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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.