Category: Mormonism

Joseph Smith, Mormon Prophet – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

Joseph Smith reported receiving divine revelations in the early 1800s, and eventually became the founder of the Mormon religion and his prophecies now influence the lives of millions. Jimmy and Dom consider the evidence concerning Smith’s claims to be a prophet.

Further Resources:

From LDS.org:

Links for this episode:

Mysterious Headlines

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Should America Elect a Polytheist Who Claims to Be Christian?

Mormon-bookI’m well known for holding the position that abortion is the black hole political issue of our time. Given the number of people it kills every year, it outmasses virtually every other issue in play.

But it’s possible that other, equally important issues can arise.

One of those, for me, is the core doctrine of the Christian faith: the nature of God.

Don’t want to take my word for that? How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s:

Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names,55 for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith”.56 The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men “and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin” [CCC 233-234].

How might this doctrine become a political issue?

In various races, we might be asked to vote for candidates who are Mormon.

While they may be very nice people and may even share many values with Christians, Mormons are not Christians. They do not have valid baptism because they are polytheists. That is, they believe in multiple gods. This so affects their understanding of the baptismal formula that it renders their administration of baptism invalid and prevents them from becoming Christians when they attempt to administer the sacrament.

Unlike other polytheists (e.g., Hindus, Shintoists), Mormons claim to be Christian.

Casting a vote for a Mormon candidate thus means casting one’s vote for a polytheist who present himself to the world as a Christian.

I can see situations in which that might be a morally legitimate option. For example, if one lived in Utah, where the only viable candidates in many races are Mormon, it could be morally legitimate to vote for a pro-life Mormon over a pro-abortion Mormon.

But matters seem different when we are talking about national races, such as the presidency.

To elect a Mormon to the American presidency would, to my mind, be a disaster.

It would not only spur Mormon recruitment efforts in numerous ways, it would mainstreamize the religion in a way that would deeply confuse the American public about the central doctrine of the Christian faith. It would give the public the idea that Mormons are Christian (an all-too-frequent misunderstanding as it is) and that polytheism is somehow compatible with Christianity.

In other words, it would deal a huge blow to the American public’s already shaky understanding of what Christianity is.

That means it would massively compromise a fundamental value on the scale of the abortion issue.

Faced with the choice of voting for a pro-life polytheist-claiming-to-be-Christian or a pro-abortion whatever, I might well choose to simply sit out that race and refrain from voting for either candidate, because voting either way would mean doing massive damage to America.

Note that I’m not in principle opposed to voting for polytheists. I could see, for example, voting for a pro-life Hindu over a pro-abortion monotheist. But a Hindu does not claim to be a Christian and thus does not risk confusing people about the core doctrine of Christianity the way Mormonism does.

I am also aware that the U.S. Constitution says that there shall not be religious tests for public office. Specifically, Article VI:3 of the document says:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

What the passage means is that the government cannot bar a candidate for running from office based on his religion. I’m not proposing that it do so. It in no way means that the voters must disregard a candidate’s religion when deciding how to cast their votes. Voters are free to decide how they will vote based on any criteria they like, and they can and at times should take the religious beliefs of a candidate into account.

When a candidate’s election (or even nomination) would do grave damage to the American public’s understanding of what Christianity is, a value so important is in play that I personally don’t see how I could vote for such a person.

What do you think?

Mark Twain And The Book Of Mormon

Marktwain

During a trip out West, Mark Twain took along The Book of Mormon to while away the travel hours. He didn’t think much of its literary style, but he did find it useful as a cure for insomnia:

"All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the ‘elect’ have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so ‘slow,’ so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel — half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern — which was about every sentence or two — he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as ‘exceeding sore,’ ‘and it came to pass,’ etc., and made things satisfactory again. ‘And it came to pass’ was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

GET THE STORY.

(Note: This link does not constitute an endorsement of the host site. Refer to JA.org’s Rules 6 and 7. Nod to Once Upon a Time… for the link.)

If you’re interested in reading the book in which the excerpted essay is found, CLICK HERE.

For more about Mark Twain, CLICK HERE. I especially liked the following quote attributed by Wikipedia to Twain:

"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."

Feminist Mormon Housewives

Sometimes while surfing the Internet, I come across a site fascinating for it’s value as an object of curiosity that I just have to let the world know about it.  I guess that’s why God created blogs.

FEMINIST MORMON HOUSEWIVES

Especially interesting was this post by one of FMH’s contributors:

"Can we please (as Mormons) just admit that there are SO incredibly many things that we just don’t have a clue about?

[…]

"During my recent (and really my first ‘real’/deep) crisis of faith, I cannot tell you how unhelpful it was when people would pretend that all good/faithful Mormons never question, never wonder, never doubt.

[…]

"Let me tell you what was helpful to me. A former bishop who admitted he’d had periods of doubt also. A friend who acknowledged that my concerns were significant, but didn’t necessarily apologize for their existence (perhaps to do so would be to apologize for the state of the world, the fact of agency, the wisdom of God in sending us all here to work out our salvation?). President Hinckley who at the beginning of his administration stated that he knew respect had to be earned. And a dear husband who all along the way admits his own ignorance along with mine.

"What makes these frank admissions less depressing is a concurrent continued faith — demonstrated in how these people continue to live their lives. Their honesty makes their faith more meaningful to me. They find value in the gospel in spite of — maybe even because of — their doubts and imperfections. And because of their honesty in this, my ‘unbelief’ has been helped. Because of this, I had to address my concerns to God instead of people, since people don’t have all the answers regardless of the faith, knowledge, and goodness that we do have. And as I have begun to do this, I have been reminded of the points of divine help and contact that had been obscured for a time. Yes, I still have doubts and concerns. But I also feel I’ve gotten some significant direction and answers on a couple important issues for me."

GET THE POST.

While Mormonism is a deeply-flawed non-Christian religion, I have to admire the sentiments this particular Mormon is expressing because she makes an important point. Knowing enough to know what you do not know is a powerful witness and, if Socrates was correct, the beginning of wisdom. For Christians and non-Christians alike, that is a crucial lesson.

Bad News For Salt Lake

Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA are wonderful things. Since we inherit them from only one parent (mitochondrial DNA coming from our mothers, and Y-chromosome DNA coming from our fathers–if we happen to be male), they allow us to figure out how people are or aren’t distantly related.

The first time the existence of such genetic family-tree tracing broke into public consciousness was a number of years ago when evidence of a “mitochondrial Eve”–a woman from whom all living humans are descended–was reported. That story has been kicked around a number of times, but it’s still being taken seriously in scientific circles.

The same kind of genetic research has the potential to solve other historical puzzles. One that I’ve been waiting for lo these long years is word about where the so-called ten “lost tribes of Israel” ended up. There is some genetic evidence indicating that some of them ended up in Africa, but I’m still waiting for a fuller picture.

Now there’s evidence (which is really just the last nail in the coffin) for where they didn’t end up, and it’s bad news for the Mormon Church. Ever since the Book of Mormon was written, Mormons have held that the American Indians were descendants of immigrants from Israel.

NOPE.

Just as it’s possible to find a lost tribe with DNA evidence, it’s also possible to lose one.

Anthropologists have long-maintained, and genetic studies are confirming, that American Indians are descendants of immigrants from East Asia, not the Middle East. A new book by a former Mormon bishop now explores the matter, and he admits where the evidence points.

Mormon apologists have seen the handwriting on the wall on this one for some time, and they have been doing what Mormon apologists typically do when faced with scientific evidence contary to historic Mormon belief: change their claims.

Still, it’s not good for the folks in Salt Lake.

GET THE STORY.

GET THE BOOK.

Interracial Marriages

A correspondent writes:

when i see inter-racial couples my spirit tells me that this is not natural. i have seen the child of an inter-racial marriage. the child had a black skin, had a white scalp with bright red hair. the child looked like a freak

I can’t agree with you, nor does the Church. From a moral perspective, differences in skin color are no more significant than differences in hair color or eye color. Neither are other racial characteristics. The human race is already one big family; it’s simply that certain characteristics have come to predominate in different parts of that family.

stormFrom the perspective of intrinsic morality, there is no more reason for people with different skin colors not to marry than for people with different hair colors or different eye colors. That may lead to uncommon combinations, but hey, I always thought Storm from the X-Men looked cool.

There can be extrinsic reasons why individuals of different racial backgrounds ought not marry. E.g., two hundred years ago in America a mixed-race couple would face an extremely hard life, including in some places imprisonment or worse. For example, in early Utah Brigham Young decreed that any white man who had conjugal relations with a black woman was to be put to death:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so [Journal of Discourses 10:109].

Fortunately, in the developed world, the attitudes creating such factors have virtually disappeared.

Let me share with you the Bible’s perspective on interracial marriages. First, they are not at all unusual in Scripture. Palestine is located at a major junction between Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and so mixed race marriages were far from unknown. They occasionally crop up in the Bible. For example, two of the tribes of Israel (Ephraim and Manasseh) resulted from the union of the patriarch Joseph (a Semite) with the daughter of Pharoah’s high priest (an Egyptian, and thus a Hamite).

Scripture also records God’s intense displeasure at the criticism of one particular interracial marriage. In Numbers 12 we read that Moses’ brother and sister, Aaron and Miriam, criticized Moses for marrying a black woman (she is described as a Cushite, meaning she was probably of Ethiopian ancestry):

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.

And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed; and when the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. And Aaron turned towards Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.

And Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned. And Moses cried to the LORD, “Heal her, O God, I beseech thee.”

But the LORD said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut up outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.” So Miriam was shut up outside the camp seven days; and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was brought in again [Num. 12:1, 5, 9-11, 13-15].

In this passage the text notes that Miriam, who had been criticizing Moses for marrying a black woman, was turned “as white as snow” by her leprosy. It is as if God is saying, “You want white? I got yer white! I got yer white right here!”