Time flashback: More on Mormon heaven

October 20, 2006 By

J991915 1We have had some lively discussion in the past week on my recent post raising questions about how mainstream reporters should handle, or try to avoid, questions about Mormon doctrines that strike many traditional Christians as wrong or, at the very least, worthy of debate. The spark for the discussions, of course, is a possible Mitt Romney bid for the White House. Click here for a recent Salt Lake Tribune piece linked to this.

The key, I believe, is the doctrine called “exaltation.” This is linked to the theme commonly expressed with the statement “What man now is, God once was” or similar constructions. The idea is that faithful Mormons can make a leap, in the next life, to the status of gods of their own worlds, spheres, universes or some form of creation.

The most common question seems to be: Is this a belief that Mormons (a) still believe or (b) take literally, as opposed to it being a metaphor for some symbolism of eternal bliss (with families united, heavenly marriages, etc.) that is hard to discuss with nonbelievers. In other words, it’s our business. Leave us alone.

I bring this up because of this item in the comment boards:

There’s some precedent for Romney. Gordon Hinckley, current prophet/president of the Mormon Church, was asked by the SF Chronicle religion reporter if god was once a man. Hinckley replied: “I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, ‘As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’ Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about. (4/13/97)”

It seems that Mormon leaders have been slowly minimizing the teaching within the church and downplaying it as much as possible publicly. I suspect that Romney might take a cue from his Church president.

Posted by John Remy at 10:25 am on October 15, 2006

There are evangelicals who are interested in this issue, since it is directly linked to the very nature of God and the Christian belief in the Trinity. The big question: Is Mormon doctrine evolving or is its discussion merely being muted?

There are journalists who are interested in this question, as well.

Sometimes, their work overlaps — as in the following discussion on a website linked to the Institute for Religious Research. Yes, Mormons can accurately say that this is a hostile source of information, but it contains interesting correspondence linked to a Time interview with Hinckley — part of the famous Mormons, Inc. cover story — that covers similar ground.

This “Mormons in Transition” item by Luke Wilson begins:

President Gordon B. Hinckley seemed to dodge and dissemble in an August 4, 1997, Time cover story when veteran religion writer Richard N. Ostling asked him about the distinctive Mormon teaching that humans can become gods, and that God the Father was once a man. …

“At first Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods,” according to Time, “suggesting that ‘it’s of course an ideal. It’s a hope for a wishful thing,’ but later he added, ‘yes, of course they can.’”

On whether the LDS Church holds that, “God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, ‘I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it,’” Hinckley told Time.

But is it possible that President Hinckley is not intimately aware of these distinctive doctrines of Mormonism that trace back all the way to Joseph Smith?

1101970804 400At this point, all kinds of letters are written between leaders at this website, the Mormon leadership (F. Michael Watson in the office of the First Presidency) and, of greatest interest to GetReligion readers, reporters at Time magazine. If the subject still interests you, or if you doubt that there will be people in major GOP primary states interested in the topic, then you need to read the “Transition” post for yourself. The Hinkley interview was conducted by one of the finest religion writers of our age, Richard Ostling, who is himself a skilled researcher of the Mormon faith and culture.

But here is a key part:

In a telephone conversation, (David) Van Biema told us that Time stood by its story as written, and that he had asked Time senior correspondent Richard N. Ostling, who conducted the Hinckley interview, to reply to our letter. Here is the text of Ostling’s reply, along with Time‘s transcript of the relevant part of the recorded interview, which Ostling included (copies of this correspondence is available on request):

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Here’s the transcript of my question and President Hinckley’s response to me. This came just after a long discussion on whether men can become gods, which the President affirmed. You can judge Mr. Watson’s “out of context” assertion for yourself.

Best,

R. N. Ostling

Here is the relevant excerpt from President Hinckley’s interview with Time:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Again, let me stress that this kind of site is only one side of a debate.

However, its sources are interesting and reporters will find the quotes from Mormon doctrines and correspondence interesting. That is, reporters will find the material interesting if they actually want to take seriously the doctrinal issues that will affect Romney’s candidacy in the Bible Belt and, perhaps, elsewhere. If the top leaders of the Mormon church are uncertain how to answer questions about their doctrine of God, it may be hard for a presidential candidate to know what to say.

Here’s the hard part: It’s easy to find sites online that attack Mormonism on this issue. Where are the best sites that explain the church’s current teachings? Where is the official material that states the other side?

Before you click that comment button, please remember that I am raising this as a journalistic issue, not as a doctrinal issue. The question is how journalists can cover this story in a way that represents the voices on each side in a fair and accurate manner.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Evangelicals, Godbeat, Politics
About TMatt

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

  • http://www.receive.org Barnabas Powell

    It amazes me when Americans discuss religion, and especially when journalists write about religion, being a bit ahistorical in their thinking.

    The Mormon theology in question sounds a little like a heretical version of the Eastern Orthodox statement made by Athanasius in the early Church: “God became man so that man might become God.”

    This is the basis for the Orthodox view of soteriology based on “theosis,” rather than some juridical view of salvation that has usually held sway in Western theology.

    It’s an interesting discussion of a uniquely American religious phenomenon – Mormonism.

    I do hope some religion editor digs deep enough to discover these riches.

  • Becky

    If you are genuinely interested in learning more about what the LDS church teaches about exaltation, go to their webpage http://www.lds.org/ and search the “Gospel Library Archive” for “exaltation” Be aware that you will not find a one or two sentence “sound bite” that will answer all your questions – you will have to read several sermons by church leaders to get the full picture.

  • MattK

    Barnabas,

    I’ve heard Mormons use that snippet of St. Athanasius as support for their doctrine. I felt embarrassed for them.

    As for press coverage, I hope that reporters who cover the story of Romney running in a party strongly influenced by “Bible-believing” (no scare of sneer implied.) Christians do more than say “The Religius Right wont back Romney because of doctrinal differences.” I hope they address the issue polytheism as a shaking foundation for politcal and moral thought. I hope they ask “Bible-believing” Christians why, exactly, they oppose (or support!) Romney. But I have little hope. For years I’ve thought the political press coverage was lacking in content. It’s all horse race and no horse.

  • Susan

    As a lifelong Mormon, I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that I’ve never heard St. Athanasius quoted as a support for our doctrine. I have heard him quoted once or twice in discussions about the doctrinal twists and turns of early christianity. Mormons, generally speaking, do enjoy saying that their doctrine is true to the earliest form of Christianity, but those early quotes are rarely used as “evidence” that Mormon doctrine is “correct.”

    If a journalist wants to know the current position the church takes on the exaltation subject, I’d suggest that he read both the early statements on the topic (the King Follet discourse by Joseph Smith is a classic), and statements made more recently by church leaders, i.e. Hinckley’s statements on Larry King. There is a serious transition in the tone of the doctrine. It’s becoming something that is no longer officially taught much, if at all, but is still widely believed. Can that be called “doctrine?” Who knows.

  • http://www.mormoncoffee.blogspot.com Sharon

    On the LDS web site one can find a pdf file of The Friend magazine dated March 2002. On page 23 is a children’s crossword puzzle abut Lorenzo Snow. Clue 10 across reads:

    “He wrote as a couplet (two lines of verse) a revelation that he had and that the Prophet Joseph Smith said was true:

    As man _____ is, God once was:As God now is, man may be.”

    Would this constitute “officially teaching”? I would say at least it is officially teaching that the doctrine was received by revelation and pronounced true by Joseph Smith. Is the fact that this much was taught to the children of the Church six years ago relevant in determining whether the Church still accepts it as true doctrine? For me, the answer would be yes. For others? I echo Susan: “Who knows?”

  • d burns

    I think a more relevant questions would be wether or not most Christians know thier own doctrine. There are many things taught as dogma by the various Christian churchs that keep the protestant churches divide to this day. Do these people take any of these issues/divisions with them into the voting booth? Do the divisions within the Christian world matter differntly than the differences between Christianty and Mormanism, Judism, Islam, or Hinduism when deciding on political canidates?

  • http://www.bycommonconsent.com J. Stapley

    The reality is that this is a topic that is debated by faithful Mormons. There is no real consensus. Popular Mormon theologians such as Blake Oslter (author of the Exploring Mormon Thought series) present the most sophisticated analyses. This is also a topic that is frequently discussed in the Mormon blogs.

    Hinckley’s remarks are really quite accurate. This isn’t something that has been talked about for a very long time. You will be hard pressed to find anything on lds.org (the default source for “authorized” doctrine), especially relating to the history or theogony of God the Father. The most technical scholar will also note that Joseph Smith never taught that God the Father was once a man like us, but was once a man like Jesus Christ. That is a significant, though still esoteric, distinction.

    Most importantly, non of the Mormon scripture or rituals teach about the history of God the Father or Jesus Christ except to say that they have always been God.

  • Mike Parker

    J. Stapley is right about this idea not being talked about much at all in Church services. I would add to that that what little we do know about the doctrine has been joined to supposition and assumption — so, for example, it is Mormon doctrine that the faithful will become “gods”, but virtually nowhere is it detailed what that entails. The belief of creating one’s own worlds and populating them, etc., is assumption that has become “folk doctrine.”

    Some helpful analysis of Hinckley’s statement is available on in this wiki article (note that misquotation and misunderstanding plays a big part here):

    http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Downplaying_the_King_Follett_Discourse

    Both Remy and Wilson are mistaken that the Church is “downplaying” or “dodging” anything. They are simply taking a more discreet path in dealing with something we don’t know much about.

    How can journalists cover this story in a way that represents the voices on each side in a fair and accurate manner? Start by understanding that this is a really complex belief that requires a lot of background to put it in its proper context. Such things are not well-suited to modern journalistic methods, where sound bites are offered to readers with short attention spans.

  • http://mormoninquiry.typepad.com Dave

    The “About Mormons” site at Light Planet posts hundreds of short articles by LDS scholars (many from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism) on a host of LDS doctrinal and historical topics:

    http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/

    The site index doesn’t help much with navigation — you’re better off doing a Google search of a specific term with a site restriction. It’s the only way I can find anything there. Here’s the article on “exaltation”:

    http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/afterlife/exaltation_eom.htm

  • http://hiveperfect.blogspot.com/ HiveRadical

    In terms of journalists “getting the whole story” on the issue is certainly not something that is easily done. There’s the church’s website but there’s also the LDS/Mormon apologetic site at

    http://www.fairlds.org/

    or the Research arm of the Church supported university–Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)

    http://farms.byu.edu/

    The plethora of antipathetic sources has at it’s core serious issues with any reconcilliation with any other religious faith. It’s easy to paint a religion such as the LDS/Mormon faith as odd or non-sensical, especially since it’s so recent relative to so many other faiths.

    I would hope Journalists would keep in mind that some of the portrayed discrepancies in our faith, some of the oddities, are not unique even just to religion.

    For example if one were to look at the claimed outcomes of currently accepted discriptions of subatomic physics in thing such as “tunneling” (look at wikipedia for a description of this interesting phenomena) one would see how easy it would be to take accepted current scientific theory and paint it in a way that, to the not as scientifically versed populace, it could be made to seem as weird and non-sensical as Items you may perceive in LDS theology.

    Or look at “physics” superstring theory. The things this now popular center of research in theoretical physics predicts are rather wild and seemingly nonsensical. And to date this theory isn’t even able to be considered actuall science. Yet a significant portion of those entering physics as a profession are delving into it.

  • Roger

    tmatt…. I can’t help but wonder what your “journalistic” obsession with this subject is? Whatever it is, as a religion “journalist” on a “journalistic” site you would be far more legitimate and creditable if your would expose your biases much more openly and honestly than it appears you are doing here. It seems as though your attempt to inform or enlighten your readers about Mitt Romney or his religion is in fact just a ruse for passing off (in a very backhanded and unjournalistic way) things you know little about but are obviously biased and opinionated about. You are doing it by saying (rather transparently) that you are only bringing this up and dedicating two long posts to it because of course other “reporters” and “journalists” will. I just went thru your writing in this post and the previous one. I have posted some of your comments regarding this below. Altho taken out of context, you can refer to them and see there is a point to be made here. Perhaps in another post you could clarify exactly who are these “reporters” and “journalists” you are so sure are out there. In the meantime I am hope you will decided not to keep making something out of nothing. It isn’t exactly admirable journalism.

    1 There are journalists who are interested in this question, as well.

    2 Once again, my point is not doctrinal or political. It is journalistic.

    3 The journalists will be torn on this case.

    4 But reporters are still afraid to talk about the real issues here

    5 There are journalists who are interested in this question, as well.

    6 As we slide closer and closer to election day, some political reporters are looking ahead to 2008 and the status of “value voters” and the evangelical vote

    7 However, its sources are interesting and reporters will find the quotes from Mormon doctrines and correspondence interesting.

    8 That is, reporters will find the material interesting if they actually want to take seriously the doctrinal issues that will affect Romney’s candidacy in the Bible Belt and, perhaps, elsewhere.

    I would also suggest you read the article (site posted below) that a reader recommended in the last Romney post you made. It is by a respected religion professor and you would be well to take caution from his words below.

    “So my advice: Oppose Romney for political reasons or if you oppose him for his religion, do so openly and not in the guise of “those other folk will not.” If you must make the argument that Evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon, do so using actual statistics to avoid the appearance that you are telegraphing your audience without stating your opinions (thus avoiding the need to defend them.)”

    http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/middlebrow/archives/too-much-like-prejudice-a-warning-against-a-dangerous-political-argument/

  • Jordan Flake

    This is kind of long but I don’t think I can shorten it and make my points. I’m amazed at the things the Mormon Church tries to downplay or cover-up. Having been a Temple Mormon and gone there over 50 times…before having my eyes opened and becoming a born-again Christian…and decended from Pioneers, I was indoctrinated from birth about becoming a Heavenly Mother to a husband who became a Heavenly Father (God) of his own earth as a resurrected being. I with his other wives would bear spirit children to people this spirit world. This was called the first estate and everyone would then come down through birth to earth in earthly bodies to live their second estate. In 1990 they took the redicule of the Protestant Pastor out of the Temple ceremony film…where the Devil asks the Pastor (backwards collar) what kind of God he preached. The Pastor said the God he preaches is “a Spirit, big enough to fill the universe, and yet small enough to dwell in a man’s heart”. Adam says “I can’t understand such a God” and the Devil says “That is the beauty of it.” Then the Devil offers to pay the preacher well to preach this false God and the preacher accepts. I saw this enacted over 50 times. The interesting thing is that the God they rediculed was the God of the Bible. Joseph Smith taught that all Christian Creeds were an abomination. I know their Jesus is not the Biblical Jesus. They mock the teaching of the Trinity. Amazing they are trying to cover this up or act like it is a vague issue. President Hinckley knows all about the older Temple ceremony and to me he is either senile or dishonest. I’m sorry I can see no other answer. Thank God my eyes were opened up and I was delivered from such bondage and falsehood. I know Mormons will argue by writing page after page…but you never get an answer — just a smoke screen. I experienced what I experienced and I read everything I could get my hands on. I give no apologies for telling the truth.

  • http://www.mindonfire.com John Remy

    Roger, I think that tmatt’s “obsession” is entirely appropriate for a journalist covering religion in U.S. politics. In the history of the American presidency, we’ve essentially had only one non-Protestant president (Ike was raised Jehovah’s Witness, but left as a young adult and joined the Presbyterian Church as after his inauguration). Many Americans take the religion/religiosity of their political representatives very seriously.

    Even if the gods/exaltation doctrine is obscure, there are other practices (temple ordinances, sacred undergarments) and beliefs (Mother in Heaven, Book of Mormon, prophets) that make many voters, Christian, secular, and otherwise, uneasy about Mormons. I think that it is best for all parties, especially Mormons, to air these things out. Jewish and Catholic teachings and practices were long considered peculiar, even offensive, before they were assimilated into the American mainstream.

    At the same time, journalists should (and are) highlighting the common values that Romney and the bulk of LDS and conservative Christian voters share.

  • http://www.mindonfire.com John Remy

    Um…in case it wasn’t clear, I count Eisenhower as a Protestant. The non-Protestant, of course, is Kennedy.

  • Pingback: Ankle Biting Pundits » Blog Archive » Romney Defends Mormon Political Network

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    Lincoln and Andrew Johnson had a reputation as “infidels” because they did not belong to any church. I suspect that if Lincoln were alive he would be a Unitarian, who are “Protestant” only in the “We don’t believeinthepope” sense.. but in that case LDS are “Protestant”. (I have had frustrating exchanges with someone on the Religionlaw list who insists on that non-definition.)
    The point made above is highly cogent. My impression from long experience is that most self-styled-mainline Protestants have no idea why “their” denominations have a separate existence from each other, and would be nonplussed if asked about sola fide or Scripture vs Tradition.

  • http://angrymormonliberal.blogspot.com angrymormonliberal

    For the purposes of full disclosure, I’m LDS, although usually I feel much more so by birth than by belief. There might be a story for a hard working journalist documenting the difference between the offical rhetoric coming out of Salt Lake and the practices at a varity of local wards. I’m absoloutly certain that the whole ‘As God once was’ couplet has been hardly discussed since the 1950′s on an offical level, (IE general conferences or other offical statements) but you would likely never know that going to my local LDS ward. It comes up on a regular basis and this is not a Utah ward but a international, multicultural ward in Montreal Canada. I think you’ll also find that trying to pin down exactly what is an ‘offical’ Mormon statement is one of the more difficult and futile exercises you will ever engage in. Depending on the circumstances (and the political leanings of the interviewee) offical Mormon statements can be construed broadly to include local leaders or extremely narrowly to include only offically declared and ‘sustained’ Mormon scripture.

    Mormon Studies is enjoyable… but sometimes even those of us on the inside have trouble understanding just exactly what is going on.

  • Lee Majakey

    Having been LDS since 1973 and attending most every Sunday and during weekday activities, you need to know that many members will learn of a doctrine and “assume” where the doctrine will lead them. There is no paid clergy and leaders are called without having a theology degree. The official lession books from Church Distribution never disscusses these outside issues. I will tell you that the members love Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. As for the trinity, The Church of Christ here in Kentucky believes that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate. I am disgusted when people tell me what I believe. They haven’t a clue. I do believe that man’s destiny is to grow and improve our lot in life and that these principals will continue in Heaven, with Christ’s love and atonement of course. Hopefully you do too. Mitt Romney would preside using the principals he has learned. He will not follow orders by some secret Mormon organization in UTAH. We have local LDS leaders all the time saying that they use the “Spirit of the Law” instead of blindly following the Church Handbook.

  • Rathje

    As an active Mormon, I’m not really sure exactly how much weight to give to Gordon B. Hinckley’s interview remarks (“I don’t know that we emphasize it…”). Typically, Pres. Hinckley gives very polished interviews with the press with well thought-out sound bites and an impressive ability to stay on message. But it is possible that he fumbled this one and didn’t present the message exactly the way he wanted.

    It should also be noted that there isn’t any official direction within the Church to “deemphasize” either the King Follet Discourse or the “Lorenzo Snow couplet.” In fact, within the Mormon mainstream, this statement of Pres. Hinckley’s flew almost entirely below the radar of your average Mormon. I doubt many of them even noticed.

    The only people discussing this really are either voices of dissafection within Mormonism, voices of criticism without Mormonism, or a small offering of Mormon intellectuals (self-styled and otherwise).

    As a life-long member, I can assure you that the idea of “becoming gods” (lower-case “g”) and populating our own worlds, along with a very humanized view of God (capital “G”), is alive and well, and has been for most of my lifetime.

    According to Pres. Hinckley, it may not be emphasized, but darn-certain comprises a pretty central and widely-held belief among the lay membership.

    So what does Pres. Hinckley’s statement mean? Two possibilities:

    1. He was simply trying to dodge a wedge-issue with other Christian denominations. If you’ve followed Pres. Hinckley’s tenure as prophet, you’ll note that interdenominational reconcilliation and harmony has been a major push for him.

    2. He really does feel that this is not “official doctrine” and we ought to back away from assertions regarding it. Admittedly, many cherished doctrines within Mormonism die a slow death in this manner. Lay Mormons typically don’t even notice that the Church’s position has changed because the change is so subtle and quiet.

    Or something in between.

    At the very least, I think the statement indicates that at least Pres. Hinckley feels that this is not a doctrine that ought to be emphasized. Whether the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles agree with him is an open question. In fact, I’d wager a guess that some of the Apostles do not share his stance on this issue.

    That’s likely to remain an open question since we rarely hear about disagreements among Church leadership.

  • http://www.article6blog.com Lowell Brown

    As my evangelical co-blogger says, regarding the question of how the press will Mormon doctrine:

    Guys, the press WON’T CARE! They can’t tell the difference between Methodist and Presbyterian and don’t want to. Do you guys keep bringing this up just to illustrate Mormon doctrine, building prejudice while claiming neutrality? Just a question.

  • http://jacobprimo.blogspot.com Jake D

    I think the journalist coverage of Romney’s Mormonism is specific to the modern issues regarding it. The miracles believed by mainstream Christians are 2000 years old. The belief in modern Prophets, gold plates written in Egyptian, visits by God & Jesus to a boy in America are all very modern.

    For example, the LDS church granted the privilege of priesthood to those of African background by revelation in 1976. Modern religious miracles like revelations from God are strange to mainstream Americans. It’s the modern context that makes this relevant from a journalistic standpoint.

    In my personal opinion Romney is the most capable politician we’ve had take a look at the presidency in quite a while. Even as a former Mormon I admire him. But a lingering questions remains . . .

    Would a Mormon President do what the Prophet told him to do?

    Jacobprimo

  • murphy

    Jacobprimo,

    Asking about whether a mormon president would be a puppet for the mormon prophet is a fair question, and probably one of the few relevant questions to Mitt Romney’s 2008 campaign.

    Here’s your answer: find a single example of a mormon prophet ever exerting influence over a mormon politician. Feel free to search the last 175 years of American history. You won’t find any.

    The mormon church practices a painful degree of political neutrality, coming into the public square on specific moral issues only rarely.

    Here are Romney’s own words where he paraphrases Abraham Lincoln’s Lyceum Adress with regards to Romney’s political independence from his Church:

    America has a political religion and that people who are elected to office subscribe to this political religion, which is to place the oath of office, an oath to abide by a nation of laws and the Constitution, above all others. And there’s no question that as I take the oath of office as governor, and have, that I make that my primary responsibility.

  • Maureen

    This is an important journalistic question, because people want to know what candidates believe. If it’s important to know the secular ideas that drive a person, it’s at least as important to know the religious ideas. (One is tempted to add, “Duh.”)

    However, if someone attempts to hide their ideas in any sphere, that looks very suspicious. If they are ashamed of their own deeply held beliefs, they must have something to be ashamed of. It also makes a person look dishonest; someone who’s willing to go back on himself is willing to do anything.

    And a religious group that even looks like it’s trying to hide its own theology is just plain creepy. Mormon leaders would do better to be obviously open and honest, even about controversial ideas, than to look as if they’re trying to sweep them under the carpet.

  • http://www.beehivestandardweekly.com R Graham

    I am encouraged to see good and fair (save a few) discussions about Mormon theology. I believe most “fair” reporters will see that those following the LDS faith are far from robots under the control of a modern prophet. Indeed, I have found that most fall short of the ideals, but have faith that they can improve themselves and have a hope that they can be like Christ.

    Christ asked, “what manner of man should you be?” His response is the answer to this string of inquiries: “Even as I am.”

    We shouldn’t fault the Mormons for following and believing in that simple message. It appears to be a very Christian theology.

  • gary yeates

    As a liberal evangelical Christina I would honestly state that Mormons have some of the strongest values of any religious group I know. But does that make their faith Christian?

    Unfortunately, their religion is a cult and not in any real way based on Biblical Christianity. As is well known, their so called prophet changed verses in his version of the King James Bible to provide justification for the view that there is more than one God, which is totally and utterly against Biblical teaching. Smith’s King Follet discourse is an instructive place to start and portrays a radically different Mormonism from that of the Book of Mormon.

    Smith once stated that he was had achieved more than Jesus Christ and that all other Christian beliefs- were an abomination to him, which is something all LDS people are still taught to believe, despite President Hinckley’s charm offensive to the contrary over recent years.

    Furthermore, much of their so called extra books of sacred texts have been proven to be false.
    The Pearl of Great Price contains the erroneuos book of Abraham, proved to be fradulent in 1967, whilst The Doctrines and Coivenants containbs at least 70 false prophecies made by Joseph Smith, who was not only a polygamist with 33 known wives, but an active Freemason who incorporated Masonic procedures into his Temple ceremonies. Smith died giving the Masonic distress call
    ” Oh Lord my God, ” but was shot before finshing the sentence “is there no help for the widow’s son.”

    Smith’s successor Brigham Young taught thet Adam was God and the LDS church far from bringing an end to polygamy in 1890, allowed it to continue with the full knowledge of the quorum of Apostles and the First Presidency until the end of WW1. See Richard Ostling’s excellent book on Mormon America.

    The fact that their modern prohets can supposedly repudiate past prohets,( This can be very useful as in the decision to allow Blacks to have the Priest hood in 1978)and is also suggestive of cult origins.

    The LDS church is only too aware of its past racist beliefs, and even appointed a supporter of the right wing John Birch society as their President in Republican ( would LDS memebers vote for anyone else…….) in ex agricultural secretay Ezra Taft Benson.

    Where does this leave Romney and his bid for the Presidency? He is without doubt a capable man, but would the USA wish to have someone who follows non Biblical Christianity as their leader; and also acknowledges Gordon Bitner Hinckley as God’s prophet on Earth, a man who was to prove hopelessly out of his depth in the Salamader forgery scandal of the 1980′s?

    My belief is that should Romney become GOP front ruinner, the LDS church and some of its bizzare practices, which include:-
    1) Baptism for the dead,
    2) A belief that God came from the star system Kolob
    3) The link with Scottish Right Freemasonry
    4) Joseph Smith’s occult background
    5) The secret underwaear with Masonic regalia on it
    6) And most importantly the belief that only Temple recommended men- note men, not women as they have to seek ther husband’s permission to enter and do not even know their secret name to do so- can reach the highest level of heaven and progress to become Gods themselves, will not go down well with the American electorate, who many for the first time will be made aware of the bizarre nature of the Mormon religion.

    Should Romney run. The answer lies above.

  • http://www.stevemitton.com Steve

    Here is the exact scripture from Doctrine and Covenants section 132:
    19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and beverlasting covenant, and it is csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s gBook of Life, that he shall commit no hmurder whereby to shed innocent iblood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever.
    20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be bgods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.
    21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my alaw ye cannot attain to this glory.

    I hope this lays this to rest.
    I am not certain what President Hinkley was trying to convey at the time, but in consequent interviews he has made it clear that we still believe and teach the doctrine.

    AND..we’re proud of it. We don’t seek to hide or dissemble.

  • http://hiveperfect.blogspot.com/ HiveRadical

    Taking some added thought on the question posed at the end of this article I would think a journalist should be ready to place the oddities in context with those held by every other faith. If you are going to say how peculiar it is to believe that a mortal human can become like God it may do to set it in perspective with the beliefs like an ark being set up with the ancestors of all present land dwelling life. Or with the belief that the sun stood still just for the convenience of an army. Or with the belief that an ass talked to his master about a threatening angel. Or with the belief that a God would set up some complex day to day regimine of cleaning and eating regulations only to go on to not care about such for the duration of history. Or with the belief in an immaterial being.

    If you lack any comparisons a book like Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation” is very much filled with items from a great many faiths that can be made to look odd, disturbing, wacked out, etc. etc.. I think that would be one of the best bets. If a journalist wants to take the route of the inspection of odd beliefs just have them do it all around. The most level kind of religious critique I’ve yet found outside of my own views comes from the likes of the militant secular humanist Sam Harris. Mind you I greatly disagree with the man’s views on a great many things. But if you want the media to address the “Mormon” question properly then they should either all around avoid doctrinal critiques OR level equal criticism to the religious persuasions, roots, cultures and anecdotal corolaries and oddities of all candidates running for the office in question.

    Again I’m a far cry from a secular humanist or atheist or agnostic myself but Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation” would give any religious critic wanabe reporter, who wished to give fair treatment across the board in terms of raw criticism of oddities in faith, a rather even base to start from. Now I don’t think any reporter close to the mainstream would dare ever taking my advice. That would allienate a grand portion of their audience and land them in a perpetual state of receiving public scorn and ridicule. But if fairness in criticism is what they seek, and the rage of the offended massess doesn’t sway their resolve, then they should approach the case as I’ve posited.

    I would never envy the state of a reporter that did such.

    But if you’re really looking to an answer as to how reporters should deal with the “Mormon” issue and do it with any incling of fairness then I believe I’ve given a very adequate and essentially correct answer.

  • Don Ormsby

    I find it amusing that so many comments suggest that Romney would be a fine president, EXCEPT, who could vote for someone with beliefs so obviously non-Christian. The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves! If history tells us anything about religion, it is that the views of the predominant religion are always labeled as “The only true belief.”

    Place a modern-day “Christian” in a time machine, send him back to the days of early Christianity, and see the looks of dismay! Before the early Hellenization of the faith, modern believers would be aghast at the tenents of the faith. Survival depended on alignment with the accepted philosophies of the day. This is the point today’s “Christians” will not come to grips with.

    Sure, you may say that the Bible defines the true doctrine of a Christian. Of course, there was no Bible for early Christians. And the question is, which Bible do you believe in? Here’s a news flash…the King James is not the only version of the Bible! There are “Christians” and there are “Bible Christians.” Some worship Christ, some worship a book.

    Come on, America. Bigotry doesn’t look good on you. Let’s just worry about whether our political leaders are trustworthy, honest, and loyal to American ideals. You could do far worse than a “Mormon” in office.

  • http://www.colinandbethany.com/phpBB2/index.php?c=6 Colin Jensen

    I do need to call your bluff on referencing “the insitute for religious research,” an overt anti-mormon group, as a source. They don’t do primary research–they market long disproven stereotypes. It’s a little akin to a group out to prove black people like watermelons in the name of science while actually just selling old racist paintings.

    That beind said, “eternal progression” is most definitely the doctrine of the LDS church, but, as many readers have mentioned earlier, the view of many other christians, when polled. The idea that, in 10,000 years, each of us will be better than we were when we died is just logic. The idea that we will be given greater responsiblities in accordance with those greater abilities is logic. God will always be our God, but surely by that point we will do things that those on earth(s) will not understand and therefore call us God over. There is no logic but to assume that our spiritual growing up will put us in positions as guardian angels, etc., and have (infinite access to) all that the Father hath. Should we call that “being” a God? I dunno.