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 Missouri Executive Order 44, which ordered the extermination of all Mormons in Missouri, was finally repealed officially in 1976.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.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, December 21, 2007
What do Mormons call the building they meet in?
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 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!
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
If not wine, what do Mormons use for communion?
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)