to that abuse, for example, in charging for baptism or last rites. The protestant recognition that faith and grace, not ceremony, are what return us to God are comendable and admirable.

I view the ordinances, the ceremonies from baptism through the temple rite, and their associated covenants (promises) as gifts from God necessary to direct us in our progress towards obtaining grace and becoming fully devoted disciples.

Didn't you know there is scientific proof that the Book of Mormon is false?

2011-07-08T12:13:00.000-07:00

I love science. I've taken university courses in biology, genetics, archaeology, astronomy, geology, anthropology, and so on - and enjoyed them all, despite their occasional challenges to the doctrines that I center my life on.

Unfortunately, I am not, in fact, a scientist. I don't have all of the tools to evaluate the science behind each of those arguments against my faith. I have read many refutations by prominent LDS scientists, which are equally or even more (when viewed with faith) convincing. But I can not claim the credentials to give a proper response to each argument.

One of those arguments, that the Book of Mormon is disproved by genetic research, is trumpeted around my town by a local Pastor (also not a scientist). Doesn't it seem hypocritical for a person of faith to denounce another's faith on a scientific basis?

To those self-proclaimed Christians that are participating in that criticism, I would love to ask:

1. If scientific "proof" were produced by genetics, carbon dating, or archaeology that apparently undermined the Bible, would your faith be diminished? (Hint - such proof does exist, and abundantly. Mormons aren't the only Christians being attacked by critical 'science'.)

2. If scientific "proof" were produced by genetics, carbon dating, or archaeology that supported the Book of Mormon, would it build your faith? (Hint - such proof does, once again, exist, and abundantly. There is a wealth of information that was unavailable to Joseph Smith buried in the Book of Mormon, that has now been substantiated scientifically. And it comes from additional disciplines too - astronomy, physics, linguistics, and so on.)

Ironically, many of those proofs supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon sprang from "infallible" scientific research that, just a few years before, seemed to contradict its authority.

So, my dear argumentative friend, I would be careful about trumpeting your objections too loudly, lest science - so much more fickle than faith - should turn on you.

The critic's version of science first loosens the skeptic's shoelaces as it rejects the Book of Mormon, then trips the feet of those who hoped that God still speaks to His children in modern times. Next it reduces the Biblical account to the status of mere mythology, and loosens the belt of moral authority as it repaints the prophets as fanatics. Then the whole person is laid bare. The seeming liberation from the restricting clothing of organized religion then exposes its practitioner to the elements, and no protection is offered from the shame and bitterness that plague the human condition. Finally its victim, shorn and unshod, is unable to flee from the real enemy of the soul.

Today I watched the final flight of the Space Shuttle Program, STS-135. I can remember seeing its first flight in 1981, on a fuzzy (CRT?) television at school. I remember watching the Challenger disaster, live as it unfolded on television. There was a touch of nostalgia today as I watched, this time in High Definition over the internet, the orbiter lift one final time from Cape Canaveral. I am sad to see it end. But science will march on and evolve, and so will my love for it.

However, those things that have already withstood the test of time and criticism, those things that resonate deep within my mind and heart, those things that consistently produce the kinds of outcomes I want in my life, they will outlive science - eternal, unchanged, evermore.

Are Mormons Allowed to Wear Jewelry?

2011-03-31T10:27:00.000-07:00

Easy: Yes. Now, if you read only one more thing today, skip to the italicized paragraph below.

Boring Paragraph Here:
However, men are discouraged from piercing their bodies, and women from wearing more than one set of piercings. I suggest two possible reasons: One is we try to treat our body with respect because they are a gift from God. The other is that we try to maintain a respectable appearance because the reality of things is, that our ability to influence others for good can be limited by an appearance that distracts people from our message. Mormon or not, I recommend this to you; you can argue for the ideals of tolerance and non-judgemental-ism all you want, but in most cases a tattoo or a nose ring is still a check against you in a job interview or a new relationship.

Now, on to the bigger, more interesting issue:
Are Mormons Allowed _____? People like to define religion in terms of its negative space - Jehovah's Witnesses can't have a blood transfusion. Catholics can't eat beef on Fridays during Lent. Where I grew up, the Lutherans traditionally gave something (anything) up for Lent too. Some injunctions are specific to subsets of a religion. Catholic Priests can't marry. Moslem and Mennonite Women can't go about with their head uncovered. And so on.

So pervasive is the 'definition by exclusion' approach to understanding a theology, that pretty soon the groups do it to themselves. Ask a Mormon Teenager what their religion means, and they might say "No Smoking or Drinking". If they feel bold, they might mention prohibitions on extramarital sex, or sports on Sunday.

Shouldn't a religion be defined in terms of what it does for and to you positively?

It's no wonder that the world views religion generally (and Mormonism especially) as prohibitive. But what do we gain for these exclusions? Is it limited to the vague and seemingly unprovable promise of escaping from Hell? Or is there more to it than the threat of spiritual death?

In my view, Mormonism is a liberal religion. It believes in widespread (not exclusive) salvation. That's why we baptize for the dead - because while we believe that baptism is required, we believe that you don't necessarily have to have been Mormon to get in to heaven. Along with that liberal approach to salvation, we believe in good things on this earth. We believe in education: in the Doctrine and Covenants, given by revelation to Joseph Smith, we are commanded to learn history, languages. We are expected to dance, to sing. We are commanded to eat wholesome herbs, fruit, meat, grains, and to enjoy them with thanksgiving. We are expected to marry, to enjoy marital intimacy, to rear children. Modern prophecy adds to the list: planting a garden, wholesome recreational activities, and so on.

I cannot help but feel that my life would be empty if I had followed the path the world prescribes for me; I would have missed out on the greatest things in life. I have many beautiful children, I speak different languages, I have seen the world, I cook good food, I play piano and read good books. I have restful Sundays and associate with many good people.

Of course we have commandments. They are designed to protect the most precious gifts in life. They prevent us from trading the big blessings for little thrills. You can ruin a family with infidelity. You can ruin a college education with alcoholism. You can ruin a friendship with dishonesty. No surprises there.

But I am not defined by what I 'cannot' do. I am the sum of the good things my religion has taught me to become.

What's with the Kolob thing?

2011-01-26T09:58:00.000-08:00

Sigh.

The short answer is:
Kolob is another word we use (occasionally) for the place where God lives.

The long answer is
Kolob is a star that is close to God's world. We believe that God, a glorified yet physical person, has a glorified (yet physical) home, and the star there (like our Sun) is called Kolob.

The word sounds funny because it comes from Egyptian (I think). It comes from a book that Joseph Smith translated that we call the Pearl of Great Price. The Pearl of Great Price is special because it contains a less garbled (freshly translated) copy of Moses's account of the creation than what has been passed down to us in the Old Testament, and it has some additional information about Abraham. But I can't recall the word Kolob ever having been used in a talk or lesson. It appears in one hymn, which we don't sing very often.

Apparently, Abraham was a really smart guy, and it appears that God revealed to him a little more about science and math and astronomy than we typically teach in church. That extra knowledge is briefly touched on but not expounded. Intellectuals in the church have tried for years to unlock additional knowledge through this snippet of scripture. Some of them have proposed some weird theories (although, who knows, they might be right). But these do not constitute the core and accepted doctrine in the church -- any more than the mystics or super-intellectuals in your church represent the minister or the Pope.

The great teaching that I have taken away from this handful of verses is that God wants his children to learn about lots of things, and if I am sincere and obedient, God will reveal to me things that are sacred and not available to the world, just like he did for Abraham. (And God will likely tell me to keep it between Him and me, so they won't be posted on my blog. Sorry.) The sun and moon and stars were created to bless us, and to remind us of God, and since God's knowledge is Endless, I assume there are some things that he can teach me about Math or Astronomy or how to do my job or rear my family, if He sees it as helpful to my salvation and progress.

Do you really believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?

2011-01-26T09:39:00.000-08:00

I've never heard it taught that way in church. But I suppose that you can see it that way - sort of. You see, we do believe that we all lived together before we came to earth, and we were one big family. Some of Heavenly Father's children were rebellious and decided to try to lead us astray. They became the devil and his angels.

So the important doctrine (and the one we do teach in church) is that Jesus is our older brother. We acknowledge the existence of the Devil (or Lucifer, or the adversary, or Satan, or whatever name you'd like), but we try not to spend a lot of time on him.

Also, since Lucifer's decision to rebel cost him his inheritance and place in the Kingdom, I think he's been effectively disowned. So I guess, technically, he is no longer our brother (Or Jesus's).

The doctrine that Lucifer is a fallen angel is, by the way, based on the Bible. Isaiah 14.

Now, good Christian, let me put it back to you. Where do you believe the devil came from? Was he created by God? Is there anything that was not created by God? Did God create evil?

You see, no matter how you answer this, it creates logical problems - and opportunities for me to distort your beliefs. Which I would not do, because my focus (and the teachings of the church) are centered on a loving God who is our father, and we are his children. Most of the complications come from this thing that Mormons call "agency" - the right to make decisions, which God gave to his children to help them. It is where the struggles with faith come from. You can distill this and many other questions back to this one: Why does a loving God allow bad things to happen like war and suffering? It takes an understanding of the whole plan (and believing that there is, in fact, a plan) to address the hard questions.

The Mormon "Profit"

2010-08-06T08:21:00.000-07:00

One of the accusations made of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that its leadership has become wealthy off the backs of its members. Time Magazine spotlighted the the financial strength of the church in a cover story a few years back called "Mormons, Inc." And the frequent, unoriginal reference to our Prophet as a 'Profit' by critics across the internet is buried in thousands of personal blogs and news comments, usually closely accompanied by unintentional misspellings and other errors. (The lack of literate critics is disheartening sometimes.)

I needn't point out the specifics of hypocrisies when this charge is leveled by Catholics or the various Evangelical mega-churches.

But I do wish to call out a handful of specifics that those engaging in such accusations should be aware of and treat fairly.

1. The vast majority of Mormon leadership is uncompensated. Congregational leaders (Bishops), missionaries, and so on - all volunteer their time. Mormons believe that ministers should work to support themselves with their own hands, and that the preacher and learner are equal.

2. The handful of leaders that receive remuneration have other administrative duties in the church that require full-time attention. Our church has buildings and schools and charities to manage that have heavy overhead. Our charities are, by the way, some of the most efficient in the world in terms of how contributed dollars are used.

3. In no case does the church's remuneration afford a luxurious lifestyle. As I understand it, most if not all church leaders take a step down in income when they choose to enter the ministry full time. Many are very successful scientists, doctors, businessmen, and so on - and could do much better in the private sector. President Gordon B. Hinckley lived out his years in an apartment by Temple Square. It was pointed out to me once; his wife kept flowers on the balcony. Also the private jet. Just kidding - no private jet.

4. At any rate, the accrual of wealth would be pointless since many of the highest callings in the church have a lifetime tenure. There is no retirement, no condo in Florida, no Vegas weekend - just ministry to the very end. If there is anything luxurious about the lifestyle at all, it is that they are afforded travel expenses to go around the world and visit with members. But again, not on a private jet. When they travel, they buy a commercial ticket; they are picked up at the airport by local membership; they often stay in members' homes, eat with their families, and so on.

So, even if the President of the Church really made $500,000 per year (which is both doubtful and yet would be in line with typical salaries for someone leading such a large entity), it is of very little benefit, as he will spend it serving the church.

And those of us who have had the privilege of standing in the presence of one of the 15 men we believe to be Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, of shaking their hands, of speaking with them directly, have no doubt that their every intention in their church service is completely selfless. I have had that privilege many times in my young life, and each time recognized the character of a man who has been refined by decades of unselfish service and sacrifice.

Do Mormons Worship Joseph Smith?

2010-07-06T08:30:00.000-07:00

No. We don't worship Joseph Smith. Or Mormon, or Moroni (the guy on the Temples with the trumpet) or anyone other than Jesus Christ. Those other people are messengers. They are not even 'intermediaries'. A true messenger brings teachings from God, but then directs us to establish a direct, personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ.

God does now (and has always) used messengers to establish his Word. But all of our prayers are directed to God our Heavenly Father and closed in the name of his only intermediary, his son Jesus Christ.

With regards to the mission of Joseph Smith (and the Mormon view of what a Prophet is), consider this excerpt from an article by James Faust, a former member of the Church's First Presidency:

"As I submit to you my testimony of Joseph Smith, I acknowledge his humanness along with his great spiritual powers. He did not claim to be divine, nor a perfect man. He claimed only to be a mortal man with human feelings and imperfections, trying honestly to fulfill the divine mission given to him. He so describes himself in recorded counsel given to some of the members of the Church who had just arrived in Nauvoo on October 29, 1842. Said the Prophet, 'I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.' (History of the Church, 5:181.)"I am impressed with his complete candor, for in addition to admitting his own humanness, he also recorded the declarations from the Lord which were given to him in the nature of loving reproof. . . ."While Joseph sought perfection, he did not claim perfection. If he were intending to fabricate a great falsehood or wanted to perpetrate a fraud or practice deceit, would he have been so truthful about his own humanness? His complete candor in admitting human frailties and in declaring the loving discipline of God offers powerful proof of his honesty and probity. His statements stand on more solid footing because they were declarations against human nature and admissions against self-interest."

- James E. Faust, "The Expanding Inheritance from Joseph Smith," Ensign, Nov. 1981, 76–77 "

Why are there so many contradictions in the Mormon Scriptures?

2010-07-02T13:21:00.001-07:00

Last night I was asked this by a young lady who has been faithfully reading but was not satisfied by her father's answer. Her father's answer was to 'pray about it'.

Her frustration with the answer is understandable. Dismissing a concern by conveniently referring a person's sincere inquiry to spiritual processes might come across as disingenuous. After all, if your faith is in something that is true, it should ultimately reconcile with any tests of science and logic (assuming those tests are not flawed).

But in his defense, that is the correct answer. All religion (not just the 'Mormon' religion) have a faith element. And making sport of other religions when their faith seems to cross the line into a dogmatic acceptance of things that seem plainly to be wrong is not a new pastime. And part of maintaining faith is using prayer to reconcile attitudes and feelings. Some would classify this phenomenon as perfectly psychological, while I firmly believe that it evidences the divine and direct involvement of a loving Heavenly Father.

The contradictions I have encountered fall in to one of three categories: Weakness of human language, contextual misunderstanding, and paradoxes.

Weakness of human language is seen in texts that have been mistranslated or sometimes in the ambiguous use of words. The Bible itself is full of these - it is not a 'Mormon' problem. One of my favorites is the story of David performing a census. The story is told in two places in the Bible; in one, the Lord encourages David to perform the census; in the other it is Satan who inspires it in David. If one accepts the two at face value, the only way to reconcile them is to believe that the Lord and Satan are the same person - that is obviously not true. Furthermore, if you accept the idea that the Lord incites the census, which is described as a sin, it means that the Lord caused someone to sin - and the God I believe in would not do such a thing. The loss of a single word creates a flaw in the text that is just that - a textual flaw. Reading under the influence of the Spirit (specifically, after praying about it) can help you to understand what is supposed to be taught by the story, without the crisis of faith that might result from finding an error in an otherwise holy text.

In addition to errors introduced through generations of translation, there is the recycling of words in a single language. Words are only symbols, and only effective in communicating ideas when the symbols match up. Again in the Bible, if I recall correctly, the word "Angel" occurs in places where it was translated from 5 different words. If we get down to the intended meaning, very often 'Messenger', then problems of textual understanding are resolved.

Contextual Misunderstanding: If you remove a single phrase or passage from scripture and compare it with another from another part of scripture, the two will often not seem to line up. Understanding the historical background, doctrinal intention, and cultural and language aspects of a teaching will go a long ways towards fixing apparent discrepancies. To give a simple example, in one place, "God is Love". In another place "God is a Father". Is "Father" equal to "Love"? Well, in some respects, yes. A horse is a four-legged animal, a cow is a four-legged animal, so a horse is a cow? Obviously not.

Paradoxes are my favorite discrepancy. Why? Because they are deliberate contradictions... and one must assume when an author introduces such a thing, it is not because the author is stupid. It is because they are teaching us something and challenging us. When you find something that seems to be placed there to challenge our faith, there is often (perhaps always) a much deeper truth beneath it; one that reconciles the ideas together and teaches us how to be.

Since I think Paradoxes are placed in scripture to hide sacred things, I will avoid delving too deeply in to them here. But to postulate an example of a crisis that might be created, consider this simple example: Does the Lord care how we dress and groom? On the one hand, we are not to judge by appearances, since the Lord 'looketh on the heart'. On the other hand, the Spirit whispers that being neat and comely (for example, when we attend worship services) is good. It should not be hard for you to see how extremes in either direction would be wrong, and under what situations the Lord (or His Prophet) might direct people to focus less or more on appearance. There must be, then, an underlying principle that reconciles the two principles together.

And praying sincerely might help you find it.

What do you think when you see people breaking all of your rules?

2010-06-12T06:49:00.001-07:00

This question was posed in Las Vegas, where all ten commandments are apparently suspended.

You know, it is remarkable how many self-professing Christians participate in all that the devil has to offer. But then, hypocrisy is not a new accusation against any religion.

The question is fair, but it has a certain edge to it - the person asking may have been accusing me of being judgmental. The truth is, right or wrong, sometimes I am. I'm not perfect either.

But often I'm not, and so I want you to understand what I feel when I see people 'breaking my rules' and I am in a proper, Christian frame of mind.

First, understand that the Mormon Philosophy of Obedience is not centered on a mathmatic equation of "break x commandments equals y time in z degrees of hell." Of course we believe that nothing unclean can live in God's presence, but the Savior's Atonement can make that happen.

Instead, we are concerned with the whole of who we are, and who we will become if we continue to engage in our current behaviors. We believe that the commandments help us tailor our behavior to get the best benefit of the natural laws of the universe, bringing about peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come. And becoming who we ought to be qualifies us for the blessings of the Atonement, including cleansing from sin.

So what do I feel when I observe the debauchery of Las Vegas?

Sorrow. Sorrow that in an attempt at gaining some fleeting happiness, people are breaking themselves against natural laws, multiplying their problems, and creating entanglements that they do not understand, whether it is in the visible scar of a tattoo, or the less visible scars of immorality, substance abuse, and gambling, they are incurring both the negative consequences of physical universal laws, and the displeasure of an otherwise loving God.

Sola Scriptura and The Book of Mormon

2010-04-02T07:19:00.001-07:00

Now, regarding the 'other' book: Many denominations struggle with the idea of 'another Bible'. Some try to define Christianity on this sole point; a Christian being someone who accepts only the Bible as scripture. (Oddly, I would think the definition of Christian should have something to do with accepting Christ, which is not an issue for Mormons at all).

The concept of 'sola scriptura' is based in a couple of passages in the Bible that prohibit adding to or changing scripture. An understandable prohibition, as altered scripture would probably alter belief and behavior and undermine any religion with a text as its manifesto or constitution. The prohibition is found in the early Old Testament (ironically, before several thousand years of scripture is appended) and in the Old Testament (again, ironically several thousand years after the first dictation of this rule).

In a further irony, even after the canon was 'closed' chronologically, books were added and removed and sorted through centuries of revision, translation, and re-compilation. Even today the re-translations continue, modern seminarians are required to study ancient greek in order to be qualified to interpret scripture, and no two Protestants carry the same version of the otherwise 'infallible' Bible.

So, the Mormon answer is: God still has the power to speak to man, still loves man, and man still needs God to speak. (Take a look around you. Clearly we are lacking God). And his word should be written and published. And, as the the Bible states, no one should alter or revise the part of the written word that is His word. But man is fallible, and so is often the written word, and so are all of the extant human languages used to write his word. So we continue to receive revelation until it is perfectly aligned with the will of God, and until God has no more to say to man.

The Book of Mormon has been criticized as a text designed to lead Christians astray, or created by the devil to create confusion, or as the work of a charlatan trying to sell a religion to oppress gullible followers. Then amusingly, the other criticism that comes frequently from our friends in other flavors of Christianity is, once they have actually read the Book of Mormon, is that the Book is 'too close to the the Bible', and that it has 'too many similarities to portions of the Old and New Testament', (it actually quotes them outright in many places).

Most of the 13 million+ members of the LDS Church would tell you that while they find contradictions and ambiguities throughout the Bible, the Book of Mormon clears them up, agreeing with itself and simultaneously reconciling ideas in the Bible. Not a bad piece of literary work for a young farm boy in rural New York in the early 1800s.

The Church of Mormon?

2010-04-02T07:12:00.001-07:00

A recent article in the paper about a local businessman who had been called to serve as Bishop of his congregation attempted at the same time to give some background on the church. The article was fair and kind, but had some unique phrasing to it - clearly the work of someone who has not had a lot of exposure to the LDS Church.

One particular oddity was referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this manner: "commonly known as the Church of Mormon".

I have heard us called by our full name as above, abbreviated as the LDS Church, and nicknamed the Mormon Church, but never as the "Church of Mormon".

Members have been called Mormons since, as far as I can tell, the church was organized, because of our acceptance of "The Book of Mormon" as canon (scripture), one of the factors that most clearly distinguishes us from other Christian denominations. But Book of Mormon is named for its compiler (not even its primary author, or the Savior it testifies of). Mormon is a relatively minor character, aside from his contribution as the book's finisher.

In short, it's not Mormon's Church. It is the church that people nicknamed 'Mormons' attend. And they believe it is Christ's church.

Are Mormons Evangelical?

2010-03-02T04:48:00.001-08:00

Some people view us as the most evangelical church around - with over 50,000 full-time missionaries, whose primary role is proselytizing (working to convert people to one's faith), we certainly stand out in some markedly evangelical ways.

So most members of the LDS church see themselves (or at very least their church) as highly evangelical. Certainly the requirement to preach the gospel is a key component of our doctrine. And many people outside the church who know our young, name-tag wearing missionary force have a keen sense of the evangelical mission of the church.

Oddly enough, there seems to be some dissonance between how we and our immediate sphere of influence perceive us, and how most of the world perceives us. In a recent meeting with Elder L. Tom Perry, one of the most senior leaders in the church, leaders in Minnesota learned that the church has studied the question and that most people have little or no perception of who we are - their exposure has been very limited and there are plenty of mis-perceptions about our beliefs.

A recent conversation with an acquaintance provided anecdotal support for this conclusion; she told me that "the difference between Mormons and 'mainstream Christianity' is that we are not Evangelical enough", and that we allowed others to define us. This assessment of the church came across in spite of the fact that the person making it had both received a Book of Mormon from a member of the church, and had received a visit from missionaries on her doorstep. She knows that we have an evangelical bent to us, and yet her perception is that it is not enough.

I think many members of the church are so careful to not offend, or to come across as pushy, or afraid to be perceived as preachy, that we err to the other extreme. What we don't realize is, that by not talking openly about what we believe, we may actually come across as closed off, secretive, or even arrogant.

So, while our doctrine is that the duty to preach the Gospel (evangelize) is key and central to our faith, we have a long way to go in becoming who we ought to be.

So, your Mormon neighbor does want you to ask about their faith. They want to have a chance to invite you to see their church and meet other members. Since you're curious any way, do them a favor and ask. And they'll still be your friend even if you decide not to pursue it any further than that.

What is the difference between Mormons and Catholics?

2009-12-22T08:43:00.000-08:00

I think most Mormons prepare for this question, because it's been asked them at least once. Of course it has variants (the difference between Mormons and Lutherans, Mormons and Baptists, etc).

Doctrinal or Belief Differences
May I begin by listing a few of the things that are the same?
Mormons believe in the God, and in the Bible as the Word of God. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the key to everything in the Gospel. Mormons believe in the importance of families to society, in prayer, and in taking care of the poor and needy. We believe in keeping the ten commandments and following the golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you).

Now, what you really want to know are the differences.

I think the departure point for Mormon belief from Catholic or Protestant belief lies in the doctrines of Priesthood and Revelation.

Revelation, to make it simple, is the idea that God still speaks to people, including Prophets, today. Just as he did in the Bible.

And we believe that authority (to baptize, and to marry people, for example) has to come through a specific order that was set in place by God, namely the order of the Priesthood. Priesthood is given by a blessing, with hands laid on the recipients head, and can only be given by someone who received from someone who actually had it. To make it simple, if you can't trace your priesthood ordination back to Jesus Christ, you don't have it. We believe that Jesus Christ gave the priesthood to prophets and it has come to us through an unbroken line of ordinations.

So Mormons generally believe that the authority to receive current, modern revelation, and the authority to baptize and perform other ordinances (what my Catholic friends would call 'sacraments') reside in the church.

There are several other doctrines that are unique (eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, etc). But they all stem from the two doctrines above.

Now, perhaps what you really want to know is this:

Worship Service Differences
What is the difference in worship services, or what would be different if I attended church at a Mormon church?

Let me begin by reassuring you that you would be comfortable and welcome visiting a Mormon church. We don't single people out, and the service is passive enough to not be awkward. I will share a few tips with you that will help you to be comfortable visiting.

The primary worship service is Sacrament Meeting. Its format is unique; a prayer and some hymns, the sacrament (like communion, only we use water instead of wine) is distributed, and a handful of talks (short sermons) are given by members of the congregation. If you have satellite, they record one on the BYU channel each Sunday morning so you can see what it's like without going. The only difference really is that the one on BYU TV is kind of quiet - the one's in a 'real' congregation are interrupted by children regularly.

The other services are classes; Sunday School for adults, Primary for Children, Relief Society for Women, Priesthood Meeting for men. They will be similar to the classes you have experienced in other churches. They start and end with a prayer, a teacher offers a lesson from a manual, and questions and discussion abound.

Now, to be comfortable showing up at a Sacrament meeting, there are two things that will make it easy on you.

1. Mostly everyone dresses up. Men wear a white shirt and a tie, women wear dresses. They will still welcome you if you show up in a t-shirt and shorts, but if you want to blend in, put on a white shirt and tie.

2. When the sacrament ('communion') is distributed, usually by young boys, you don't have to participate. No one will be offended whether you choose to or not. Since you aren't a baptized member of the church, the rite has no meaning for you anyway. So, when they come to your row, simply take the tray from whoever hands it to you and pass it to the next person in your row without taking any. Or, if you are alone (there is no one to pass it to), just wave the tray away and shake your head 'no' quietly. They'll move on to the next person.

By the way - on the first Sunday of each month, the Sacrament Meeting is called 'Fast and Testimony Meeting'. The members of the church fast for twenty-four hours to save food for the poor. Then they hold a sort of 'open mike' meeting where they share their feelings at the pulpit in short 'testimonies'. You are under no obligation to participate - just go and listen. You will hear heartfelt declarations of how certain teachings in the Gospel have blessed the lives of members.

You will also likely hear some wierd things. Don't stress- every congregation has at least one nut job. In my congregation, I suspect I am the nut job.

In that respect, we are entirely like the Catholics and the Lutherans.

Does DNA prove the Book of Mormon wrong?

2009-10-06T13:41:00.001-07:00

No.

You can't prove scripture true or false with a genetic test. Or the bible would be out too.

The DNA argument seems to have been reignited recently, but it hasn't shaken any faith that I am aware of. Perhaps a few opponents have decided to rest their objections on it, but it is an inexact science that cannot 'prove' veracity of a prophetic text.

Yes, I've read the arguments. But I've also read the counterarguments. And there are plenty, and they are convincing.

I'm not a geneticist, so I won't take on the task of a detailed refutation. You can find that elsewhere. Suffice it to say I still accept the Book of Mormon to be exactly what it claims to be. Science's arguments have done little to dissuade Christianity in general from our belief in the flood or the creation as told in Genesis. And science's 'proofs' have failed before.

My question is, how do these scientists explain the things in the book that 'prove' my faith? Historical, linguistic, and so on? It can't possibly be the product of a boy's mind.

What's with the sign on the plaza in Salt Lake City?

2009-10-04T05:38:00.000-07:00

A coworker e-mailed me a link to this news story this week - the church has put up a sign on the plaza next to Temple Square warning that we have the right to ask people to leave.

The action has a lot of people in a tizzy. It was taken after a male couple was asked to leave. According to the security people involved, the couple was drunk, loudly profane, and kissing on the property.

Of course, it's private property adjacent to a place of worship. But that hasn't stopped the activist mormon-hater community from firing off thousands of articles and web posts about the evil mormon church.

Many of them argue that since the church doesn't pay taxes, and the property is owned by the church, it's technically (or should be) public property. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem like an argument that would stand up in court.

The real reason for the outpouring of anger is tied to a bigger issue: The church has lent heavy support against pro-gay measures and for measures that protect the traditional family. And many people feel this is a 'political' issue, so the church should be banned from commenting on it.

The church has not endorsed a platform or candidate, but it has given its specific opinion with regards to laws and amendments being offered on the topic. The opinion is this: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage was instituted by God, not the Government.

The so-called 'separation of church and state', which I've not found yet explicitly stated in the constitution, is at least based in some constitutional ideas that are supposed to protect the people from the abuses of a state-sponsored religion. But it is not designed to muzzle speech rights, which actually do exist in the first amendment to the Constitution.

The debate is not going away any time soon. The church is not softening its stance - political pressure simply forces us to define it even more clearly and sharply.

Regarding our stance on the deeper issue:

Our intention is not to be hateful or fear-mongering; it is simply to advocate for the path that we believe (and experience has proven) will bring the most happiness to individuals and families.

People are being misled to believe that there are not consequences for their choices, especially those related to emotional and physical intimacy, and the use of the powers of procreation.

Much of the social misinformation is being propagated institutionally, lending it academic or even governmental credibility. And people are being trapped in behaviors and lifestyles because there is very little support for the other position.

Someone's got to be the champion for truth and values.

Do you wear funny underwear?

2009-09-22T10:43:00.000-07:00

I've been asked about garments. The church has provided an answer in its newsroom that is succinct and complete, and I don't feel any need to expand it:

Like members of many religious faiths, Latter-day Saints wear religious clothing. But members of other faiths — typically those involved in permanent pastoral ministries or religious services — usually wear religious garments as outer ceremonial vestments or symbols of recognition. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God.

Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation.

Here is the source: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6b4daf3d29baf010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

I have a Mormon friend who…

2009-08-07T07:48:00.001-07:00

Yes. Don’t we all. I can fill in the blank as easily as anyone. This week the conversation came up in a business dinner. One of my business partners noted that I was not drinking wine and, recalling that I am Mormon, told me he has another Mormon associate that will ‘test’ a sip of the wine at dinner but not drink a glass of it.

Other iterations are ‘lived with his girlfriend before they got married’, ‘buys lottery tickets when the jackpot gets really big', ‘drinks Coke’ or ‘watches Rated-R movies’.

Some of the instructions that we have been given leave room for personal interpretation. For example, plenty of Mormons drink Coke. It doesn’t affect their standing in the church. I don’t drink Coke. I expect my children to refrain from it as well. But I don’t have a problem with those members who do.

By the way, just because specific behaviors are left to personal interpretation, it doesn't mean I have to explore its boundaries. Much of the purpose of the gospel lies in refining ourselves without written, specific obligations.

Now, other instructions do not leave room for personal interpretation. ‘Lived with his girlfriend before they married’ is cohabitation and prohibited by prophetic instruction. Even if they ‘aren’t having sex’ (yeah right).

None of us is perfect. In some of these cases these indiscretions were just that, and if the member chooses to repent, the Lord forgives them and they can enjoy all of the blessings of church membership without hesitation. In some other cases, the members seek to justify their behavior to other members and demonstrate that ‘you can still be a good person even though’… In the case of someone who breaks a commandment (I consider all prophetic instruction to be commandments) and then tries to demonstrate they are ‘faithful to the church even though’, they are not doing themselves or the church any good. And they still need to repent.

But we still love them. And we still stand by our principles. Yes, it is possible to do both. Just because I refuse to participate in the same behavior does not mean that I don’t love you and want the best for you. And just because I try to teach a better way – a way that I have found brings happiness – doesn’t mean that I am bigoted, intolerant, or arrogant.

By the way, if his Bishop knows about it, your friend that ‘tests’ the wine probably doesn’t hold a temple recommend any more, and won’t be considered a ‘member in good standing’ until he repents and changes, although that would not be public knowledge.

Don’t you guys harass people with your religion?

2009-06-04T10:23:00.000-07:00

We’re not supposed to. But we’re human, and sometimes (especially with youthful enthusiasm) we push too hard. We teach love, not pushiness, and we teach boldness, but not rudeness. The line between the two is crossed on occasion.

Of course, more often we’re unfairly accused of crossing the lines. Some people are sensitive to any invitation or contact, and take it as harassment. Some people confuse us with other groups that really are pushy.

You can and should expect respectful dialog from representatives of our church. We want to bless your life, not stress it.

The invitation to preach the Gospel came from the Savior himself, and is plainly printed in the New Testament. That other churches take the less controversial approach and choose not to evangelize is, in my view, at odds with the key doctrines of Christianity. So yes, I’m going to tell you about my religion. If you’re not interested, just say so and I won’t be hurt (much) and we will still be friends.

What's with the two kids in white shirts and black nametags?

2009-04-16T11:24:00.001-07:00

They're missionaries. I've gotten a lot of questions about missionaries - it is difficult to not be curious about such a lifestyle. Missionaries serve 18-24 months, sometimes are sent to live in a foreign country and learn a foreign language, and live by a stringent set of rules including not dating, dressing formally, and keeping a demanding schedule of study and work.

Some people find proselityzing missionaries annoying. That is understandable - they sometimes bear the same stigma as a door-to-door salesman, with the added negative of the fact that they are 'selling' religion, an unpopular product. From time to time one earns that reputation as well - if they are overly pushy or insensitive. We do, after all, send them out pretty young. But for the most part, our missionaries are what they claim to be: emissaries of Jesus Christ with a message. If you don't like it, don't talk to them.

These young men get up at 6:30 in the morning, study and pray for several hours, and then knock on doors and visit with people and extend invitations to them to improve their lives and their families. Their teachings range from explaining the nature of God to the Plan of Salvation and Jesus Christ's role, to principals of happiness, such as how to pray, how to get a long in a family, and how to shed unwanted habits such as smoking and drinking. They provide community service every week; where I live, they volunteer in a nursing home that is run by a local protestant church. In other places they teach English or literacy, or work at a food shelf. They pay for this experience themselves - through savings and contributions from family and friends.

Some people think we have no business proselityzing in Christian areas. I think a quick glance over what we believe about practicing Christianity (chaste living, sabbath day observance, and other forms of self-restraint) should make it clear that we believe we have something to offer above and beyond 'mainstream' Christianity. That is not meant as an offense to our Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters, it is simply a fact of life. If we thought what we had was the same as what they offer, we'd just join them - it would be much easier. And if it makes you feel any better, we send Missionaries to Utah too, the geographic center of our own religion.

In addition to the benefit that these young men provide to their communities and the people they teach, the mission is a great benefit to them and the church in terms of the character it builds in the missionary himself. Missionary work produces the best fathers, husbands, and leaders possible. In a world where leaving home means experimenting with the evils that are out there to offer whether in the nightlife of a college campus or exposure to all that is in the working world, the only two programs I have seen make decent men out of boys are the military and the Mormon Mission. And the military comes complete with its own morally risky activities at times, so choices are even more limited.

I would not be half the man I am without my mission. I am proud to be associated with the boys in the white shirts and the nametags.

Do you guys have something like a Pope?

2009-03-15T18:14:00.001-07:00

We have a Prophet.

A Prophet? You mean like... Old Testament, talks to God, has power to perform miracles, that kind of Prophet?

Yes.

Do you understand what that means?

Yes.

And you accept it? Really?

Yes.

Prophets have a bad name these days. The world has seen its fair share of nut jobs proclaiming themselves to be a Prophet. In too many minds the term Prophet is equated with secretive cults, illegal activities, and mass suicide. Whether it is Waco, Texas, or the so-called 'fundamentalist LDS' church, or the various cults of a generation past, the word Prophet conjures up images of compounds, weapons caches, female oppression, and sedition against the government.

That would not be us.

It should come as no surprise that the devil would want to paint prophets with a nice, broad, ugly brush. After all, Prophets are what saved Israel over and over again. And Prophets are what brought us the Bible. And Prophets talk to God. All things that the devil would prefer did not happen.

So when I say I accept the idea of a modern prophet, I am not suggesting that I have plans to move to a compound in the central US and stockpile tear gas.

One stark difference between the Prophet and the nut jobs in the cults is that the nut jobs have serious control issues - the last thing they would preach is individual, personal revelation. The Mormon church is the opposite - the Prophet encourages the members to learn to receive revelation and live by the Spirit. If everything is working the way God says it should (and I find that it does), the Spirit confirms individually what the Prophet teaches generally.

So, would you like to see what today's Prophet is saying? His name is Thomas S. Monson. He travels a lot and speaks in various meetings and conferences around the world, but twice a year he presides over a worldwide conference of the church, broadcast by satellite to nearly all of its buildings. It happens usually in April and October. The full text and the audio, and the video, if you'd like to hear his voice or see what he looks like are available on LDS.Org. Look for 'General Conference'. In fact, the proceedings of the conference are also streamed live on the internet, and available on KBYU on consumer satellite services. Put it on your DVR or Tivo, or print off a copy of a talk, or download the audio to your iPod sometime, and see what you think.

Can Mormons use birth control?

2009-02-05T06:47:00.001-08:00

Yes. As long as we're talking about pregnancy prevention, and not pregnancy termination.

Do they?

Sometimes it seems like we don't. When someone has learned how many children I have, their first question is often one of three: Are you Catholic? Are you a Pastor? Are you Mormon? Usually the people that ask these questions have a certain tone of admiration or respect, and I am flattered by it. Catholicism and some of the more fundamental forms of the protestant tradition are known for a long-standing prohibition on contraceptives, and many people associate Mormons with the older or more conservative side of Christian Culture. I think we should be pleased by that association.

Children are an heritage of the Lord. That's pretty much all the Bible has to say on the subject. The LDS Church doesn't publish much more than that, other than to recommend that decisions regarding 'family planning' be made prayerfully, involve husband and wife, and where difficulties arise, that they consult with their ecclesiastical leader (usually a Bishop or a Stake President) on the matter.

Quite basically, contraception is not to be used selfishly. There is an expectation that if you have the ability to bring children in to the world and raise them, you ought to do that. We encourage our members to obtain good education, good jobs, and self-sufficiency, as a means to that end. At the same time, we discourage our members from waiting until the 'perfect time' to have children. There is no perfect time. Children always mean sacrifice. But the church does not dictate a schedule, a quota, or otherwise interfere in a husband and wife's decisions.

The medical advances that permit things like contraception are, in my opinion, a blessing from God, not to be used selfishly, but to be used in prolonging life and improving its quality. So when a woman's mental/emotional/physical health is stressed, using those blessings under guidance from the spirit is entirely appropriate.

My wife and family are the highest priority in my life, after God. They come before my church callings, before my work, before even the worthiest of my hobbies.

Every now and then I have to check and make sure that the amount of time I am dedicating to those other things are appropriately balanced against family, and that my family is benefiting from my service in those areas. My service in the church has afforded me the double benefit of training in being a father. And I think if I didn't have a family, I wouldn't need a job, and I'd probably have quit my job a long time ago and gone and lived in the woods.

Let me make clear here: I have had many children because I love my children. Every one of them has increased the amount of joy that I have. When I was younger, my plans were not to have many. I only learned after having children how fulfilling it is. The church did not 'make me' have this many children. It was my choice, and I stand by it.

Now here's the fun part:

The other questions I get about my familial head count are often less flattering: Don't you understand how this happened? What are you putting your poor wife through? How is the world going to feed all of these children? Don't you worry about the environment/overpopulation/college costs/etc?

To those people I say (when I feel polite), my children are bright and well-raised and smart and caring, and are part of the solution to the world's problems, not part of the problem. I have some less-polite answers that call their own qualifications as parents in to question, but some (unwanted) maturity and wisdom I am picking up as I age are limiting that sort of conversation. My siblings (who are similarly prolific, but I am still winning in sheer numbers) have cute answers to these questions too.

Having children has a funny way of wiping the window through which you view the world. So let me air one final point: Your opinion on when to have children, how many to have, and so on, applies to just one person: You. And it barely even counts there.

Your right to weigh in on anyone else's life choices, whether to the extreme of too many or too few children, is limited by the fact that such a right does not exist.

Of course, you are free to moan and groan about the costs others may or may not impose on you through welfare or social costs. But, dear older-sister-whomever-you-are in the Relief Society of the Utah 457th Ward, if you think the newly married couple in your ward should have started having children already, you may (kindly) shut up and keep your opinions to yourself. And, captain-sierra-club-thomas-malthus-crusader, if you think I/we/someothercouple have too many kids and we're burdening the world, well, you may also (kindly) kiss off and find someone else to whine at. And, on a closing note, to the unmarried / no children yet intellectual who has figured out all the answers... good luck with that.

Do Mormons really hoard food?

2009-01-22T10:22:00.000-08:00

Yes, we store food. Not hoard. Store. Every definition I know of for hoarding implies some sort of a guarded or secret stash. Mine is in my basement. No secret, no security guard.

Food storage is not a new idea. Joseph helped Egypt put away food for the seven years of famine that would follow their seven years of plenty. That ultimately allowed Joseph to help his brothers when the table was empty.

We encourage our members to have a years' supply of their needs - food, fuel, clothing - and some monetary reserves as well. That makes us a practical religion, don't you think? I finally got my food storage up to par in late 2007 and early 2008. Until then I'd been making rather weak attempts, but the Prophet was teaching the idea with renewed emphasis, so I decided to get my act together. How's 2009 looking to you right now?

The storage principle is not limited to economic recessions - it is emphasized that we cannot predict the source of adversity (job loss, disability, natural disaster, and so on), so we prepare rather broadly.

In fact, it is not limited to temporal issues. By building an ongoing habit of frugality and preparation you can be ready to withstand all kinds of problems. Think about it - the person whose character has been tempered to avoid excess, strengthen reserves, and live in moderation, is ultimately the kind of person that you probably want for a spouse, an employer, a neighbor.

One of the tenets of the Mormon faith is that no commandment is given that is temporal alone - they all have a spiritual angle. You do not have to be financially strong to endure an economically strong period. By the same token, a spiritually weak person can do just fine when their social condition is strong. But what about when people around you start acting like, well, people? How are you going to handle that emotionally? How are you going to handle situations that are imposed on you - that are outside your control? Death? Illness? Betrayal? Insult? Injury? Deceit? Abuse? If you have built an emotional reserve (and this is done through careful use of your time every day - reading, studying, meditating - fasting, worshipping) - you will be just fine. You can hold up under all sorts of adversity if you do the right things ahead of time. And you can even be a great benefit to your neighbor, just as Joseph was to his brothers.

How many wives do you have?

2009-01-12T17:15:00.000-08:00

Everyone's favorite mormon question - the practice of plural marriage, commonly (and mistakenly, I'm told) referred to as polygamy.

There is no shortage of internet information on polygamy. Let me summarize what you will find out there briefly:

It is fairly easy to find members and defenders of the church explaining why the practice existed in the early church. You will also find opponents of the practice denouncing it and accusing the church of a perverse history. Outside the mainstream, you will find various 'splinter groups' that continue to engage and promote in the practice.

Too many people have taken on this topic for me to make a valuable contribution, other than to point out a few things by way of summary:

1. The church did, in fact, practice plural marriage.
2. The church doesn't practice plural marriage today. Anyone who teaches it or practices it or sympathizes with the 'splinter groups' who do faces church discipline including, potentially, excommunication.
3. Plural marriage has its historical roots in Israel and the Old Testament. But it is difficult to understand in a culture that has not embraced it. I don't understand it myself.
4. Undoubtedly there were some abuses of the practice. Mormons aren't perfect. But most of the historic 'proof' of rampant abuse by leadership that is offered up by the church's opponents is questionable at best. The church has an enormous amount of documentation (letters, journals, etc) of the early leadership of the church indicates that relatively few members practiced it, and the practice was taught very carefully.

The church today continues to have the most conservative stance of any towards spousal or child abuse of any organization that I know of. That includes emotional, physical, sexual, verbal, and any other kind of abuse. We preach and teach constantly a standard and ideal of manhood that is far above anything that the world even hopes to attain to. Our lay ministry is trained in recognizing and combatting abuse. Our leadership provides counseling for both the victims and perpetrators of abuse. And my (extensive) reading of church history, journals, and discourses indicates that the leaders of the early church were similarly committed to teaching those family and individual ideals, that are at stark contrast to what they are accused of.

So what do I think personally of this practice?

I am descended from several plural marriages, on both sides of my family. My parents are monogamous. So am I. I have one wife. I have, in fact, had 'marital relations' with only one person in my entire life. No premarital relations, no extramarital relations. Ever.

Now there's an irony; the same Mormons that supposedly selfishly promote a lifestyle that permits men to have as many partners as they want... are the most chaste men that civilization has produced today. Even many of my most conservative associates of other faiths acknowledge premarital or extramarital lapses in their adherence to the law of chastity. Frankly, until some of these conservative faiths get their collective act together with their own youth, it would be wise to put down their proverbial stones.

What if I were asked to practice plural marriage by my church leaders?

I've been asked that question too - by people who want to probe how I 'really' feel. The good news is - it's a highly irrelevant question, as the church abides by the law of the land, which prohibits plural marriage.

But what if I were asked to practice plural marriage by my church leaders?

That would be a hard thing for me. I grew up in a society and culture that frowns on it - and I have the same cultural biases. But I'm also used to being different than the people around me, and to being obedient. So it's hard to say.

But what if I were asked to practice...?

I know, I haven't given a straight answer. The truth is, I don't know what I'd do. I'd start by looking for confirmation from God. That's the personal revelation thing kicking in again: Our church believes in a God that both answers prayers and guides prophets. So far in my life that has worked every time, and I trust it will again.

Your religion asks too much of its adherents. Why are you so demanding?

2008-12-22T14:59:00.000-08:00

Sometimes people are overwhelmed or startled by the number of things that the church or its members ask of a new member. The seeming invasion by the church in to every aspect of a person's life probably contributes to the idea that we are a 'cult'.

It is ironic that our well-intentioned members expect from a new member of the church instant compliance with every cultural norm, law, standard, and so on. After all, our own doctrine states that conversion and perfection are a never-ending process. While we strive constantly to better ourselves, no one expects to become perfect in this life.

You are not expected to be perfect. Believe me, the members of the church are not perfect either.

The process of conversion itself is not even an instantaneous one; Mormons are the first to argue with the idea that you become converted and wholly saved in an instantaneous emotional experience, a concept often promoted by the more charismatic of the protestant churches.

Now, the Gospel as taught by Jesus Christ does (and should) ultimately influence every aspect of our lives. While many forms of modern Christianity preach a sort of 'buffet style' religion - one where you get to pick and choose the parts you like, the sheer length of the Bible alone ought to indicate that God has more than one thing to say about how we live. And Mormons don't take commandments as ideas or suggestions - we take them as literal instructions.

Yes, the church does tell me in varying degrees how, when, and what I should eat, spend my money, work, take recreation, study, pray, and so on. But I am grateful for the counsel that I have received. Seemingly restrictive commandments like the Word of Wisdom (prohibiting drugs and alcohol) or the Law of Chastity (prohibiting sexual relations outside of marriage) are blessings disguised as restraints.

Think of it this way; different professions, sports, and hobbies have varying attire, rules, and preparation, some of which is very restrictive. But the freedom to participate in and enjoy the finest things in life requires some restraint. To one who has not played basketball, the shoes might feel restrictive - heavy, laced up tight around the foot and ankle - you can barely move your toes and ankle in that thing - but to the basketball player those shoes give them the freedom (not the ability) to run and jump faster and higher with the risk of injury.

Because I have been a member of the church my entire life, many of the things that we 'prohibit' are not difficult for me - I have never had any desire to taste alcohol, coffee, or tobacco. But to one who is exploring the teachings of the church the first time, I (and my well-intentioned and pushy Mormon friends) need to be patient, and depend on the Spirit to teach the reasons for these things and your growing faith to give you the strength to test them.

Why can't I go in the Temple?

2008-11-01T20:10:00.000-07:00

We've touched lightly on this subject once before (when we discussed the different kinds of buildings in the Mormon church), but we haven't really talked in depth about why not everyone can enter a temple. I've come across this question usually from one of three people: The person who has wandered in to a temple in their travels and tried to enter out of curiosity, the person that has heard from one source or another that the Mormon temples are 'secret', and the person who was unable to attend their relative's marriage inside the temple.

Without a doubt, the third can be the most difficult. Especially when it is, for example, the LDS convert daughter of a non-mormon family. Dad doesn't understand why he can't be there to give his daughter away, and it can seem like a direct personal offense. Understandably, there is a tremendous potential for hurt feelings as the celebration of the new marriage seems to pass right on by some who should be key participants. There is no easy answer; even the best efforts to include all family members can fall short of assuaging the feelings of being left out of an important moment.

But let's get those other two people taken care of first.

We're very sorry, the temple is not intended to be a tourist attraction. Some of the more prominent temples, like the one in Salt Lake City, do offer a visitors center and grounds that are open to the public. The Mesa Arizona temple (one of my favorites) has a beautiful Christmas Lights display on its grounds every year. The Nauvoo Temple is surrounded by historical sites and period demonstrations of pioneer life, all offered for free and staffed by volunteer missionaries. But the sanctity of the temple itself is not to be violated by casual passers-by or the merely curious. It is a place of refuge and worship, and its very purpose would be negated by that type of exposure. We don't build them out of the best materials and most careful workmanship because we want to attract people - they are not intended as a marketing ploy or even an evangelical or missionary tool. They are built to honor God and then dedicated to Him. If you understand why they don't let roads, motorboats, and crowds into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Northern Minnesota, you probably can appreciate what I'm trying to communicate.

Yes, we know what you read or heard (on the internet, from your friend the minister, in the brochure from your well-meaning friend) about the 'secret ceremonies'. Sorry, it's not as titillating as what you've heard. Frankly, the unprepared would probably be bored if they actually went in to listen and watch. The deep beauty of the temple rites are hidden deep in their words and meaning, and appreciating them requires an enormous amount of preparation. In short - while to me temple worship is wonderous and meaningful - you'd probably find it quite tedious, especially compared to what you've heard and read. Here's one of my favorite stories: Once upon a time someone was supposedly kept as a slave in the Salt Lake Temple. They jumped out of the 4th story window into the Salt Lake and swam to freedom to tell their story. To verify the plausibility, start by checking the map for the distance from the Salt Lake Temple to the Great Salt Lake. I hope they got a running start before they hit the window. The stories are so much more interesting than reality sometimes.

Now we're back to the Father who can't attend his daughter's wedding. We do want you there. Your daughter wants you there. Everyone wants you to be there - no one wants to leave you out. In all likelihood, the decision to marry in the temple was a very difficult one for your daughter because she knew it would mean you being absent from this most important day. She is making a tremendous sacrifice to show her devotion to God. The heart pangs for her are probably not unlike those that Abraham felt when God asked him to sacrifice Isaac. It hurts her too. But be proud - you helped her become the woman she is, and to be found both worthy to enter the temple and willing to do so at this great cost to such an important relationship speaks volumes of her character and devotion.

I know that doesn't take the pain away. If we have done everything right, we will ensure you are a part of everything else - gathering outside the temple, taking the photos, dancing and talking in the reception afterwards. But there is still that brief moment when they are in the temple and you are not... That's a hard thing.

So you know, the wedding ceremony itself is very short, and not showy. On its face, it is very simple. There is no music, there are no grandiose speeches, there is no processional, there are no flowers. No pictures are taken, no audio or video recordings are made. A few words are pronounced, and the marriage is solemnized for time and all eternity. In a few years, when you are holding your grandchildren on your lap, and people reminisce about the goings-on at the wedding - they won't be talking about what happened inside. Even just between those that were inside the temple - they aren't talking about that part that you missed when you aren't around. They just don't do that. So the festivities, the relationships, the greetings, the reception, the gifts, the food and the cake, the feelings of the day - you will still be there for all of that. All of that happens outside the temple. You're still a part of it.

If there is one thing we don't want the temple to be - to be viewed as an exclusive club. It is not. Heavenly Father ultimately wants everyone to go in. Rich and poor, male and female, learned and unlearned. The high standard He has placed to enter is not designed to exclude people - it is to ensure that when they do enter, they benefit fully from it by being prepared and by not violating the very sanctity that makes it special.

The temple is not a college fraternity. My Mormon friends and I don't talk about what happens in the temple any more with each other than we do with you. Even my wife and I do not discuss the specifics of the temple when we are outside it. That is what makes it 'sacred' and not 'secret'.

We hope we will prepare yourself in such a way that we can see you there some day. While the sacredness of that experience prevents me from talking about specifics of temple worship, let me share what I hope for. We will meet, I will smile and we will shake hands or embrace. We will whisper our greetings quietly. We will reflect for a moment on how glad we are to see each other in this very special place, and ponder gratefully our shared belief in the gospel and the comfort we feel knowing that those dear to us desire to be there and are worthy to attend with us. We'll mentally recommit ourselves to living the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And we'll bask in a feeling of reverence - that special peace and calm that comes from keeping the commandments and knowing that we are both preparing to return to live with our Heavenly Father.

This week I had the privilege of returning to a very special temple in Chicago, Illinois. I contributed to its building fund as a child. It was my 'first' temple - I participated there for the first time when I was 12. I entered and participated in the higher ordinances shortly before entering the mission field about the time I turned 19. And I was sealed to my wife there a little over a year after I returned from my mission. I don't get there very often anymore, as we have a temple in St. Paul, Minnesota now. But my business took my by there and I had a few extra hours, so I stopped and attended. As I was walking through the temple on my way from one session to another, I paused by the room that I was sealed to my wife in. I thought for a moment about that day. The only person I could picture in my mind from that room on that day was my beautiful wife. I realized that I cannot remember a single other thing - I know my parents were there, but I don't remember seeing them in the room. In fact, I don't really remember really anyone else being in the room. I don't remember where anyone sat. A lot has happened - I have a lot of children now, an busy job, duties in the church and my community. As I stood there quietly on Wednesday evening, all I could remember about that day many years ago was the image of my wife and the overwhelming sense of how important that place was, how important that day was. It was the right time. It was the right place. And it was the right person. That was what mattered.

I hope I will see you there soon.

Are Mormons Racist?

2008-09-13T04:34:00.002-07:00

In fairness to debate, I am going to try to give both sides of this argument. Obviously, my opinion sides in defense of the church on this, so I'm not really qualified to defend the accusation. But I try to be fair;

The accusation that the LDS church is racist is usually based on one of three points. 1. That the Book of Mormon claims that the Native Americans' ancestors' skins were darkened because of sin. 2. That the Pearl of Great Price (another LDS book of scripture) points to sin as the reason the Skin of the African ancestors were blackened. 3. That Blacks were not ordained to the Priesthood in the LDS church until the 1970s.

Let's start by getting rid of the twisted derivations drawn from these statements: nowhere does it say that all black people are sinners - nor does it claim that white people are particularly righteous.

And it doesn't say that all people who sin get their skins turned black. So apparently, the consequences of sin vary with type and magnitude. Shocking.

That the behavior of certain peoples in some generations was horrific is a well-documented fact. The part, then, that people take offense to is the implication that the Lord marked certain generations physically because of sin.

The only fact that I struggle with here at all is that there are other large masses of people have seemingly gone astray as a group who were never marked in that way. Why aren't all of Gengis Khan's descendant's black too?, one might ask. Apparently the Lord does not impose the same consequences for all situations. I'm going to assume that he knows more about what he's doing than I do.

So I don't really understand the reasons the Lord would turn skins dark because of sin. But I am comfortable knowing that it doesn't make me or my church racist. I have searched my soul honestly and find no ill-will towards anyone because of skin color. (In fact, on a slightly humorous side-note, I find myself eternally grateful for the invention of Potato Chips). I have searched my family's history and find honorable and courageous behavior towards other races is part of my heritage.

A closer look at Church history and doctrine indicate that the actual feeling of the church towards the Blacks and Native Americans is quite the opposite of the accusations made.

1. In the early history of the church, the Prophet Joseph Smith sent missionaries to try to convert the Native American peoples. They were at the top of the list. He seemed to want them as a part of his church. If he despised them or even disliked them or felt that God somehow hated them, offering them baptism probably would not have been his strategy.

2. Again, in the early history, the Church found itself in the awkward position of condemning slavery before it was politically acceptable to do so. The result is that we were driven from Missouri by our neighbors in what is referred to as the 'Mormon War of 1838'.

3. A study of the Book of Mormon reveals the divine destiny of some of the Native Americans. And since everything in the Book of Mormon is considered unadulterated doctrine to a Mormon, here is what we earnestly believe: That they have a divine destiny that outshines the Gentiles'. It says that we will 'carry them upon our shoulders'. Yep, we, the white Pioneer founders of the church, are to convert other races... so that they ultimately become the superstars of the church in the last days. So much for oppression.

That is our heritage. My ancestors were among those missionaries called by Joseph Smith to teach the Native Americans. And my ancestors were among those driven out of Missouri for supporting the abolition of slavery. And when I was called to serve a mission to Chile and teach people who were partially or wholly the descendants of Native Americans, it did not surprise me at all to find out how much I loved and admired those people. It's in my blood.

We are not alone in our struggle. The Brooklyn Diocese of the Catholic Church, which contains the largest percentage of Blacks in any Diocese in the United States, finally ordained its first Black minister in 1995. And the Lutheran Church (ELCA) reports that just barely over 1% of its membership is Black. Meanwhile, the Mormon Church, at less than 200 years old and with its roots in the soil of the United States, claims both the majority of its membership lives outside of the US and is non-English speaking.

Now let's get back to the fundamental questions: Does God at times change the physical characteristics of people because of sin? And do some of the consequences of sin ride out to coming generations? The answer to both questions is yes.

There is a risk in this doctrine - all doctrines can be perverted to become quite ugly. The place where one could potentially make an accusation of racism - is if one begins to believe that we are justified in pre-judging people or mistreating people because they look differently. In fact, I think that's one of the deliberate reasons that God permits these types of consequences of sin to persist - to teach us about loving His children and the test our behavior.

Unfortunately, there are Mormons who are racist (as there are Catholics, Lutherans, and so on). And if they attempt to misuse this doctrine to justify their faults they are doing the church and the Savior a disserrvice.

But there are a lot more of us who see our neighbors for what they are regardless of the color of their skin - they are Children of God and our equals before Him.

What happens to those who don’t believe or never had the chance?

2008-08-18T12:51:00.000-07:00

Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is just shy of a couple of centuries old (extremely young compared with the Catholic tradition and even the Protestant reformation, and certainly young when compared with Jewish, Islamic, and eastern traditions), it is a significant question to wonder what we believe happened to the millions of people who predated it, living during what we refer to as the ‘apostasy’, or the period of time that the earth did not have the benefit of living Prophets and Apostles.

But the other Christian traditions must struggle with the question as well – what about the millions who lived on un-evangelized continents, or in remote areas that still remain untouched by Christian doctrine?

The Christian Churches and their adherents have effectively a wide variety of stances on the question. The professed members of any given church don’t even necessarily agree with their own church’s statements of faith on the matter.

Some of the more conservative congregations hold to a very literal interpretation of the Bible – which seems to be very clear on the idea that if you do not accept Jesus Christ through baptism, you are damned. If you accept the bible to be the Word of God, you must logically accept this harsh but apparently definitive answer.

Other more moderate congregations find that hard to reconcile with the testimony (both personal and biblical) that God loves all of his children and is fair to them. So they rely on the idea that we are judged on works, on our intentions, on our hearts… all of which have biblical support.

The most progressive congregations adopt a pluralistic view – rejecting outright the idea that baptism is a requirement and instead acknowledging Christianity as one of several possible paths. This idea is attractively packaged as educated, tolerant, and forward-thinking. In my opinion it also manages to entirely (and conveniently) skirt the question. It is academic cowardice and has all of the substance of a lecture from Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reconciles the first two… and wholly rejects the third.

God is a loving father, has prepared a way for all of his children, regardless of the circumstances and age in which they were born, to accept the Gospel and receive its blessings. In order to do so, they do have to confess that Jesus is the Christ, and they do have to do baptism. It deals with the question of those who died without baptism by allowing them a posthumous baptism. The concept was not invented by us – it is actually mentioned in passing in Corinthians in the New Testament – but it was magnified and clarified by modern revelation.

In addition to the doctrine of vicarious baptism or baptism by proxy, the scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints handles graciously and thoroughly the entire subject of the state of the sinner’s soul. In one of my favorite passages, the wayward son of one of the Prophets in the Book of Mormon struggles with the question, and his father lovingly addresses the topic at length. It is treated from every angle by Prophets from the Book of Mormon and the Latter-Day (modern) church. And… in a mind-blowing show of unity… it is not in the form of a debate or discussion but instead several men explaining the exact same, clear truth in a consistent but multiply-perspective manner. They discuss the nature of repentance, the process of mortality, the infinite reach of the atonement, the function of the resurrection, and every other pertinent subject in a seamless, logical, comforting manner that meets the exacting demands of the most conservative interpretation of all other scripture.

The doctrines are worth your time to read, and that in their original text. Not only do they bridge the questions and provide a fulfilling, honest answer without compromising past scripture, they are also comforting and peaceful.

And instead of a church that has to meet the seemingly differing needs in a message according to whether the recipient is dealing with the death of a loved one or trying to get free of their own sins while yet alive, one answer works for both. It seems to me that only something that is absolutely true can be equally applicable in different situations that have seemingly contradicting ends.

So, you guys think you're the only ones who are right?

2008-07-01T10:09:00.001-07:00

What do you want me to answer?

If I answer the politically correct 'No', I'm declaring that what Joseph Smith claimed happened (he said he saw God face to face and God told him to restore the church as it was intended to be) was either a lie or unnecessary. I'm not willing to declare that. Why? Yes, I know how odd it seems that someone would talk to God the same way Moses did in the old testament in New York in 1830. Odd as it may be, I believe he saw what he said he saw. Since I didn't grow up among Mormons (I've lived in Minnesota most of my life), I'm aware of how strange a belief that is. Golden plates, angels, the whole thing - yup, I believe it.

But if I say 'Yes' it can be read as religious arrogance - or even intolerance. And I don't want to communicate that in any way.

Of course, other religions have this as part of their creeds, and they don't seem to get the same accusation. The Catholic doctrine teaches 'one church', and challenges the legitimacy of others because of their history that stretches back to the time of the Apostles. The Protestants, of course, think that the Catholics wandered off the mark some centuries ago and that a series of reformers have re-extracted truth by basing themselves in the Bible. And Judaism and Islam, well, one doesn't have to look far for a sense of exclusivity in either of those faiths.

So let me make clear - my devotion to the doctrines of the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not imply a sense of superiority over other people. The New Testament says that God does not prefer Jews over Greeks and so on. I accept that teaching. God is not a 'respecter of persons'. All are children of God, and he loves all of them. We are all (Mormons included) imperfect, and He blesses all of us more than we deserve. I do not challenge the heartfelt love of a Lutheran or a Catholic for Jesus. I do not question the existence of truth or goodness or humility or sincerity or miracles or spiritual experiences in other churches.

But I believe God is a God of order. He speaks to Prophets. He has an organization - just like in the New Testament - apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and so forth. I can prove biblically that that is how He works.

I believe that the 'Mormon' church is that order. I believe he still talks to Prophets. He talks to Thomas Monson, our current President. If I am right, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only organization in the world that has all of the authority to teach the Gospel and administer its ordinances (sacraments).

That part I cannot prove to you - you have to figure it out yourself. In the mean time, I wish you the absolute best in your search and in your personal worship. You are, after all, a child of God and therefore my spiritual brother or sister, and my equal.

I just rented a video about some Mormons killing people in the 1800s. What’s that all about?

2008-01-31T10:05:00.000-08:00

There was an incident, referred to commonly as the “Mountain Meadows Massacre”, where it appears that members of the church murdered the members of a passing wagon train in cold blood. The evidence seems to support this – and if the facts are true, then what happened was wholly unjustifiable – and stains the reputation of the church by association.

It is not the case that the leadership of the church was complicit in any way. Not only is there no reliable evidence to that point, but a study of the character of the leaders of the church makes it wholly unbelievable.

Some have twisted the peculiarity of the church (yes, I admit we are different) and the devotion of its members to create a tainted lens which, if used to view the events, could indicate a potential for systematic wrong. But every experience I have ever had interacting with the leadership of this church points the other way.

Some have pointed to the defensive posture of the church as a justification for the actions. We had been driven out of our homes many times, and serious wrongs were committed against members of our church – ranging from disenfranchisement to assault to rape. Our Prophet had been murdered with the complicity of the State of Missouri, the President of the United States had turned down our pleas for redress on political grounds, and one of the beloved missionaries of the church had been assassinated in Arkansas – the very place from which the victims of the massacre originated. Missouri Executive Order 44, which ordered the extermination of all Mormons in Missouri, was finally repealed officially in 1976.

In light of that history, a defensive posture by members of the church is certainly justifiable. But an offensive one, like that demonstrated at Mountain Meadows, is not. In short, what those members of the church are accused of is unconscionable both legally and doctrinally.

The church disciplined those responsible. The territorial government, which was basically operated by the church at the time (it was still beyond the western frontier of the US and not yet a state) went so far as to execute the leader of the perpetrators.

Both then and now, the church condemned the actions of this handful of members of the church – and in doing so, confirmed our adherence to the true doctrines of the gospel with regards to how others are treated.

Are you saved?

2008-01-07T18:20:00.000-08:00

It is a good question. It has been posed to me by Evangelicals, Baptists, ‘Born-again’ Christians. It has been asked of me in two different ways;

There are those who ask because they would like to tell me why I am not. They would like to dispute the finer points of my religion using various interpretations of the Bible, or a definition of ‘Christian’ or ‘Saved’ that has been concocted by something bias or logic outside of theology. I generally don’t waste my time having a discussion with someone who feels fulfilled by telling me what I believe and justifying it. I’ve found that those kinds of people have anger issues anyway.

But then there are those who are truly inquisitive. They want to know if I have felt the same things they have felt for the Savior. They want to know if I put my religion, my Prophet, my Book of Mormon between myself and my God – or ahead of my God – or I truly put God first. They want to know whether the Mormon Faith produces someone who feels born again and is wholly committed to following Jesus Christ.

The answer is yes. I feel that too. I recognize that there are some who profess the Mormon Faith that are not yet wholly converted. Some are yet young in their testimony of the Savior and understanding of the Gospel. Others’ loyalty to the church is intellectual, or social, or familial. And there are even those whose professed faith is (perhaps) hypocritical. The proverbial wheat among tares. You see, we don’t claim to have perfect membership – any more than any other church does. We have our problems. We’re all in different places spiritually.

There is also the impression that we centralize our prophet – and that he even becomes an intermediary. That is not the case. We encourage every member to make their relationship with the Savior primary and personal. We believe not only in prophetic revelation, but in individual revelation. At the same time (think about it – to accept personal revelation and prophetic and believe they are reconcilable - that takes faith!).

But because we evangelize, and people immediately want to know about the differences between Mormons and Protestants or Catholics, we tend to emphasize those parts of our Religion that make us unique. Those differences are important. Yes, I believe that God still talks to Prophets today. And Yes, I believe there are more inspired writings out there than the set of books currently referred to as the Bible. In asserting that I am a Christian, I am not hiding from any part of my Mormon faith. I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. All of it - no excuses.

Mormons don't use the term 'saved' or 'born-again' as often as our neighbors. I think that is partly because we place a lot of emphasis on endurance - it is not enough to simply believe once, but belief has to be maintained throughout life. The gospel has to penetrate each aspect of your life and its duration. A lot of that attitude comes from our Pioneer Heritage - the idea of staying faithful under the hardest conditions, and making sacrifices for your faith. It doesn't mean we don't believe in being born again, in having a conversion experience, or in the part of your faith that is in your heart instead of your brain. It just means we see faith as something that is tested over time.

But those are not the central tenets of my belief.

I believe and feel that Jesus died for my sins. And I place all of my hope in His promises, because I believe He is the only way home. I believe He is the Son of God, and all that was prophesied he completed. And even though I am not perfect I believe my life is in order with what he taught – and each day I get a little closer to being what He wants me to be. If that is what it means to be saved and born again, then I am pleased to say:

Yes, I am.

What do Mormons call the building they meet in?

2007-12-21T14:42:00.001-08:00

This is a fair question. Usually it is generated by someone who has seen or heard about a Mormon Temple, and has questions about visiting it. Or perhaps you've heard a friend refer to their Mormon meetingplace as a Stake Center, Ward Building, Church, Chapel, or Meetinghouse.

If Mormons ever deserved to be made fun of for anything, this is it - our inability to name our meetingplaces consistently. I once read a skit written by a member of the church that poked fun at the confusion that ensues from our naming - churches in cities that are named after another city and has a congregation from yet another city meeting in it. My Father was Bishop of the Farmington Ward, which largely lived in Apple Valley but it met in a building called the Bloomington building. With the rapid growth of the church, and the difficulty in building fast enough to house it, names of buildings and stakes and wards sometimes are a little misleading - hence my father's new ward in the wrong city in the wrong building.

Before we get to buildings - we should talk about how the church is sliced up. Our congregations, called wards, are divided up geographically. A group of wards are called a stake. Wards are presided over by a Bishop, and Stakes by a Stake President. Branches and districts, usually found in areas with smaller populations, are corresponding smaller versions of wards and stakes. Each of those are also presided over by a president. Usually wards and branches are named after the city or some other prominent geographically-distinguishing name.

There are two primary types of buildings used by the church. First is the meetinghouse. All meetinghouses are open to the public. It is anyplace that Sunday Services are held. Several congregations could meet there throughout the day. They could also meet in a rented facility. We met in schools and an aerobics room for many years. Sometimes the meetinghouse is referred to as a "Ward Building", a "Church", or a "Chapel". Some of these are incorrect: a church is a group of people - not a place. And "Chapel" generally refers to one particular room in the building where the Sacrament Service is held. The term Stake Center refers to the meetinghouse that has the offices of a Stake Presidency, who preside over a group of wards (that could be spread out across many meetinghouses). But other than the offices of the leadership, the Stake Center is in every other way an ordinary meetinghouse. Sunday meetings usually start in the morning, depending on how many wards (congregations) meet there, they could go all day. Each ward is usually made up of members from a specific geographic area near that meetinghouse.

The other type of building, a Temple, is unique. Temples are sanctuaries that are closed to the public most of the time. Members who meet standards of worthiness use the temples for a number of purposes that we'll discuss some other time on this site. What goes on there is not secret (which is something we have been accused of), but it is kept sacred. Our hope is that everyone will take part in the Temple some day, and enjoy the reverent spirit there; it's purpose is not to be exclusionary, but to be a haven from the world. That's why only people whose lives are in order are supposed to enter there - the Lord commanded us to keep it clean and pure.

If a Temple is ever built or restored in your area, usually it will be opened to the public for tours for a brief period before it is dedicated. I would encourage you to go and take a walk through it if that is the case. It is a singular experience.

The church maintains a number of other operations - ranging from canneries to missions to humanitarian projects - and has buildings to support them. They are the exception not the rule. If you stop in to any of them when they are open, there will almost always be someone who can tell you a little about what they are doing, and also will direct you to the nearest meetinghouse for worship services.

We look forward to seeing you there!

If not wine, what do Mormons use for communion?

2007-12-19T07:27:00.000-08:00

A recent business trip to California included a social visit to a winery. One of my colleagues asked me – knowing that as a Mormon I have always abstained from all alcohol – whether we practice communion in our church, and whether we use wine for it. A worthy question.

We do not use wine, but we do practice communion, called ‘sacrament’ in the Mormon church, weekly during our Sunday services. At one point in our history, water was authorized as a substitute because enemies of the church would attempt to harm members by poisoning the sacramental wine. We are told we can use wine for the sacrament as long as it is of our own making, but I have never seen it done in my lifetime. The practice of the Sacrament has the function of renewing our commitment to the gospel through remembrance – and we are instructed that what we eat or drink is not as important as the meaning of it, and that it is administered by those who are worthy and authorized to do so.

There is scriptural symbolism in wine. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ is referred to in biblical prophecy as ‘treading the winepress’, and crushing olives for oil or grapes for wine is compared to the crushing weight that Jesus felt as he bled from his pores in the Garden of Gethsemane. In some instances, the term for wine in the bible actually comes from a term that refers to the physical crushing of the fruit.

It also implies then, in my opinion, a fresh grape juice – not one whose fermenting process has been advanced through yeast and time. That is not to say that some of the wine used may have had an alcoholic content at some point in the history – I do not know for certain. But the modern warning against alcoholic beverages given to members of the church is very specifically to protect us, and I think anyone with a practical view of religion can look around at the world today and the consequences of alcohol and understand that this was, in fact, very wise counsel.

Do Mormons celebrate Christmas?

2007-12-19T06:47:00.000-08:00

A friend asked me this question just yesterday. I was surprised - he and I have had a lot of discussions about the church, but it never occurred to me that he didn't realize this - the answer is absolutely, yes!

Jesus Christ is the central figure in our religion. He is the Savior of all mankind, and we accept the biblical account of his birth in Bethlehem to Mary. We accept the teaching of the virginal birth. And we hold Mary and Joseph in high regard (although we do not worship or pray to them).

We believe (as do many non-LDS scholars) that December 25th is probably not the correct date. It probably occured in the spring, when there were shepherds in the fields keeping watch over their flocks. But we enjoy remembering His birth with the rest of the Christian world in December.

There is a Christmas tree in my house, and we hang stockings. We don't put a lot of emphasis on Santa. We have santa decorations but my children have no misconceptions about his existence. Many LDS families do practice that tradition with their younger children and that is just fine.

At times people confuse us with those of the Jehovah's Witness faith, because they also exhibit some evangelical (proselytizing) zeal, endeavoring to share their beliefs door to door. They have chosen to reduce or eliminate celebrations for their own reasons. If you're curious why, I'd direct you to them, as I am not an expert on their faith. There is no connection between our two religions, historical or otherwise, that I am aware of.

Doctrinally, the meaning of Christmas for me is that God sent his Son in to the world. His mission was not his birth, nor did it culminate in his teacings and ministry. The final and most important part of the Christmas Story comes thirty-some years later when he suffered for our sins in Gethsemane, was crucified, and resurrected three days later with a perfect and glorified immortal body. One of my favorite parts of Christmas is reading the story of His birth and life and comparing the events with the Old Testament prophecies - proving that He was the promised Saviour, foretold from the very beginning.

First Post - Mormon FAQ

2007-12-19T06:39:00.000-08:00

At the suggestion of M. Russell Ballard, I've created this blog to share a little bit about 'Mormonism'. His invitation can be found here. http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/using-new-media-to-support-the-work-of-the-church.

I've been very careful about personal websites - I use the web extensively in my job and community activities to work effectively, but I am very cautious about chat rooms and social networking, and I shut down my one-time humor blog site (tuna-salad) was exploited by people for pushing all sorts of nasty sites. I had to constantly go in and get rid of people's comments on posts. But blogspot has been good to me in some other endeavors, so we will see what happens.

My hope is to share questions and answers specifically as they come to me from my acquaintances that ask questions about the LDS church. This site is not endorsed by the church in any way. If you want my qualifications - I graduated from Seminary, served a mission, and I am an Elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood. But ultimately, if you want the official position of the church, I invite you to visit www.mormon.org.