Are Mormons Depressed or Not?

Right when the idea of Mormon depression (using Utah statistics) was a given, another study has been done that challenge that impression. According to a Gallup poll on U.S. state "happiness", Utah ranks the highest with 62.9 points. There were 350,000 interviews taken about job satisfaction to health issues. The poll was conducted by Gallup in conjunction with Healthways and America's Health Insurance Plans.

Lets not get carried away. There are some cautions that those using the depression poll need to be careful of before making assumptions. Since Mormonism will most likely come up, it needs to be remembered that Utah residents are not all Mormons and not all Mormons are active members. There is also a curious fact about the numbers, as reported:

The survey, which takes about 15 minutes, involved 42 core questions. Those taking the survey could get a score of up to 100. The actual difference between states wasn't great: The average score for the highest-ranking state, Utah, was 69.2 points, while the average for the lowest-ranking state, West Virginia, was 61.2 points.

In other words, Utah is neither more depressed or more happy than anyone else in the United States. That means that, in all likelihood, Mormons aren't any mentally worse off than other people. It is hard to see how this relates to the other study that found, according to an ABC News article on the subject:

According to MHA, some 10.14 percent of adults in Utah "experienced a depressive episode in the past year and 14.15 percent experienced serious psychological distress. ... Individuals in Utah reported having on average 3.27 poor mental health days in the past 30 days."

Both studies, like all studies of this nature, are probably flawed in their own ways. Reporters have an even worse tendency to conclude causation where nothing concrete exists. In the meantime, I am going to remain happy that it appears (if past "logic" holds) Mormons are at least as happy as everyone else.

Infestation of Mormon Leadership

When something unusual happens it can be considered a coincidence. When it happens more than once a trend might be starting. In this case, Mormons are getting elected to leadership positions by other religious groups. That isn't to say that they are called to ecclesiastical positions any more than Mormons would grant a non-baptized person the Bishopric. Just like in the business world, however, top spots for finance and organization have Mormons picked as the leaders.

In one fascinating case there is Mark Paredes hired by The Los Angeles office of the Zionist Organization of America as an executive director. The duties of the office include promoting the State of Israel and fighting anti-Semitism. In the Q & A, Paredes explained:

Jewish Journal: At least two people have held your position since late 2006. What will be your formula for turning ZOA around?

Mark Paredes: I plan to bring together Jews, both religious and secular, who are proud to be Zionists, who are willing to defend Israel and the Jewish people, who want Israel to negotiate peace only with partners who have already renounced terror and incitement and recognize Israel, and who believe that Jews have the right to live in the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. Belief in these principles transcends movements and the religious-secular divide, and it’s my job to organize events that will inspire our supporters and attract other defenders of Israel to the ZOA banner.

He doesn't leave any details as to how he is going to accomplish his goals, saying only he has "many weeks and months of hard work." It shouldn't take long to see if he is more successful than his predecessors. Recent leaders lasted only a few months. There is no available information in the article to determine why the others lasted such a short time. It is interesting that as a Mormon he was picked at all, although not extraordinary.

The second leadership position of interest is in Utah. Rev. Monsignor Terrence Fitzgerald, a friend of LDS Pres. Monson, has hired Mormon Brad Drake as executive director of Utah's Catholic Community Services. As reported in the Salt Lake Tribune:

"Our mission is not to proselytize or to make people Catholic, but to serve all those in need in any way we can," Fitzgerald said.

In addition to a good grasp of its mission, Drake brought something else to CCS: a lifetime of business experience capped by service in the nonprofit world.

He has "the ability and skills to manage a complex agency in difficult times," Fitzgerald said.

Why Mormons are getting picked in organizations controlled by other religions or if this is really a trend is hard to say. What this holds for future relationships is just as much a mystery. That this is happening during a time when Mormons are less liked than since the start of the 20th Century is heartening. At the least it represents discussions of "how wide the divide" should be scrapped for real working together.

The Mormonism and Evolution Debate

According to a recent Pew research poll about Evolution and Religion, Mormons are among the least likely to believe in Evolution as the best explanation for the origins of human life on Earth. Just like any poll, there are serious problems. How the question is asked doesn't leave much room for alternatives and the elusive nuances to the answers. The word "best" automatically contradicts core Mormon theology about human origins. It doesn't give the respondents a way to explain themselves. As a self-described "Theo-Evolutionist" I can think of other better explanations without denying the huge discoveries of the fossil record. Another problem pointed out was, "The dotted line puts the US population at 48%, yet only five groups, which make up perhaps a third of the US population, are shown below 48%. Some piece of the puzzle is missing." The "science" of poll taking has always been suspicious. Who is giving, who is responding, and how to interpret can be troubling no matter how careful the research. Mormons who are anti-Evolutionists do exist in large numbers, but that doesn't have to be and probably is shrinking.

Probably the biggest hurdle for Evolution is the position held by leadership of the LDS Church who are more likely to be negative. The LDS Church might have “no official” position on Evolution, but the more I study the issue the more ambiguous such a statement comes across. What does it mean to have “no official” position in the LDS Church? That isn’t to say I disagree with that fact, but it is a very slim non-position. It is true that there have been LDS leaders, like Pres. David O. McKay and Stephen L. Richards, who spoke positively in public. In General Conference where it does count theologically and officially, statements about Evolution have been overwhelmingly negative. That translates to members who believe what is spoken there is scripture into an official position; and rightly so for the significant value of General Conference talks. Only slight room for disagreement remains.

There is a reason anti-Evolution remains in Mormonism even if Creationism is seen as unattainable. Despite all the witnesses (evidence) to Evolution, many Mormons hold on to anti-Evolution positions because there isn’t anything to fill the void. The unsaid argument for Mormon Creationists is “if there is no position on Evolution, than what exactly are modern Prophets and Scriptures saying?” I have my own answers to that, but there has been little discussion on the theological implications. Keeping the questions of Evolution vs. The Creation on “a shelf to ask when I am dead” might be a good personal approach, but it will fail to convince other LDS members. And that means more than dismissing McConkie, Smith, Benson, et el. as wrong. It means the very difficult, but I believe possible, work of explaining how they are correct in their own message (such as explaining what they are really going against is the atheist use of the theory). Then, moving past that, explaining how Evolution fits into Mormon theology and Scriptures.

Religious Evolutionists must confront theological concerns to make any lasting headway. To simply say that science and religion ask and answer two different questions is the real “God in the gaps.” Exactly what questions do they ask and what kind of answers are to be found? Scientists should understand there has to be interpretive frameworks to make sense of desperate evidence. The “don’t take it literally” is still NOT an answer or even a discussion. There has to be interpretive discussion of even non-literal meanings. You don’t read a book if you can’t understand the words.

I have my own tentative theory of the relationship between Evolution and the Garden of Eden, the sticking point. Many questions remain such as the idea of pre-Adam-ites and no death before the fall. Still, it is better than leaving it alone or dismissing one or the other. Even Elder McConkie didn’t believe in the Young Earth theory. That is a starting point.

I believe Mormonism is a "literalist" religion. After all, there were angels, miracles, gold plates and visions that are at the center of its founding. Joseph Smith did more than talk about Biblical events, but proclaimed that he conversed with many of the participants - including Adam. There just isn’t room enough in Mormon doctrine (if you take its divine founding and founder seriously) to make the scriptural stories just metaphor or symbolic. Yet, there is plenty of room for a re-interpretation of the scriptural stories. Because Mormons believe in the Scriptures as spiritually inspired, but human produced, the written word isn’t set in perfection. Just as Mormon acted as editor and Joseph Smith made editorial changes to the Book of Mormon, other writers wrote from their prospective. That means that the Scriptures are malleable to both new revelations and new understandings. I think the idea that we have to believe all the stories as written or none of them is spiritually harmful. The Scriptures, like history, are multi-faceted and full of missing pieces or even hyperbole.

Joseph Smith said that by two contraries we come to the truth. When it comes to Evolution and the Creation that has been my guiding principle. Puzzles can be fun. Puzzles can be frustrating. Some can fall apart, but that doesn't mean we should not try to put them together and see if we can see a bigger picture.

The Mormon Nature of Symbols

Recently over at "Mormon Matters" there has been some discussion about Mormon usage of symbols, particularly about Jesus Christ. Most recently it has been about images of Christ and the lack of realism. This seems to tie into an earlier discussion about the lack of cross use by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have discussed the cross topic before and would like to add some thoughts on symbols in general.

From my other entry I said:

I believe, from my research, that the absents of a Cross is an "accident" of history. Not that I don't think there were deliberate reasons - as the LDS Church has been using other symbols since almost the start. The Angel Moroni seemed to have replaced the Cross as a symbol because it represented many of the key teachings of the Church. It carries the Book of Mormon in one hand and a trumpet in another. This represents Restoration of the Gospel, calling of the Elect, Resurrection and Judgment, and etc. The Cross did not get added to the plethora of other symbols available for iconography.

To continue, what is missing is a discussion on the nature of “symbols” in Mormonism. When a symbol is used, what symbol and what kind? Mormons might not use the cross out of historical accidents and might make excuses to keep from starting, but why? I think it has to do with the sacred nature of symbol in Mormonism that is seen in few religions.

How has the Mormon use of symbols started? More often then not any significant symbol is associated with the Temple. There are only two “official” symbols used by the Church that are not tied to the Temple in a direct way and that is the Sacrament and the CTR ring. The Sacrament has a very specific purpose used at a very specific time. It is an extension of our baptismal oaths and covenants. One could argue that makes it partly Temple related. As for the CTR ring, it really started more as a primary gimmick that seems to have slipped from official usage and became consumerist. Paintings commissioned or displayed by the Church are actually rather generic and serving the purpose mostly of garnishing. There are still very few chapels that have any art (symbols) of any kind displayed - not even in the way of Islamic geometric patterns.

The reason Mormonism has not “taken up the cross” is because it already has a symbol that the cross fills in for; and that would be the Temple. Pictures of the Temple in homes are often placed where other religions would put their own symbols. When a prophet says that the symbol of Christ should be our own lives rather than a cross, that means something more than a cute expression of examples to others. That is precisely what the Temple is commanding us to do as members. Not saying that is what the prophets mean by that, but who knows? I have come to the conclusion that crosses are not bad (I prefer and keep, but don’t actually wear, an Ankh), but they are superfluous for Mormon tradition. I might even go so far as to say that Mormons who have gone to the Temple should put it aside. There might be several reasons a Mormon wants to wear a cross, but the only ones I feel that have a legitimate reason are converts and out of friendly gestures.

What I am about to say will have to suffice so that I don't step over sacred boundaries. When a person goes to the Temple they take on themselves more than the name of Christ, but make promises that they will become symbolically Christ in their lives. The life, death, and resurrection narratives are now part of our own narratives. Ultimately, Mormon usage of symbols is more than for memorial, but for transformation. Nothing in Mormonism is more important in that transformation than Temples where salvation is solidified by symbolic actions. The one piece of physical symbol taken out is not even to be shown. It is for this reason that I feel the cross and any other "Christ symbol" will remain outside of Mormon religious culture. There is no official need. If it was ever to be included it would be for political purposes.

Reasons Mormons Stand Alone

There has been talk that 2008 was a bad year for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its image. To many it was a self-inflicted image because of the political stands it took and history. True as that may be, Mormonism has almost never had good press coverage or widespread respect. Perhaps the closet to a good reputation was during the era between 1950 and the first years of the 1960s when the forced Americanization of Mormonism coincided with wide spread U.S. patriotism and conservative spirit. That window of time was short lived and perhaps illusory. Radical social and political liberalization quickly took over. What remained was the LDS Church standing in the crosshairs of a culture war. It was left again where it started in the 18th Century. The conservative religious considered Mormonism a blasphemy and secularists an affront to human progress and logic.

The conservative antagonists to Mormonism are often religious theocrats who see anyone with different beliefs than themselves as doomed to eternal punishment. Christians are not alone in this view. To deviate from dogma is a worse sin than moral failings. Mormons are seen as the enemy because no matter how good a person is, the differences are too much for any respect. For many Christians, Mormonism's questioning of dogmatism and focus on works as an important aspect of spirituality is despicable. Faith in the correct beliefs are of the utmost importance. To believe anything more or less than exact dogma is to be evil.

Having a belief in Priesthood that governs and leads, rather than simply informs is another thorn in many Christian's sides. Similar to secularists, Protestants question authority and reject it except as a loose influence. Interesting enough, for years Catholics were kept out of the political process by Protestant gatekeepers for many of the same reasons. An overwhelming number of Catholics have forced a grudging respect on the Republican conservative Protestant base. It remains an uneasy reliance. Regardless of what chances Romney might have lost because of a dislike for Mormons, it is just as unlikely a Catholic could become a Republican U.S. Presidential contender. Nevertheless, the numbers and a respectable balance of traditional Christian dogma that Protestants inherited gives them an equal amount of room to ostracize Mormons.

Liberals are no less problematic for Mormons because they hold different metaphysical views about G-d and religion. Strict secularists hold even less similarities. Morals are seen as universals based on human relations rather than any set of doctrinal justifications. There is no right and wrong other than treating others with respect and social justices as they define the terms. Since there is no authority (other than a tolerant G-d by the liberal religious) then science and logic become the ultimate determiners of Truth. For the secularist liberal what cannot be proven in physical life must be rejected. Mormonism posits that truth and moral ism is more than what can be proved, but is centered on faith and Church authority. Often the only difference between the conservative religious criticisms of Mormonism and the secularists is tradition and a Holy book.

Strangely, since both conservative religious and Western liberalism both believe morals and authority are of secondary considerations, both view Mormonism as "cultic." It is an anti-papist sentiment shared by Christian and Secularist alike aimed at anyone who proclaims they have divine authority. This is exacerbated by the Mormon history of continual revelation, visions, miracles, new Scripture and Prophets. All of these have been rationally rejected as a sign of delusion. The religious say G-d no longer speaks words openly and the secularist that there never was a divine voice. To paraphrase one secularist, Mormonism doesn't allow for easy metaphorical re-interpretation. The foundational doctrinal history and Scriptures are too grounded in literalism. A culture built around the idea "G-d is dead" or at least silent is scandalized by one that continues to insist prophets exist that can declare "That He lives."

Books on Mormonism to Start the Year

A while ago I had written a review at Amazon.com about a book on Mormonism that I still find relevant. The book is by a non-Mormon who seems to get it right where others go wrong, even Jan Shipps who is more of an historian. Its price is the most problematic at $30 new and hard to find in any stores or libraries. The other book I am including is a great companion to the first and by a wonderful Mormon scholar. Neither of these are new, but are great reads for those who are interested in learning more about the religion.



An Introduction to Mormonism by Douglas J. Davies.

This is a wonderful book if you are into understanding the more difficult basics of LDS doctrine. Because of its complicated interpretive structure, I have a hard time calling it an introduction. He writes as a University Professor and it shows. Certainly it is the best book on the subject written by a non-Mormon, without clinging to esoterica and other people's misconceptions that usually hurt even the best books on the subject. Even the most celebrated non-Mormon authority Jan Shipps can be too skeptical and careless rather than understanding. This author, however, stays mostly with the authoritative works first, and the others second when needing clarification.

The touch tone of any treatment of Mormonism is how they approach the LDS Temple. I was very surprised and excited that the author rejected sensationalism and expose. He actually talked about the meaning behind the Temple and other related subjects. It is a far cry better than any other similar studies outside the LDS Church. I would recommend reading By the Hand of Mormon by Terryl L. Givens with this book. Both are a compliment to each other.

I would like to mention what I see as a weaknesses in his study. One of the reasons I recommended Givens is that Davies misunderstands the Book of Mormon. Perhaps that is going too far as he does have a pretty good sense of its general message. Rather, Davies doesn't understand the deeper teachings within the Book of Mormon, much less the anticipatory sections that touch on things that will show up later in the Doctrine and Covenants. He reads the Book of Mormon, sadly much like LDS members themselves, from a purely surface reading. That causes him to miss the many subtle and complicated issues it brings up, and dilutes the connections between it and later LDS Scripture. For instance, Davies doesn't sense the deeply ritualistic and priesthood oriented teachings of the Book of Mormon that continually shows up. Examples would be talking about the importance of mysteries, discussions on Melchezidek, mentioning of Priests and Teachers and Twelve Disciples, setting up Churches. Most importantly he misses the discussion of "turning the hearts of the children to the parents" in Third Nephi that Davies makes a big connection with ritual in other chapters of his study. There are other minor quibbles, but they are far less worrisome than what other authors even of the same caliber usually have.

The other book is by an author just mentioned. He doesn't delve into the deep waters of theological exegesis or complicated matters, but what he covers is a worthwhile overview. Again, the main concern is that the purchase prices is too high and a library copy should be sufficient.



The Latter-day Saint Experience in America by Terryl L. Givens.

There isn't as much to say about this book because it doesn't seek to explore any particular arguments. It starts out as a clear narrative of LDS history that covers some controversial events from the Mormon point of view. Yet, it doesn't act as a apologetic so much as clearly trying to present the Mormon understanding of themselves. The history sections alone would be informative to both Mormons and non-Mormons in ways that general writings of one or the other seem to come short.

The second section is more theological and covers the main beliefs. Again, there isn't any deep discussions and yet the information is full of enlightening insights. He sometimes explains misunderstandings that boarder on apologetic, but only when he feels outsiders have misinterpreted key doctrines. His harshest criticism is for those who perpetuate the idea that Mormons hold Christ's Salvation and Grace as of secondary importance. It is clear he holds orthodox beliefs about the LDS Church and its doctrines. That might turn off those who insist on holding their own ideas about Mormons in a negative light. For those honestly wanting to understand the religion, this book is a good start. It is succinct, leaning unbiased for most audiences, and covers a wide range of topics and controversies.

Have a Killers Christmas

Here is a small collection of seasonal songs from a band I discovered this year and really like.

The first song is from The Killers about Santa Clause when you are on the naughty list.

Then there is a song about presents and a sled:




A different kind of Christmas song from The Killers and Elton John.


Finally, "Tranquillize" just because it is such a cool song:



MERRY CHRISTMAS

Scriptural References to the Family Proclamation

Here are some scriptural references to "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" that I have gathered in study of the document. This is in no way comprehensive considering the possible inclusions and interpretations. I have tried to find the most relevant passages and avoid repetitions. The full text can be found by clicking on the post title.

. . . The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . .

Article of Faith (AofF) 6, Eph. 2:19-22

. . . marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God . . .

Mark 10:6-9

. . . image of God.

Gen. 1:27

. . . each has a divine nature and destiny.

Romans 8:15-17

. . . heir of eternal life.

Abraham 3:24-26

. . . families to be united eternally.

Malachi 4:5-6, Doc.& Cov. 110:16; 128:9-11; 132:19

. . . replenish the Earth remains in force.

Gen. 1:28, 1 Nephi 17:36

. . . lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Ex. 20:14, Heb. 13:4, Doc & Cov. 132:18-19

We affirm the sanctity of life . . . in God's eternal plan.

Ex. 20:13, Doc.&Cov. 42:18, Matt. 5:21-24

Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness . . .

Duet. 4:9-10, Doc.&Cov. 83:4-5, Prov. 22:6, 1 Tim. 5:8

. . . mothers and fathers - will be held accountable . . .

Mark 10:13-16, Doc.&Cov. 68:25-28

Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Gen. 2:24-25, Matt. 19:4-6, Doc.&Cov. 49:15-17; 130:1-2

Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved . . .

Psalms 127:3-5, 2 Nephi 2:22-25; 25:26

Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on the principles of faith, prayer . . .

Gal. 5:22-23, AofF 4, 13

. . . fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

Gen. 3:16-20, Prov. 29:15, Col. 3:21, Alma 56:47-48, 1 Tim. 3:4-5, 1 Peter 3:7, Eph. 5:22-33

Extended families should lend support . . .

John 19: 26-27, Doc.&Cov. 75:24

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity . . .

Jacob 2:28-29, Matt. 18:6,10

. . . disintegration of the family will bring . . . calamities foretold . . .

Doc.&Cov. 1:12-18, 2 Tim. 3:1-9

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere . . .

1 Tim 2:1-2, Doc.&Cov. 98:9-10; 134:1

. . . strengthen the family as the fundimental unit of society.

Abraham 1:2-3, Acts 17:28-29

If anyone has other scriptures that clarify and support the proclamation, of course add to the comments. This is the most important revelation since the granting of the Priesthood to all worthy males. It might even be of a class worthy of comparison to Joseph F. Smith's Doc.&Cov. 138 of Christ's visit to the spirits of the dead.

Boycott Mormon Utah . . . Please!

Now that Prop 8 has passed, those who are against it have started to show their true colors. With such radical protests aimed at the LDS Church, there is unintended consiquences that will help and not hurt Mormons. I hope they continue to attack Mormons (politically and not physically) because they are doing themselves some real harm in the long-run. As someone who is against "gay-marriage" that isn't a bad thing.

Probably the least effective is the boycott of Utah. I would hope that they go through with the boycott because it will help the conservative culture living there. What they plan on boycotting is not exactly liked by Mormons anyway. From an Associated Press article:

He is calling for skiers to choose any state but Utah and for Hollywood actors and directors to pull out of the Sundance Film Festival. Other bloggers and readers have responded to his call.

"There's a movement afoot and large donors are involved who are very interested in organizing a campaign, because I do not believe in frivolous boycotts," said Aravosis, who has helped organize boycotts against "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger's television show, Microsoft and Ford over gay rights issues.

"The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand," he said. "At this point, honestly, we're going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state."

Probably one of the best things to happen is if Hollywood actors and directors pull out of the Sundance Film Festival. It was instituted partly to antagonize the nearby conservative Mormon population. Seeing the festival go away or at least dramatically decrease would be a cultural sigh of relief. The secondary place that would be effected is Park City, another culturally isolated town. Conservative Mormons might think it is a nice place to visit, but they wouldn't want to buy a house. Salt Lake City is still considered Mormon, but that distinction is become less true. Large as it is, the City has continued to become distinct from the rest of the state. Only its size and history has kept it tied to the surrounding culture.

Calls to find other places to ski might be the most problematic, but even that is not going to destroy much of Utah economy. There are so many locals and fellow Mormons from other states that like to ski that a dramatic shift in visitors will be negligable. After all, not everyone is from California and not everyone who is not Mormon agrees with the "gay-marriage" protestors. The positives are that fewer "gay-marriage" supporters and Californians will visit, to the pleasure of the conservatives and many locals.

The most lasting economic campaign would be to boycott developing or moving businesses to Utah. A few places might get hit, but Salt Lake City would take the brunt of the actions. Not that conservative Mormons would mind much. It is the influx of so many non-Mormons because of big business that have brought Salt Lake City into conflict with the State's cultural majority. Gutting the economy of the capital city would go a long way to bringing it more in line politically.

Probably the most important development to all this protesting is a more positive acceptance by the conservative religious. They are starting to open their eyes to what is happening to Mormons, and starting to come to a defense:

Pastor Chris Clark of the East Claremont Baptist Church in California said, "Unfortunately, I know in the wake of the Prop. 8 passage, the Mormon Church has been targeted, unfairly so."

Clark says the coalition includes Roman Catholic bishops, Evangelical Christians and secular groups such as the National Organization for Marriage and the Liberty Council.

There are those who will hate Mormons no matter what, but that can change for some. At least two Catholic Bishops have expressed outrage at the treatment of Mormons. A few prominant Protestants involved with Prop 8 have also shown support and thankfulness. Even Mike Huckubee stated on Fox his belief that Mormons had every right to participate. Coming from him that is praise.

In the end the idea that this has been a PR disaster for the LDS Church depends on what you mean by disaster. Mormons have gained respect from the conservative community that they otherwise would not have had. Those they have angered never really liked Mormons and have now found an excuse to voice what they have only hinted at before. The more they yell, then the more sympathy will be generated toward those more disposed to conservative and traditional marriage. The U.S. membership might not go up, and in fact shrink because of the increased secularization of the nation, but the LDS Church gained influence in circles that were previously closed. The negatives for liberal leaning might seem huge, but the positives for conservative leaning is worth the fight.

Dealing With "Hidden" Mormonism

Mormons who say they have just "discovered" Mormon history and doctrine after years of membership just don't make any sense. Perhaps a couple decades ago that might have been a possibility, but even then not likely. Some say that the LDS Church hides its history and doctrines, but that is innacurate. At worst it chooses what it presents like any religion or organization seeking to have a voice. That doesn't mean things are hidden; just slanted or emphasized.

There are some approaches to LDS history and doctrine at Dave's Mormon Inquiry that absolutely represents my own faith and knowledge journey. He lists those as:

The "what's the rest of the story?" approach. Most accounts are either abbreviated, selective, or influenced by a writer's personal agenda. Before freaking out, do more reading from a variety of authors.

The "adjust my opinions and convictions" approach. Yes, new facts are a fine basis for updating your inherited stock of opinions about life and all that. What better way to expand your understanding of human nature and institutions than reading history? A scaled-down-to-reality sense of what human institutions, including the LDS Church, can actually achieve is one of the benefits of reading history.

The "I'm a little bit smarter now" approach. I'm puzzled at why so many people who first read up on LDS history (at 20 or 25) leap to the conclusion that they've been lied to all these years. Right, try teaching history to LDS teenagers. Or adults. In a world filled with books and websites, you can start learning all you want to know about LDS history the day you get interested. If you do, give yourself a pat on the back and keep reading.

Each of these I subscribe to in my own reading throughout the years. The polygamy issue has perhaps been the most problematic, but hardly missing. There were repsonses to the RLDS (now Community of Christ) that dealt specifically with Joseph Smith having plural wives. The Doctrine and Covenants still contains a section that directly relates to Joseph Smith's revelation on the subject, as critics continue to point out. I love the quote from Kirk Douglas at the same blog above:

"I grew up, went to college, but my Judaism stayed stuck in a 14-year-old boy's Hebrew school book. It has been pointed out to me that no rational adult would make a business decision based on what they knew when they were 14. You wouldn't decide who to marry based on what you knew about love and relationships when you were 14. But lots of us seem satisfied to dismiss religion based on what we learned at 14, and I was one of those that stupid."

That is exactly what happened to me with polygamy, to continue the example. I first learned of the practice and doctrine around the age of 13 from a non-member friend. I didn't believe it. However, when I did discover the truth during my readings of "orthodox" books I wasn't shocked. It was there in black and white. To this day hearing grown men and women say they just discovered the same information just doesn't make any sense to me. When I was a child I thought as a child, but I didn't have to grow up to find the information.

I must say that I am amused by the idea of "hidden" things. I knew a lot about those things before I went on my mission just from reading LDS Church produced material. Other readings were either different (mostly antagonistic) opinions on the same history and doctrines, or the filling in of details.

Maybe it has to do with the hunger effect. when a person is seriously malnourished it can kill them to eat a feast. From what I understand most who lose their faith over what they read all of a sudden discover all these "hidden" teachings and historical information. Those who have continually read the scriptures and other material starting out young stay strong, or lose the faith in a different way.

Another curiosity is that for all the "hidden" information, it is interesting that the bulk of the knowledge comes from LDS produced writings. For example, other than a few original newspaper sources, Brodie's "No Man Knows My History" mostly uses The Joseph Smith History and Journal of Discourses. Aside from that, much of what she talks about can be found in B.H. Robert's Comprehensive History of the Church from a different perspective. Now, if you go to blatant anti-LDS works, they are a compendium of quotes (badly edited and way out of context) from LDS sources. To paraphrase Scully from the X-Files, "the [information] is there. You just have to know where to look."

Here are my own "must read" books to read before going on a mission. Warning: these are not easy to digest in one sitting lesson manuals. It might take a year or more with one grouping. This list also contains some books that came out later that if existed before my mission I would have read:

The Book of Mormon, New Testament, Pearl of Great Price, selected Old Testament, and selected Doctrine and Covenants.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith

Discourses of Brigham Young, edited by John A. Widtsoe.

Jesus the Christ, by James E. Talmage.

Articles of Faith, by James E. Talmage.

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard L. Bushman.

Brigham Young: American Moses, by Leonard J. Arrington.

Answers to Gospel Questions: The Classic Collection in One Volume
by Joseph Fielding Smith.

Selections, particularly the prophets and well known persons and sermons, from Journal of Discourses, edited by George Watt.

Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by B.H. Roberts.

By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion, by Terryl L. Givens.

The Latter-day Saint Experience In America, by Terryl L. Givens.

Massacre at Mountain Meadows, by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, Glen M. Leonard.

Just about anything by Hugh Nibley (probably more of a personal taste). I admit he, more than any other author, shaped my approach to Mormonism.

Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales About Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, by Hugh Nibley and David J. Whittaker.

Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, by Hugh Nibley, edited by Don E. Norton.

An Approach to the Book of Mormon, by Hugh Nibley.

Mormonism and Early Christianity, by Hugh Nibley.

Why Mormon/Evangelical Dialogue is Problematic

The idea that Mormons can have a constructive dialogue with Evangelical Christians doesn't seem practical. Both hold so strongly to what they believe and are so serious about getting others to believe it that a bloodless catfight is the best that can be hoped. However, I think that Evangelical Christians must change ten times more than Mormons in order to have a real discussion. That isn't to say it is impossible, but it is improbable.

Probably the most important change that must take place is mutual respect. It is true that both consider the other as wrong, but there is an added problem that E.C. considers Mormons as contemptible. Despite a few instances where E.C. and Mormons get along, those most able to influence the wider population are spiteful. As one self described former E.C. Anti-Mormon put it:

People who support the counter-cult ministry would probably interject at this point that their intention has never been to culture that kind of behavior. I would reply that their intentions mean very little, it’s their results that matter, and I was one of their results whether they like it or not. I’ve heard the talk that goes on when evangelical anti-Mormons think Latter-day Saints aren’t in the room, the sneering and the condescension. You cannot spend major parts of your life thinking and preaching that the followers of a competing religion are deceived, blind and going to hell without looking down on them in some form, and condescension easily breeds hate and ridicule.

I do think that Mormon's should take to heart her comment:

For example, when one of the missionaries was explaining why I needed to be baptized in their church, I objected, “But I’ve already been baptized. Why should I do it again?” His flippant response: “You didn’t get baptized, you went swimming.” It did not sit well with me to have someone belittle what I considered sacred, but even more unsettling was the logic behind that statement. When all is said and done, the LDS church teaches that evangelical Christianity is inadequate, evangelicals do not have the Holy Spirit, and evangelical baptisms are worthless no matter how sincere the intentions behind them.

On the other hand, the E.C. needs to realize that, yes Mormons do believe differently than they do about authority and salvation. That is something that Mormons understand all too well or should if they don't. Many Catholics and Protestants are no different in this matter among each other. That is what defines religions, even very closely related faiths. The answer to that is breathing room by actual discussions about the very nature of authority and salvation. To attack is to stop the discussion dead.

It doesn't help that E.C.s constantly accuse Mormons of lying about their history and beliefs, while Mormons consider the E.C. criticisms lies. There is some truth in both perspectives. The problem is that with Mormons it is usually about either difference of opinion about what the history and beliefs mean or ignorance. With E.C. it is often conscious dismissives that come off as real lies. While some Mormons might ignore their own history or doctrine (and that isn't much different from many religious people and organizations), E.C.s often ignore what Mormons think. Again, from that excellent blog post:

I began to notice something about the evangelical counter-cult ministry which bothered me immensely: the evangelicals were not responding to the LDS fiskings of their arguments, they just kept peddling the same material as if it was the final word on the subject and no one had refuted it.

In order for a good dialogue to happen, ground rules of each side must be understood. That is where the breaking point is reached in even well intentioned discussions. That is the problem that Gerald R. McDermott had at First Things, even if he did better than others have. He made assumptions about Mormonism and it's Scriptures by superficial readings and lack of looking beyond his own pre-conceptions. As I have said in another of my posts:

The first and most damaging fallacies are the lack of contextual and definitional examinations. Some of the logical problems are based on lack of explaining related subjects that help to answer some of the questions posed. Other logical problems are based on assumptions held by the presenter that Mormons don't hold themselves. Both of these are very common anti-Mormon tactics. Probably the most hypocritical is when a detractor states (with some truth I might add) that Mormons use Protestant and Catholic words and notions, yet mean something different. Then, they turn around and criticize Mormonism from the definitions that Mormons don't hold as if the first statement didn't exist. A very switch and bait tactic that is employed with such ease . . .

The most important thing to remember is dropping the "to hate is to love" rhetoric. It is hard to reconcile the idea that there is some kind of love and honesty in your heart when the only words out of your mouth are negatives. Start by dropping the "cult" accusation if you really want to talk with a Mormon on equal terms. When "How Wide the Divide" came out, the loudest and most numerous responses from the "other half" was condemnation and blaspheme. The very act of even trying to talk with Mormons was a sin. What is interesting is that while Mormons are trying to cozy up to them, they are becoming less liked because they are becoming less likeable and are proud of that.

Also, as Bruce D. Porter said, "To the title Christian a critic of Mormonism may add any modifiers he deems appropriate—unorthodox, heretical, non-Nicene, different—but blanket assertions that we are not Christian are a poor substitute for informed argument and dialogue." You can say Mormons believe in a different concept of Jesus as Christ, but to say they believe in a different Jesus is not only offensive, it is illogical. He lived unless you believe he didn't. Mormons may not be considered fellow or orthodox Christians, but they are still Christians.

I would like to have a discussion with Evangelicals as they hold important similarities, but it starts with both sides letting down a few defensive positions. More than anything I would like to be understood on my own terms and expect E.C.s want to be as well. Perhaps it starts with accepting each other as humans first and Mormons and Evangelicals second.

Another Evangelical/Mormon Dialogue Blunder

Evangelicals just can't get their arguments past preconceptions and horrible mis-readings. It doesn't matter how sincere they are in trying to defend positions while trying to be fair. It is one reason I don't believe dialogue is possible. They don't want to listen and learn, just argue. Mormons have the same problem, but most are too busy trying to explain themselves to attack others. I find that Gerald R. McDermott starts out well, recognizing both that Mormons believe in Grace and critical Christians believe in Works. From most arguments I have seen, this is one of the triad reasoning that some contend the "non-Christian" status of Mormons. He then continues by using the other two standard bearers of the Trinity concept and extra-Biblical exclusion to make the case. The problem is that the arguments are full of so many misrepresentations I think it brings his exegesis and research abilities into question.

Mormons do not believe Jesus was always God

I am not sure exactly what this means. Even if taken at face value for his meaning, the whole paragraph comes off incoherent. A better case would be to say that Mormons believe Jesus was always Divine, but never more than the Son of God. He has never been considered by Mormons as God the Highest. It can't be said Jesus has never been considered God the Father, as there are some instances in the Book of Mormon that he was given that status. In fact, later on in his argument McDermott brings up that idea as a way to prove Mormon inconsistencies or at least theological developments of the Godhead. As usual, perhaps because of his evangelical background, he simplifies what is a complication in order to score points.

Again, he has a great start with, "It is indeed, for it purports to give us another history of what Jesus said and did—not one to replace the Jesus of the gospels but to supplement that record." However, like the quote above, he becomes incoherent in the argument trying to shoehorn what he believes in with what Mormons believe and comes out sounding ignorant. If he would have left off with that sentence and then simply stated, but other Christians don't believe in the Book of Mormon, then the argument would at least make sense. Instead he goes off where such an argument has been weak for at least the last 150 years (from the start if you count Catholics). Other Christians in the first-century, even if you call them heretical, kept other writings as Scripture that Protestants have dismissed.

His main thesis is that the Bible is a collection of witnesses where the Book of Mormon has only a witness of itself. That is all fine for a simplistic interpretation of history and Biblical textualism. The problem is it too quickly dismisses the lengthy scholarly questions of authorship and authentic testimonials. Strangely enough, it is the multiplicity of testimonials mixed with inconsistencies in the texts that put the Bible to question for some. His idea that "the testimonies we have to the Palestinian Jesus date from the same century as [the Bible] Jesus," is not universally accepted. Even if taken as true, there is a huge question of what part of that century. No matter how much the testimonies of the New Testament matters, there is still no original texts in existence.

Besides, the Book of Mormon is considered a testimony of the Bible and Jesus Christ. It is to be a "Fourth Gospel" rather than a separate textual entity. To create a separation where one doesn't exist is to reject the purpose of its existence to bolster (and not take over) the Biblical testimony. Even if it purports to be ancient, it is considered a "Modern" Scripture for a reason; to warn us today that the prophets and prophecy of yesterday are still of relevance. There are, of course, other purposes of the Book of Mormon. All of them have been ignored and rejected by the simplistic world view of McDermott who can't see past his limited preconceptions enough to make an argument reaching beyond his own self-congratulatory audience.

Third, there are inconsistencies between the Palestinian Jesus and the American Jesus. For example, while the American Jesus promises the land of America to the new Israel as a “new Jerusalem” (3 Nephi 20:22, Ether 13:3), the Palestinian Jesus speaks only of a kingdom of God that is open to people of every land. His promise to the meek is that “they shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). His apostles write that Jesus’ followers still seek a country (Heb. 11:14) and “should be the heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13). People will bring into the New Jerusalem “the glory and honor” not of a single nation but of all the “nations” (Rev. 21:26). So the Palestinian Jesus seems to think of the coming Kingdom as a worldwide phenomenon not limited to one geographical part of the earth, while the American Jesus is fixated on America.

I quote the whole paragraph above because those who honestly understand the Book of Mormon and Mormonism quickly recognize the lack of research it had to take to come to that conclusion. If anything, the Book of Mormon is rather universalist in its declarations of worldwide salvation and Kingdom building. One only has to read the First Book of Nephi to see the interplay between the American Continent and the world. Just like Jerusalem for the Bible, America is a center place where the gospel spreads to other lands. Many times the Book of Mormon hints at or right out says that there are promised lands all over the place for different people. The heavy use of Isaiah quotes are to teach how widespread and important having promised lands are to making the whole Earth a Kingdom in the final days. Although not directly related to what is said in the Book of Mormon, he ignores Joseph Smith saying the Kingdom of God will fill North and South America, and indeed the Whole World. All of this is ironic considering the current argument of many Evangelical Christians that America is a Christian nation in much the same way that Palestine is a Jewish land.

His "other discrepancies" are that Jesus in the Book of Mormon praises the faith of the twelve in the America's, but criticizes the faith of the Twelve he chose in Palestine. Also, that he didn't allow anyone in Palestine to remain alive (I disagree with his interpretation of John 21:23. I take it to mean that Jesus didn’t say if John would not die, but that it is none of your business to know if he will live), but does that with three American disciples. I don't find these a discrepancy as much as a difference in time and place. In other words, because Jesus might have said or did something different in one place than in another, that makes the Book of Mormon a discrepancy. He simply dismisses the idea that those in the Americas were more faithful and righteous than those in Palestine and therefore more worthy of greater blessings. That is a discrepancy from McDermott’s early assertion that Jesus taught the universality of the Kingdom of God. Ironically it begs the question of Jesus the Christ as an historical figure. The idea is basically if it didn't happen in the Bible then it didn't happen.

I am going to leave the rest of the criticism to Summa Theologica that covers exactly what Mormons believe about Jesus and God. The comment section is also worth reading. The article is well enough done and in-depth that anything I would write would be a poor substitute.

Jesus and the Mormon Concept of Grace

There is a topic over at "First Things" that discusses yet again if Mormons are Christian. Despite the fact that the discussion is old and never ending, I was impressed with Bruce D. Porter's response to the question. Normally I don't like long postings of articles that you can read somewhere else. Reading it one place is not going to change what was written originally. However, I liked this well enough to quote most of it:

Latter-day Saints revere the Bible as the word of God and the scriptural foundation of Christianity. We generally interpret it in quite literal terms, although allowing that some passages may use figurative, allegorical, or symbolic language. Our most criticized departure from mainstream Christianity is our acceptance of another work, the Book of Mormon, as the divinely revealed word of God. We regard it as holy writ: equal to the Bible in authority, a second witness of Christ’s divine mission, and a compilation of inspired writings that enlighten and clarify many biblical teachings. Latter-day Saints also count in the canon a slim two volumes of revelations and tenets revealed by Jesus to the prophet Joseph Smith: the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

A vital aspect of Latter-day Saint theology—and its most obvious difference from traditional Christianity—is the belief that Jesus Christ is an individual being, separate from God the Father in corporeality and substance. Mormons do not accept the phrase in the Nicene Creed that describes the Father and Son as being “of one substance,” nor do we accept subsequent creeds by ecumenical councils that sought to clarify the nature of the Trinity in language describing them as one indivisible spiritual being. The Book of Mormon refers in several passages to God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost as “one God,” but Latter-day Saints understand this to mean they are one in mind, purpose, will, and intention. Their unity is the same unity of which Christ spoke in his high-priestly prayer following the Last Supper: that his disciples may “be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21). Hence, Latter-day Saints rarely use the term Trinity, but prefer the title Godhead to refer to the three divine beings who govern our universe in perfect oneness.

Joseph Smith, whose first heavenly vision was of two personages, the Father and the Son, offered the following revelation regarding the members of the Godhead: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (D&C 130:22). Mormons believe that Adam and Eve prior to the Fall were created in the tangible image of God the Father, and that Christ when he came to earth was, as the apostle Paul wrote, “the express image” of the Father. We interpret this to mean that he appeared physically like the Father, not only that he exemplified the Father’s spiritual attributes.

God’s divine, embodied being is the center, not the limit of his power. We believe that a tangible glory or light “proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne . . . who is in the midst of all things” (D&C 88:11–13). By means of this spirit, God’s power and influence are present at every point of time and space.

We believe that, prior to his mortal life, Jesus was a divine personage of spirit who partook of the fullness of Godliness but was unembodied. At the moment of his resurrection he assumed an immortal, incorruptible, eternal, and glorified body like that of the Father. He thus became the “first fruits” of a universal resurrection that will eventually encompass the whole of humankind. Mormons believe in the literal resurrection of Christ’s physical body: As the savior declared to his disciples in the account of Luke, “a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:39). We believe that he will never lay down this body—or, in other words, that after his ascension he was not, nor ever will be, subsumed into a non-corporeal divine essence known as the Trinity. Rather, he is at the literal right hand of the Father, and the martyr Stephen saw two beings, not one, when he looked up and said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56).

We believe that Christ was the Creator of the earth, under the direction of the Father, and that even before the earth was formed he had been anointed individually to the sacred mission of serving as the redeemer of all God’s children on earth. As John writes, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him” (John 1:10). In a modern revelation found in the Doctrine and Covenants, Christ speaks of his pre-mortal divinity: “Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made” (D&C 38:1).

This verse introduces a Mormon doctrine not generally taught in Christianity—that Christ was the great I AM who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai and revealed himself to the prophets throughout the Old Testament. Latter-day Saints believe that from the time of the earth’s creation Jesus Christ was its anointed Lord, who under the direction of the Father acted as an intermediary between God and man. He revealed his Word and law to the prophets, whose sacred mission was to testify to him.
The words of those prophets were fulfilled with the birth of the messiah in Bethlehem as the only-begotten son of God the Father. Latter-day Saints affirm the reality of the virgin birth. We do not worship Mary, nor pray to her, but we revere her as the mother of our Lord, a woman blessed above all others. Our beliefs regarding the savior’s mortal life are based on a literal reading of the biblical texts. We believe he lived a perfect and utterly sinless life; that the accounts of his miracles, all of them, are literal; that he organized his Church and delegated authority to his apostles to administer it after his ascension. We believe that he suffered in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, that he died for the sins of mankind on the cross, and that he was resurrected on the third day.

Despite these beliefs, many critics of Mormonism charge that we do not believe in salvation by grace. Early in the Book of Mormon, a prophet named Lehi gives a lengthy discourse on the subject of Christ’s atonement that underscores the centrality of his grace in human salvation: “Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit” (2 Nephi 6–7). Then the prophet declares, “There is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah” (2 Nephi 2:5–8). Another Book of Mormon prophet, Amulek, explains Christ’s sacrifice as the means by which “mercy can satisfy the demands of justice,” and he sees mankind as irretrievably lost without it: “This is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal” (Alma 34:16).

Latter-day Saints regard a lengthy sermon by the prophet-king Benjamin to be among the most powerful discourses on Christ’s mission found in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 2-5). I can find hardly a word in it that I think any orthodox Catholic or Protestant would find objectionable, with the possible exception of his teaching that infants and little children are made innocent by the atonement of Christ (and therefore, as elaborated later in the Book of Mormon, do not require baptism). Many of King Benjamin’s statements are classically Christian in formulation. He emphasizes the nothingness of man before God, his fallen nature, and his dependence upon the grace of Christ for salvation: “And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent” (Mosiah 3:17).

Why, then, is there a perception among so many Christians of other faiths that Mormons do not believe in grace or in salvation through Christ? One reason may be that the moment Latter-day Saints cite the Book of Mormon as evidence of their Christian faith, animosity arises against the possibility that there could be any canon of Scripture beyond the Holy Bible. The issue then quickly descends into whether or not the Book of Mormon could possibly be an authentic ancient record. If attention were paid to the text itself rather than to theories of its authorship, we would at least have a dialogue focused what Mormons actually believe.

Another reason may be that critics sometimes take passages from the Book of Mormon out of context. There is also a common misperception that Latter-day Saints believe in salvation by works. It is true that, for example, many prophets in the Book of Mormon fervently admonish their people to repent and keep the commandments of God if they want to be saved. Taken out of context, they may appear to be claiming that salvation comes by works. But the prophets are saying simply what Christ said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” The Book of Mormon itself denounces speaks of “dead works” and proclaims “the deadness of the law” and it teaches plainly that only the blood of Christ can atone for sin. Mormons regard good works as a manifestation of faith in Christ, not as a way of earning salvation.

I think the next paragraph undermines the statement that Mormons don't believe works save. True enough in a philosophically sophisticated understanding of the interplay between Grace and Works in Mormonism. The problem is that works are vital to salvation, even if grace makes them of any value. I think that those who believe in Faith alone really don't believe that anyway, considering how often they argue for morality. If Faith because of grace is all you need then those who believe it should be amoral. To continue:

Nonetheless, salvation in our view is not obtained without effort on the part of the sinner. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Grace requires a price to be paid and that price is the heart of the sinner. We believe that an individual obtains salvation by receiving Christ as the redeemer and exercising faith in him. Receiving Christ entails turning to him: repenting with a broken heart and contrite spirit, and striving, however imperfectly, to do his will. We also believe that the ordinances of baptism by immersion and confirmation by the laying on hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost are essential to salvation. For us, baptism is the making of a covenant with God to remember Christ and do his will; it is the symbolic death of the sinner (his burial in water) and his rising to a new life in Christ (Rom. 6:4). The gift of the Holy Ghost gives followers of Christ guidance and strength to walk his path throughout life. Some theologies regard these ordinances as “works” and therefore unnecessary or even undesirable. We regard them as integral to God’s plan for our salvation.

The most riveting and crucial drama in human history took place in Jerusalem from the hours of Christ’s Passion in Gethsemane to his death by crucifixion at Calvary. One unique teaching of Mormonism regarding Christ’s atonement is that his suffering for human sin took place both in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Golgotha. We do not see his agony in Gethsemane as a preliminary struggle to accept the will of the Father that he sacrifice his life. Rather, we believe it was an integral part of his ransom for sin.

Sin has many consequences, but the universal penalty for all sin is the withdrawal in some measure from the sinner of the spirit of God, that light “which giveth life to all things” (D&C 88:13). No ordinary mortal could survive the withdrawal of God’s spirit in its entirety. But the messiah was able to endure in Gethsemane the total withdrawal of the Father’s Spirit by virtue of his singular status as the Son of the Almighty. In this manner he suffered vicariously for the sins of all humankind. King Benjamin prophesied: “behold blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and abominations of his people” (Mosiah 3:7).

Our emphasis on the significance of Gethsemane in no way diminishes the vital importance of his Christ’s suffering and death on the cross as a ransom for the sins of fallen humanity. The atonement began when Christ entered Gethsemane and said, “My soul is extremely sorrowful,” and it ended on the cross when he pronounced its fulfillment, “it is finished,” and voluntarily yielded his life. The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants teach plainly and repeatedly that Christ was crucified as a free-will offering for the sins of the world. Christ’s crucifixion was an offering of his flesh and blood for sin, an offering of his physical life, an offering of his whole being, all he could possibly give, as he “poured out his soul unto death” (Isa. 53:12). We believe that his suffering at Golgotha entailed not only the excruciating agony of crucifixion, but also, as at Gethsemane, a withdrawal of the Father’s Spirit that led Christ to cry out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

In our eschatology, Latter-day Saints believe that Christ will come again to the earth and that his second coming will take place, as prophesied by Zechariah and promised to his disciples, on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. He will come in glory and power and will reign personally on the earth during a millennial Sabbath of a thousand years. We also believe that at the end of the millennium a last judgment will take place and that Jesus Christ himself will stand as the judge of all mankind, each individual soul having to enter in by him: the door or gate to heaven. In the words of Jacob, brother of Nephi: “The keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name” (2 Nephi 9:41).

Are Mormons Christian? By self-definition and self-identity, unquestionably so. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms that it is a Christian-faith denomination, a body of believers who worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and who witness that salvation is possible only by his atoning blood and grace. By the simple dictionary definition of a Christian as one who believes in or worships Jesus Christ, the case is compelling. To the title Christian a critic of Mormonism may add any modifiers he deems appropriate—unorthodox, heretical, non-Nicene, different—but blanket assertions that we are not Christian are a poor substitute for informed argument and dialogue.

The next blog entry will critique Gerald R. McDermott's response. I found it myopic and ignorant; hardly better than a typical anti-Mormon screed. He probably would have done better to read Douglas Davies than the slim self-guidance readings of a few Mormon sources. Even the Book of Mormon is great, but not self contained as far as theological understanding.

Suggestions for "Ensign" Improvement

Readers of the LDS Church magazine Ensign are asked to take a survey for some feedback. Over the years I have enjoyed the magazine, but can see places where it could improve. After taking the time to respond in a short essay section I decided to expand my ideas. Not that I believe anyone from the magazine will listen to what I have to say among the many others who read and took the survey. Still, there is always that hope and a need to express my thoughts.

In the early 20th Century B. H. Roberts wrote a series of articles for a newspaper detailing the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Even today the collected Comprehensive Church History remains the best of its kind. More recently BYU has published regional studies about such places as New York State, Missouri, Illinois, the Western United States, and England. Taking both of these as templates, it would be great for the Ensign to do a 24-month series dedicated to an outline of important Church history events. Other articles about people and places could supplement the main narrative. Like the recent Mountain Meadows Massacre and some articles in the magazine's past, they can be written by professional writers and historians. It could go a long way toward educating the Saints about their own faith in a non-threatening venue; something some have said has been lack.

One of the most exciting developments has been classic writings and sermons reprinted. These have included Joseph Smith's Wentworth Letter and Wilford Woodruff's talk on the priesthood. It seems to have been dropped, but this should continue and expand beyond expected inclusions. Many sermons in the Journal of Discourses, devalued more than it needed, should be reintroduced to a new generation. There has also been important writings in old Utah newspapers and other places. These sources are rich in teachings and doctrines that remain valuable. There can be a focus on the prophets whose words still contain power and conviction.

It would be nice to hear from the more famous LDS Church members. The younger generation needs better role models and those who have achieved success and recognition are good starting points. Of course, those included would also be recognized as faithful members in good standing. Stephanie Meyer of "Twilight" fame wrote a touching article about helping strangers that got positive notice. Certainly there could be just as good stories from former Gov. Romney and Nevada Senator Reid. Gladys Knight, among other talented Mormon singers and songwriters, could talk about how music can touch the spirit. I have been impressed the few times I have heard former 49ers QB talk at a fireside, impressed with his testimony and hidden intelligence. Those of note don't even need to be recognized by anyone in the continental United States, although popular or well known in other places.

In theory the LDS Church is international, although still far short of getting called a World Religion. Short studies about different areas of the world with Saints living there have been highlighted. This needs to expand into including articles written by those same people living in diverse places. How wonderful it would be to hear from a mother in Kenya, A Relief Society president in Egypt, a Bishop in Tonga, or Sunday School teacher in England. An international focus must become an integral part of the magazine if it is to fully support the mission of the LDS Church and be more relevant to all its members. Mormonism has grown all over the globe, and the magazine should reflect that fact.