This is a blog about my personal experiences in Utah. My family and I moved here in June 2010. I also teach online classes and led a youth trip to Israel in April 2011. I'll write weekly and respond to comments in a reasonable fashion.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
GOP candidate is drawing a varied Christian response
With a Mormon candidate having a good chance to garner enough electoral votes to earn the GOP nomination, we at Mormonism Research Ministry are starting to get used to the question, “Should (or Could) a Christian vote for a Mormon presidential candidate?”
In March, Bill McKeever posted an article on our website talking about this very issue. (See http://www.mrm.org/vote)We also produced a short video, using the article as our script. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Gte7A23RE) Without saying “yes” or “no” to the question, Bill discussed the issues that a Christian voter needs to consider when determining whether or not to vote for a Mormon candidate. For example, he explained how those of us in Utah would never be able to vote if voting for Mormons was inherently wrong. After all, most candidates for public office in this state are Latter-day Saints.
While voting is an important right, there are many things to consider in determining the right candidate for such an important office as president. We must consider the candidates’ world views as well as how determining how they will handle topics that are important to us (i.e. abortion, finances, health care, foreign policy, etc.). While there are no perfect candidates, we must determine who would be the person most likely to lead the people in a way that aligns with a biblical perspective.
There are, Bill said, three possibilities if a person decided not to vote for the Mormon candidate: Abstain from voting, write in another candidate, or vote for the incumbent. We encourage Christians to pray on their knees for God’s will in this coming election. However, because MRM is a 501c3 nonprofit organization, we’re not allowed to tell people how to vote.
There are typically two responses to our position. One side says that we are not being forceful enough because they feel that it’s mortally wrong to ever vote for a Mormon candidate, regardless of the choices. (I wonder, What if a candidate is secular humanist? Shouldn’t that be an automatic disqualifier too?) One responder to the video even took us to task, accusing us of being in cahoots with the LDS Church, exclaiming that “this is a sneaky mormon video pretending to be a christian (sic) made video but yet a mormon made video!!! mormons are evil !!!!!” Another side feels that because we run a ministry showing how Mormonism is not Christianity, we are somehow automatically opposed to any LDS candidate. As one man told us recently as a public meeting held at a church, our opposition to Mormonism may cause what he felt was a good candidate from winning the election.
This is not an easy issue, and no matter where we try to land, we’re bound to get criticized. Pray for us at MRM as we have opportunities to not be political but rather deal with the Mormon issue that is now a current topic and being discussed in many different places.
Before June 8, 1978, LDS males with black skin were not allowed to obtain the priesthood necessary to qualify for the Celestial Kingdom, a place where Mormons believe people will be able to progress to godhood. The very best they could hope for before this time was the bottom level of the Celestial Kingdom, where they could be servants for those on the top level.
After the First Presidency received a revelation from God, this changed. Today those with African ancestry can receive the priesthood. However, there was no repudiation of the belief that blacks were not as valiant in premortality, which was the cause for their "mark."
The issue came to the forefront at the end of February 2012 when a religion professor from BYU gave a two-hour interview with the Washington Post, verifying the racist nature of this belief. When the church heard about it, they released a speculation disagreeing with the church religion professor and saying that this was only "speculation." However, as I have demonstrated in the following two videos, this is not the case. I realize that the two videos (one 8 minutes, the other 10) contains many, many quotes from LDS leaders and teachers. This was done on purpose. But if you can invest 20 minutes, you will clearly see how this teaching was not just mere opinion, speculation, or folklore. It was really taught. This cannot be denied. Or, at least, it shouldn't be denied.
Living in Utah is a different experience. Of course, there’s the cold—it’s been in the teens this past week and no snow in sight, so it’s a bit chillyout there. There’s the inversion layer, which makes downtown skyscrapers look like fingers reaching into dirty water. And last but not least, there’s the Mormon influence. Truly, there are so many people in Utah just entwined in this religion, never considering the idea that perhaps they have been misled.
One of the joys of working in ministry here is getting to listen to people’s stories. Last night, my friend Bill McKeever and I hosted a young couple from St. George. They have a zeal for living for God ever since they left the Mormon Church in the summer of 2010. It was a 16-month process for them to leave, but leave they did and now they are sold out for Jesus. Talking to them last night, they recounted the painful stories of dealing with family and the feeling of near-abandonment, where they visit close relatives who no longer speak intimately, just about the weather and other benign issues. (I understand what this feels like from a first-person perspective.) From their LDS friends, this couple has received little compassion, just questions, such as “Have you divulged temple secrets?” or “Have you properly disposed of your temple clothing?” Trust has been lost. So superficial and so sad.
Today, I spent the afternoon manning the Utah Lighthouse Bookstore in Salt Lake City, which is run by Sandra Tanner. She’s in Tennessee at a television taping, so they needed help watching the store. Yes, books are sold there, but even more important is having a visible place (right across from Spring Mobile Park, the home of the AAA Salt Lake Bees) where people from any persuasion can feel safe to come in and ask questions.
That’s exactly what 25-year-old J____ did early this afternoon. He walked in the door as I was working on a chapter for the book Bill and I will have available this summer (Kregel Publications). My initial reaction? Honestly, it was, “Shoot, I’m smack in the middle of this, hope this guy doesn’t bother me.” Geez, what a carnal and selfish reaction, but hey, I sin, just like you! J_________ wasn’t in the store for more than 30 seconds when he looked at me and blurted out, “I’m LDS and I’m searching.”
I asked him to sit down and, for three hours, we conversed on a variety of issues, everything from the reliability of the Bible to the Trinity and authority in the church. He’d ask a question and I’d talk for 20 minutes. He’d ask another, more commentary from me. At the close of an issue, I’d ask if he understood my explanation. “Yes,” was the typical response. But when I asked him to tell me what I said about the Trinity, he still had a misconception (thinking the Father is the Son), so we had to work extra hard on that issue. Then he said, “You know, I think I’m getting this.” Progress was being made.
We were in the middle of our second hour of conversation—nobody else has bothered us—when a midde-aged couple walks in. In this small 700 square-foot store, there’s no whispering because you’ll be heard anywhere in the room. So I continued my talk with J______________. Meanwhile, I feel that this couple is superficially looking at the store’s book offerings but is listening to the conversation (which is fine). Finally, S_________ stands across the table, causing J_________ to look at her. I turn and ask, “Hi, ready to check out?” “No,” she said, “I’m just listening.”
Then she pulls up a chair and motions for J________ and I to continue our talk. So we did, for another 20 or so minutes. During a pause in the conversation, S________ hesitantly put her hand up and says, “I’m LDS, but I just found out last week that Mormonism is false.” Her words are a jolt to J_________ and I, as I think we assume this was an Evangelical couple. Tears fill her eyes. My heart became sad.
Then S_______ looked up at J_______ and asked, “Are you LDS?” “Yes, sort of still,” he said. “Oh, OK, I thought that might be the case. Let me tell you, if I had observed this conversation last week, I would have felt sorry for him (pointing at me). I would have thought, that young man is having to listen to this lost man who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But I don’t think that anymore. Now I feel sorry for both you and me.”
It was apparent that I had an invitation to share the Christian gospel. The three Mormons in the room knew that their religion offers no hope and is not based in truth. But none of them were ready to jump ship quite yet. They all have searching left to do. The husband of S___________ decided that there is no God, that he’s tired of getting deceived, and therefore he wants nothing to do with God. He’s not arrogant, just hurt. (Unfortunately, we see more people jump into atheism after leaving the church—it’s a natural reaction to not be burned twice.) Meanwhile, the couple’s two kids (16 and 12) are fully engulfed in the church, not knowing that Mom and Dad are planning to abandon the faith they grew up in. They don’t know what to do and fear a splitting of their family. They are tempted to stay status quo and finish raising their children, but S_________ said, “How would I be able to look them in the face when they find out it’s not true?” She knows this is not a good choice, but how will she tell them? Will they be angry? Will this cause division in their family?
Before they left, I had a chance to pray for the couple, and then I finished the conversation with J_________. In just a few short hours, I was greatly reminded why I’m here in Utah. This is not a game, folks. So much is on the line. Even though he is 25 and served a mission, J_________ doesn’t want to disappoint his parents, as his dad is a bishop. What will the reaction be from his dad’s congregation when they realize that the bishop’s son is considering becoming an “apostate”? (None of his family or friends know about his search. Can you blame him?) And the couple feels burned. “What are we supposed to do after spending our entire lives in this church?” S_____________ asked. These are good people who just don’t know where to turn.
If you’re a believer, would you take a minute to pray for these folks? J__________ and S___________ can trace their genealogy to the days of Joseph Smith. For the rest of the story, please know that I am asking a Christian couple who have been through a similar situation to call S___________ and her husband—they said it was OK. And Bill and I will have lunch with J___________ in a few weeks, as he took a copy of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and promises to read the first six chapters on the Bible. I bet he devours the book.
Perhaps I’ll go visit the bookstore tomorrow and see who’s next to come through the door.
Should I as an Evangelical Christian vote for a Mormon?
This is the question we at Mormonism Research Ministry hear more often than any other at church gatherings as well as phone and email. Christians are asking us whether or not we think it’s OK to vote for one of the two Mormon Republican candidates. Our easy answer: “We don’t know, should you?”
Honestly, we have been assailed on both ends, with one disgruntled gentleman telling us after a Virginia symposium last summer that we shouldn’t derail his favorite presidential candidate (a Mormon) by publicly speaking out against Mormonism. Meanwhile, another man at a recent Idaho church meeting was unhappy that we weren’t willing to tell people not to vote for Mormon candidates. Talk about a Catch 22!
Before I tell you what I think, let me preface the rest of this article by saying what follows is my personal opinion. You also ought to know that Mormonism Research Ministry is a registered 501c3 nonprofit organization, meaning we cannot endorse a candidate or tell you who not to vote for.
With that out of the way, I believe that a candidate’s Mormonism should not be a litmus test for why you don’t vote for him/her. I know my position can be considered controversial, at least by some. And you may think I’m wrong, but please hear me out. I live in Utah. If I made a candidate’s Mormonism the one hot-button issue, there would be very few left from which to choose. After all, this is a state with 70 percent who are officially aligned with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If I made it my priority to vote against every Mormon, perhaps it would be simpler to just stay home on Election Day.
Let’s be honest. Since so many candidates claim to be “Christian”—quick, name the last U.S. President who didn’t claim this title—how am I supposed to determine whether or not someone running for President is sincere in his beliefs? Do I look into his views on the Trinity? Inerrant scripture? Calvinism? His preference for hymns or choruses? Tithing from gross or net? Again, I’m not sure which questions I’m supposed to ask.
When it comes to the past candidates who have run for (or won) the office of the U.S. President, I don’t think I have ever voted for a man whom I would consider a spiritual giant. Notice, though, that we’re not talking about voting for a pastor, a missionary, or even a seminary president. No, we’re talking about electing the person who will best lead this country in a moral way while standing up for the Constitution. Since America isn’t a theocracy, I think there is a difference.
When Bill McKeever is asked the question from this article’s title, his response is, “And who is this Mormon candidate running against?” It’s a good point. If I have a chance to vote for a Mormon who happens to be a conservative (which is typical, since there are few Latter-day Saints like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, out there) or someone claiming to be a Christian who espouses liberal socialism, I would vote for the former, even if I felt I had to hold my nose at the voting booth. Don’t get me wrong. I believe a voter ought not to totally disregard the candidate’s religion/religious views. This should be a consideration for determining the best candidate. At the same time, we might end up with a loser just because we stubbornly decide that no Mormon would make a good president.
The first president I voted for—Ronald Reagan in 1980—had his flaws as well. For instance, his attendance at church (both before and during his presidency) was admittedly few and far between. Had you pitted Reagan with Sunday School teacher Jimmy Carter at a sword drill, it wouldn’t have been a pretty sight. And Nancy Reagan appeared to be an occultist, something that apparently even influenced the President himself during his years in the White House. Yet I still maintain that he was the right man for the job at a time when this country desperately needed a charismatic leader. Despite his flaws, I don’t believe America would be as powerful as it is today without eight years of service from the one they called “Gipper.”
So should a Christian vote for a Mormon? That’s something you’ll have to decide for yourself. Get informed and make the right choice.
Sunday Salt Lake Tribune opinion page, September 4, 2011
By thomas g. Alexander
THIS IS MY RESPONSE to Sunday’s editorial, written against my rebuttal to Joanna Brooks that was published in the Salt Lake Tribune, 8/28/2011). I will bold my response, with the regular type Thomas Alendander’s, in its entirety.
One hopes that Eric Johnson does not misinform his students the way he misinformed Salt Lake Tribune readers in his Aug. 28 guest column, “Battling myths about Mormonism, creating new ones.”
Right off the top, Professor Alexander goes after me personally with a slam on my ability to teach by claiming I am misinformed. It’s a cute but quite deceptive tactic. But let’s see what a history professor is going to say about my arguments from the previous week.
An analogy equating the difference between Mormons and other Christians with the difference between Buddhists and Hindus would be laughable if he were not serious. An educated person should represent the views of opponents as they would represent themselves. Johnson fails miserably.
Wow, an excellent example, professor, of an ad hominem attack. “…laughable if he were not serious”? “An educated person” would do it differently? I believe such language lacks respect. I certainly did not try to be rude to Ms. Brooks and I will not mock this professor as well. I’m fine if he wants to disagree with me. All I ask for is to keep the dialogue to a respectful level. Anyway, I maintain my assertion that the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism have plenty of similarities, especially since Buddhism was initiated in India and is closely related to Hinduism. I should point out that I have taught college and seminary level classes on the topic of world religions, and while that alone doesn’t mean I’m right, I believe I have a basis for my point. For example, the idea of Karma and reincarnation are very similar.
Despite their similarities, however, it would be wrong to say that Buddhism is the same as Hinduism. No, they’re unique religions. In the same way, I believe Mormonism and Christianity—though adherents may use the same terminology—are much different. To make it appear that the two religions are synonymous does neither one a service. According to Joseph Smith’s First Vision account (Joseph Smith—History 1:19), God the Father and Jesus declared that all of the churches were corrupt and their doctrines were all wrong. Why would Mormons then want to be associated with “Christianity” in any matter? You would think the church would want to avoid any connection whatsoever. I also don’t understand why Mormons are so concerned about what others think of them.
In addition, Mormon leaders have clearly explained that Mormonism is not the same as biblical Christianity, as the two faiths disagree on such topics as the Godhead and Jesus Christ. He claims that I fail “miserably” because I have somehow created strawmen arguments. Yet throughout his rejoinder, he is not able to refute one point that I made. If I can provide support for my views, these are not strawmen arguments but just the facts. Instead of making empty accusations, let’s just deal with the issues at hand.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not consider themselves Christians just because they try to be moral. As he observes, many who are not Christians are moral. Rather, Mormons are Christians because they believe in and try to practice New Testament Christianity.
We could write reams on this topic, and if Professor Alexander would like, perhaps we could arrange a debate (whether written or oral) on the topic. But let me explain in just five ways how Mormonism is not the same as “New Testament Christianity”:
1.The New Testament church did not believe that God was once a man (a sinner even?) who lived a mortal life prior to becoming God. Instead, they believed He is not changeable being, something taught both by the Bible (Ps. 90:2) and the Book of Mormon (Moroni 8:18).
2.The New Testament church worshipped Jesus as God. They did not consider him to be the spirit brother of Lucifer who was created before the foundation of the world.
3.The New Testament church did not worship in temples. The early Christians never practiced marriage in the temple for “time and eternity,” they never did work in the temple on behalf of those already dead, and they certainly did not receive new names and learn special handshakes that were meant to be kept quiet between spouses.
4.The New Testament church did not replace apostles once they died, with the exception of Matthias in substitution for Judas. In addition, there were others (besides the twelve) who were considered “apostles,” including Paul. The organization of the church was not the same as is practiced today by the LDS Church.
5.The New Testament church did not withhold privileges if a person didn’t tithe. According to the Mormon Church, only those who tithe are eligible to get a temple recommend, thus allowing them into one of Mormonism’s temples.
The LDS Church’s prophet, Joseph Smith, restored New Testament Christianity and some aspects of Old Testament practice. As Christians, every believing Mormon subscribes to Paul’s testimony: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”(Galatians 2:20)
Professor Alexander is misleading here. He says that Smith restored New Testament Christianity. I have listed five reasons above why this view is wrong. To which aspects of Old Testament practice is he referring? Because of lack of space, I’m sure, he doesn’t support his case. How Galatians 2:20 applies to Mormonism, unfortunately, he also fails to make an explanation. I must point out, however, that just because a religious group accepts “Jesus Christ” does not make it Christian. If so, then we must lend the same label to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, and many Hindus as well.
Mormons and other Christians believe that Christ is the literal Son of God, that he was crucified for our sins, that he arose from the dead and that through His grace all humans will be resurrected.
The professor wants the reader to believe that because he can use terminology understood by Christians (i.e. Son of God, crucified for sins, arose from the dead, resurrected), Mormons somehow ought to be considered Christians. Let’s deal with each point. First, he says, Christ is the literal Son of God.” Yes, Mormons do believe this. But what exactly does this mean? According to Mormon leaders, He was not begotten of the Holy Ghost (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:18) but was instead a product of “natural” action (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:115). Heavenly Father came down from heaven and “sired” Jesus through the Virgin Mary “in the most literal sense” (Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, p. 7). This is certainly not the Virgin Birth as the Bible depicts it. In addition, Professor Alexander says Jesus was “crucified for our sins.” Interesting, since the Garden of Gethsemane is emphasized so much more than the cross by Mormon leadership over the years. Also, have you wondered why the powerful symbol of the cross is not used by Mormon chapels? To church leaders, the cross is not a positive symbol, even though it was respected as a powerful reminder of Jesus’ resurrection in the days of Paul and by Christians over the past two millennia.
Since they are New Testament Christians rather than traditional Christians, Mormons do not believe in un-Biblical doctrines like Trinitarianism. Would Johnson exclude from the body of Christians those believers who lived before 325 C.E. even though Trinitarianism does not appear in the New Testament?
Please, not another attack on Nicaea! This is such faulty logic that I am surprised a history teacher would make this claim. He really ought to know better. The Council of Nicaea was formed to deal with a heresy called Arianism; the goal was to discover just what the Bible really did say about Jesus. Was He a created being? Or was He God in the flesh? We can use our Bibles to show the case for Trinitarianism. As far as the word “Trinity” not appearing in the Bible, he’s quite right. However, the concept is certainly there: One God, three persons. As far as a particular word not appearing in the Bible, will he admit that Heavenly Mother doesn’t exist because she’s not mentioned in the Bible or any of the Standard Works, for that matter?
What he says about post-mortal polygamy is essentially correct. That is, however, irrelevant to charges of the continued practice of polygamy today. The belief that Mormons continue to practice polygamy is pervasive. It is not just “some” who believe this. In part, the erroneous belief has persisted because some folks simply have not taken the time to study the matter. They are the “ignorant” whom Johnson mentions. I have run into quite a number of them.
To have Professor Alexander say that he runs into ignorant people who believe Mormon leaders still teach in polygamy for this life is nothing more than a red herring. I agreed in my original rebuttal that there are ignorant people everywhere. But it’s misleading to make it appear that plural marriage is completed repealed. What about the three LDS apostles who look forward to being married polygamously in the hereafter? Indeed, polygamy for eternity is still a valid practice. Both Brooks and Alexander want the whole issue to go away and be swept under the rug, but it won’t go away because the doctrine is still being practiced today. Or, please show me that I’m wrong and that marriage for eternity between one man and more than one woman is no longer practiced in LDS temples today.
More seriously, however, the persistence of this belief has resulted from media sloppiness, sensationalism or dramatization. Because the media often use the general term “Mormonism” for groups that continue to practice polygamy, otherwise well-informed people frequently associate the practice with the LDS Church. Moreover, I would expect that because of LDS President Wilford Woodruff’s Manifesto of 1890, President Joseph F. Smith’s Second Manifesto in 1904, and persistent teaching, Mormons would remain monogamists even if the courts overruled current law.
Mere speculation. The author is not a general authority or a psychic. In fact, how does he know what God will or will not say? Certainly Mormon prophets Brigham Young (“If we are not admitted until [the denial of polygamy,] we shall never be admitted” (Journal of Discourses 11:269) and Wilford Woodruff (“If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gift and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does…”) never believed that polygamy would one day be banned in the church. Thus, isn’t it presumptuous that the professor thinks he knows what God will do in the future?
Unfortunately, Johnson is right in his belief that most Mormons are conservatives. He assumes, however, that a Mormon president would follow the dictates of the prophet. I ran into the same brand of bigotry in 1960. I was living in California at the time, and one of my friends said that he would never vote for John F. Kennedy because Kennedy was a Catholic. He believed Kennedy would take orders from the pope.
Notice, I never said that a person shouldn’t vote for a candidate just because he is a Mormon. But we have to wonder: If a man is considered to be a “prophet” with direct connection to God, wouldn’t the LDS candidate have to take this man’s opinionseriously? This leads me to the next question: Would a candidate like Romney be willing to do what Kennedy did when he said that he would not listen to the pope’s advice? I think these are valid questions—I certainly am not the only one asking them—and it’s something that Romney needs to address if he wants to take a serious charge at the presidency of the United States.
If nothing else, the recent public dispute over immigration should lay that argument to rest. Many right-wing Mormons have openly disputed the church’s views on the question, in part by asserting that the church leaders simply did not mean what they said. In addition, in numerous other cases of historical note, church members have ignored or opposed public policy supported by the church leadership.
Now, I understand that I may have misinterpreted some of the things Johnson has written. If so, I apologize. On the other hand, he should seek in the future to represent the views of those he opposes as they would represent them.
We disagree, that’s all. I’m not sure how the professor feels I have misrepresented the views of Mormonism. I stand by my assertions made in my previous rebuttal and don’t feel Professor Alexander has adequately addressed my objections to Brooks’ original article published two weeks ago. I am requesting the Salt Lake Tribune for a chance to officially write a response—we’ll see if they agree.
Thomas G. Alexander is Lemuel Hardison Redd, Jr. Professor Emeritus of History at Brigham Young University. He lives in Provo.
