Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[Doctor Steuss]

Don't get me started on BYU professors representing the Church... 

Still even as reported two classes devoted to the opinion of one professor is a far cry from entire ministries and even denominations devoted to opposing the "eeeeevil mermons"!

Dadof7,

I guess my ward is a bit different than yours. In my ward, we get a bunch of books every week to help us witness to other faiths. A few that I have are:

Protestantism: Shadow or Reality

Filling the Black Hole Within the Nicene Creed

The Grace Makers

The Baptist Cult

The Truth About Evangelicals

What Methodists Really Believe

To Martin Luther With Love

Catholicism and Other Cults

Next week we are having a GA come to our ward to speak to us about how Calvin was really a conscious fraud and treasure digger.

Edit: On a serious note, MorningStar has started a thread about the CK and husbands: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...entry1207977995

[Who Knows]

That wouls be Joseph Fielding McConkie, and considering the works of his that I have read, I would find it unlikely that he would teach such a thing.

Maybe I'm wrong on the professor. But I don't think I am. This was a number of years ago. Maybe DP has an idea?

[Stormin' Mormon]

I am glad that we both (apparently) agree that a man does have the power to prevent his wife from entering heaven. Or have I misread what you're saying here? I.e., he can issue a veto, but he himself will miss out on the CK?

Yes, exactly. A veto power that does absolutely nothing, has absolutley no power. And you know what. EVERYONE has that power. Heck, I even have that type of veto power over the U.S. Congress. I can veto any bill that they pass and it will have the same effect as the veto given by a man over his wife or a woman over her husband.

Sheesh.

This thread has been amusing/purile.

Mormon: I believe X

Countermo: No, you believe Y

Mormon: No, I believe X

Countermo: No, you believe Y. Let me prove it to you.

Mormon: No, I belive X

Countermo: No, let me tell you what you believe. I know more about it than you, and I can authoritatvley declare that you believe Y.

Mormon: No, I beleive X

Sheesh.

[Daniel Peterson]

And are quite seldom mentioned even there.  While I've attended meetings in various non-LDS churches devoted entirely to attacking my faith, I've never once attended a meeting in my own church that was devoted, even in substantial part, to attacking anybody else's.

FWIW, in the BOM class I took at BYU - 2 class periods were spent by the professor demonstrating how the Catholic church is the church of the devil spoken of in the BOM.

I can't remember who the professor was, but he was related to a GA - mckonkie maybe? (he had the same last name as the GA too).

With the obvious exception of myself, I wouldn't trust a BYU professor to speak authoritatively on doctrine as far as I can spit.

In my case, though, you can lay your fears aside. I've only been wrong twice. Neither involved doctrine. And both instances were many years ago.

[Who Knows]

With the obvious exception of myself, I wouldn't trust a BYU professor to speak authoritatively on doctrine as far as I can spit.

In my case, though, you can lay your fears aside. I've only been wrong twice. Neither involved doctrine. And both instances were many years ago.

But the religion professors are the professors who are supposed to be teaching the doctrine aren't they?

But I agree, I wouldn't trust them either.

[William the Conqueror]

With the obvious exception of myself, I wouldn't trust a BYU professor to speak authoritatively on doctrine as far as I can spit.

Does that go for Bill Hamblin also Daniel? On second thought can you spit far?

[Cowboy Ray]

Wow! You made quick work of those anti-mormon dragons Don Quixote.

Moderator: Please, please do [NOT] quote an entire post. Just pick out a sentence or two that is pertinent to your reply.

[MorningStar]

Hmmm ... I don't think he's being sloppy. He's just playing dumb to perpetuate the myth.

Moderator: Please, please do [NOT] quote an entire post. Just pick out a sentence or two that is pertinent to your reply.

[Daniel Peterson]

With the obvious exception of myself, I wouldn't trust a BYU professor to speak authoritatively on doctrine as far as I can spit.

Does that go for Bill Hamblin also Daniel?

I wouldn't trust Bill at all. And he'd be happy to say the same thing about me. That's what we advise our students.

On second thought can you spit far?

You don't want to find out. Treat me well.

[Beowulf]

Morningstar wrote:

Mr. S,

You're giving the impression that the Lord turns to the husband and asks, "What do you think, should I let her in?" That is not the case. The man has NO say in the matter.

This hypothetical scenario reminded me of a story my uncle once told me... He was at the gate of the SLC temple with his wife, and realized that he had forgotten his temple recommend. They would not let him in, but said "wait a moment". A member of the temple presidency came down. Then ignoring my uncle, turned to my aunt and asked "Is he worthy to enter the temple today?"

In other words, perhaps it will be the reverse at the Pearly Gates... "What do you think, Sister, should I let him in?"

Beowulf

[MorningStar]

Morningstar wrote:

Mr. S,

You're giving the impression that the Lord turns to the husband and asks, "What do you think, should I let her in?" That is not the case. The man has NO say in the matter.

This hypothetical scenario reminded me of a story my uncle once told me... He was at the gate of the SLC temple with his wife, and realized that he had forgotten his temple recommend. They would not let him in, but said "wait a moment". A member of the temple presidency came down. Then ignoring my uncle, turned to my aunt and asked "Is he worthy to enter the temple today?"

In other words, perhaps it will be the reverse at the Pearly Gates... "What do you think, Sister, should I let him in?"

Beowulf

That's a great story! Hmmmm ... Who knows how things will really be at the pearly gates? I've read that we will all have a personal interview with the Lord, but I don't know if He will interview us about each other. Although, during my last temple recommend interview, the SP asked if my husband treated me well. Is that church wide or is it just our stake?

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

You will not find anti-Baptist ministries among the Latter-day Saints. You will not find seminars on the evils of Calvinism. You will not find books entitled "Forty Years a Methodist Slave." You will not find testimonials along the lines of "Protestantism: Shadow or Reality."

Like I said as a whole there is. The LDS church does all that in one broad stroke, and I guess you don't want to reply to the LDS approved books I have in my shelf that do indeed attack Christianity and other religions. True you will not find...."You will not find testimonials along the lines of "Protestantism: Shadow or Reality" but, you will just find the quote from the standard works that all believers of the protestant faith are corrupt, and their doctrines are a abomination before God. And find quotes in the Ensign like Satan sits in the place of God as head of the Christians churches, or a LDS Apostle and author in his book say Christian creeds are "valuless", or a founding apostle say only Mormons have authority, both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the "whore of babylon." Or another LDS apostle and author say the catholic Church founded by the devil and is "the mother of harlots." protestant church is the harlots daughter."

But heck Dan, thats not a attack, it's just what you (the church) teach and believe?

As I say, it's simply ridiculous to equate the Latter-day Saints' affirmation of their own belief with the repellent products of the evangelical countercult industry.

So it's OK to teach and believe to the LDS membership that all protestant churches teach false doctrine and that people who believe them are corrupt, but it's not OK for individuals to defend their doctrines from such teachings

The countercult industry is an ugly corruption on the body of evangelical Christianity, and I'm delighted to say that no such growth exists within Mormonism.

How should a Evangelical counter the LDS claim that their members are corrupt and what they teach and believe is a abomination, and they have no authority to act in Gods name and their baptisms and such are fruitless in the eyes of God?

Give me a example Dan?

See you in Utah, I'll be the one with a mustache, getting a cup of coffee at the little gas station by Reams in Springfield at around seven AM Sunday morning, come and say hi?

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Daniel Peterson]

You will not find anti-Baptist ministries among the Latter-day Saints. You will not find seminars on the evils of Calvinism. You will not find books entitled "Forty Years a Methodist Slave." You will not find testimonials along the lines of "Protestantism: Shadow or Reality."

Like I said as a whole there is.

Perhaps. But only in the sense that there isn't.

The LDS church does all that in one broad stroke, and I guess you don't want to reply to the LDS approved books I have in my shelf that do indeed attack Christianity and other religions.

None of those books is even remotely comparable, in either theme or approach, to The God Makers, Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, Behind the Mask of Mormonism, or any of literally hundreds of similar volumes churned out by evangelicals to attack my faith.

For a fascinating study of evangelical anti-Mormonism and related movements, I recommend Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness? An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Praeger, 2003). Rev. Dr. Cowan was introduced to the "countercult" movement when he served as a Protestant pastor in the Mormon town of Cardston, Alberta. He was, to put it mildly, unimpressed. Which was not surprising, since it's so deeply unimpressive.

True you will not  find...."You will not find testimonials along the lines of "Protestantism: Shadow or Reality" but, you will just find the quote from the standard works that all believers of the protestant faith are corrupt, and their doctrines are a abomination before God. And find quotes in the Ensign like Satan sits in the place of God as head of the Christians churches, or a LDS Apostle and author in his book say  Christian creeds are "valuless", or a founding apostle say only Mormons have authority, both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the "whore of babylon." Or another LDS apostle and author say the catholic Church founded by the devil and is "the mother of harlots." protestant church is the harlots daughter."

Are you really sure that you want to start citing nineteenth-century LDS polemical rhetoric as your justification for twentieth- and twenty-first-century Protestant anti-Mormon propaganda? Take a word of friendly advice: Don't go there. Because, if you do, you will then have to face the kind of rhetoric that your own nineteenth-century forebears directed against my people. The Mormons weren't speaking in a vacuum. They were responding to the largely Protestant mobs who had driven them from state to state, murdering their leaders, and which were often led by Protestant preachers whose rhetoric was at least the equal of Orson Pratt's worst moments, laced with references to "extermination" and quite willing to describe Mormons as subhuman. Do you really want to go there? You might, first, take a look at Terryl Givens's fascinating Oxford University Press study of (largely) nineteenth-century literary anti-Mormonism, Viper on the Hearth, in order to get some sense of your predecessors' rhetoric about Mormonism. And, once you're done with that, I'll show you worse.

But heck Dan, thats not a attack, it's just what you (the church) teach and believe?

You're surely aware that twenty-first-century Mormon rhetoric is quite different, with respect to other Christian denominations, from that of the nineteenth century. The harshness is gone. The times are different, mercifully. Our memory of your forebears' treatment of us is less acute. To a large extent, your fellow Protestants have muted their blood-curdling rhetorical excesses, too. Their overt anti-Catholicism has also mostly dissipated. That's largely because the times have changed. Political rhetoric in the United States is also less brutal than it was in the days of Jackson and Lincoln.

I'm happy that this is so. Although I understand the historical background (the drivings and the mobbings and the murders) that provoked them, I regret the angry and bitter things that were said, sometimes, by some Latter-day Saint leaders. But I will not permit you to get away with the falsehood that the tough oratory was one-sided. It was not. It was absolutely not. Don't quote to me those carefully culled extreme passages from the mid-nineteenth century and expect me to own them as my own unless you're willing to accept responsibility for what your fellow Protestants were saying (and doing) during the same period.

As I say, it's simply ridiculous to equate the Latter-day Saints' affirmation of their own belief with the repellent products of the evangelical countercult industry.

So it's OK to teach and believe to the LDS membership that all protestant churches teach false doctrine and that people who believe them are corrupt, but it's not OK for individuals to defend their doctrines from such teachings.

The truthfulness of the claims of my church necessarily entails the incorrectness of the claims of your faction of Christendom. In that rather minimal sense, conflict is inevitable. So, as far as I'm concerned, you're entirely justified in responding with equal and opposite force to every anti-evangelical DVD we produce and every anti-evangelical seminar we conduct and every anti-evangelical radio show we sponsor and every anti-evangelical picket line we organize.

If I write a book attacking the evangelical notion of God, by all means defend that notion. If I write a book alleging that the Southern Baptists are Satan-worshipers, you will be entirely justified in responding to my allegation. If I claim that your pastor is a liar, defend your pastor.

Don't hold your breath waiting for me to do any of these things.

Yet those things are done to my faith on a daily basis by evangelical anti-Mormons.

But the truthfulness of the claims of your faction would necessarily entail the incorrectness of the claims of my church, and we do none of that.

Incidentally, are you imagining that, when the First Vision says that the "professors" of the creeds are all "corrupt," it's alleging moral vice against you and your co-believers? I get the impression that maybe you do. If so, you're mistaken.

The countercult industry is an ugly corruption on the body of evangelical Christianity, and I'm delighted to say that no such growth exists within Mormonism.

How should a Evangelical counter the LDS claim that their members are corrupt and what they teach and believe is a abomination, and they have no authority to act in Gods name and their baptisms and such are fruitless in the eyes of God?

They should, if they're inclined, argue that their members are not corrupt, that what they teach and believe is correct, that they have authority to act in God's name, and that their baptisms are valid.

There is no real need -- certainly not in the twenty-first century -- for them to assert (via films, divinity school courses, websites, picket signs, pamphlets, seminars, books, CDs, lectures, television shows, radio broadcasts, newsletters, Sunday school classes, demonstrations, and the like) that my wife is a Satanist, that my children are going to hell, that my church should not be permitted to construct a temple in this or that neighborhood, that my beliefs are a crude joke, and that my leaders are liars.

"Let me state it clearly," said Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, back in November 2004. "We evangelicals have sinned against you. . . . We've often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of members of the LDS faith. . . .It's a terrible thing to bear false witness."

I know Richard Mouw. I liked and admired him even before he made that courageous statement, which I heard in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. What he said needs to be heard and heeded by the countercult industry.

The hatefulness of some portions of evangelical Protestantism has left a bad taste not only in my mouth but in the mouths of quite a few unbelievers out there. I genuinely regret this. I regret the damage that it does to the overall cause of Christ.

I hope and pray that, someday, the leaders of the evangelical countercult will repent.

[Calm]

The hatefulness of some portions of evangelical Protestantism has left a bad taste not only in my mouth but in the mouths of quite a few unbelievers out there.

I was just reading Harold Bloom's The American Religion. His chapter on Fundamentalism (he labels them "Know Nothings") is brutal due to their treatment of others (even while quite complimentary of their brothers the Moderates in the SBC). It is, unfortunately, not a unique point of view.

I have been rather surprised at how little I really know about EV beliefs considering the amount of religious posts I have read of them. There are EV posters who always do emphasize their own personal beliefs rather than attacking other, I only wish it was more.

[Mister Scratch]

Yes, exactly. A veto power that does absolutely nothing, has absolutley no power. And you know what. EVERYONE has that power. Heck, I even have that type of veto power over the U.S. Congress. I can veto any bill that they pass and it will have the same effect as the veto given by a man over his wife or a woman over her husband.

Seeing as how the "veto," as it were, would prevent both from entering the CK, I hardly think it is "powerless."

On something of a sidenote, there is something troubling undergirding the entire discussion here, which is what seems to be a general disregard for the marriage convenant. I.e., it seems as if many believe that the marriage oath somehow becomes irrelevant in the CK, as if, simply because a woman has been righteous and her husband hasn't, the marriage covenant can be evaporated on the spot. (I highly doubt this is the case, and if it is even a remote possibility, I would be interested in seeing authoritative text substantiating it.)

I would like to believe, in any case, that the phrase "for time and eternity" actually means something.

p.s. Morningstar---

I never meant to convey the idea that a man can "simply" exclude his wife; I think the whole process if far more complicated.

[Abulafia]

Havn't read all this thread, but just to add that religious persecution has been widespread. The protestants themselves emerged under the shadows of bitter persecution. In England the Catholics and Protestants were for a while on a roundabout of persectution depending on who was in power. Our priest holes in various houses still bear witness to the treatment of Catholic Priests.

Interesting also, that it was the Roman nation anciently that were probably responsible for the dissemination of Christian ideas, when they had historically been the christians largest persecutors.

Time moves on, things change, but the difficulty with the LDS church is that the attitude towards other faiths is enshrined in doctrine. From the foundation events of the first vision (and I actually prefer some of the non-canonical versions) onwards.

It's quite an issue I think in considering how the LDS church will push forward into mainstream (if it even wishes to do so).

[Jerubaal]

Yes, exactly.  A veto power that does absolutely nothing, has absolutley no power.  And you know what.  EVERYONE has that power.  Heck, I even have that type of veto power over the U.S. Congress.  I can veto any bill that they pass and it will have the same effect as the veto given by a man over his wife or a woman over her husband.

Seeing as how the "veto," as it were, would prevent both from entering the CK, I hardly think it is "powerless."

On something of a sidenote, there is something troubling undergirding the entire discussion here, which is what seems to be a general disregard for the marriage convenant. I.e., it seems as if many believe that the marriage oath somehow becomes irrelevant in the CK, as if, simply because a woman has been righteous and her husband hasn't, the marriage covenant can be evaporated on the spot. (I highly doubt this is the case, and if it is even a remote possibility, I would be interested in seeing authoritative text substantiating it.)

I would like to believe, in any case, that the phrase "for time and eternity" actually means something.

p.s. Morningstar---

I never meant to convey the idea that a man can "simply" exclude his wife; I think the whole process if far more complicated.

For authoritative texts just look for the countless statements from GAs saying that things will all be "worked out" in the next life.

And I don't feel that degrades the marriage covenant in any way whatsoever. No more than baptism for the dead degrades earthly baptisms.

[Daniel Peterson]

Time moves on, things change, but the difficulty with the LDS church is that the attitude towards other faiths is enshrined in doctrine.

A doctrine about other faiths is enshrined in our scriptures. Latter-day Saint attitudes toward other faiths exist in our hearts and minds -- and they are, by every significant measure that I can think of -- more generous and less intolerant than the attitudes of the evangelical countercult or of the leaders of such groups as the Southern Baptist Convention.

Meanwhile, the doctrine is not dramatically different from supersessionism, the fairly standard-issue teaching of all or virtually all Christians until the twentieth century (and probably of the majority still today) that Christianity is God's chosen religion, not Judaism, and that Christians, not Jews, are God's chosen people -- the Jews having been, to some degree or another, rejected and replaced. And, although much more gently expressed, it is not dramatically different from Protestant teaching about Catholicism up until these more ecumenical days (and still today among many evangelicals and fundamentalists).

Latter-day Saint teaching about other religious faiths in the nineteenth century was much more open and accommodating toward non-Christian religions than were the teachings of most contemporary Christians, and was, on the whole, no more harsh toward other Christians (and, arguably, considerably less so) than they were toward Mormonism and toward each other.

[juliann]

Time moves on, things change, but the difficulty with the LDS church is that the attitude towards other faiths is enshrined in doctrine.

Mormons probably have the most doctrinal positive "attitude" toward other religions than just about anyone. If you are talking about our belief that belonging to our church matters for salvation....then every religion has "difficulty".

It's quite an issue I think in considering how the LDS church will push forward into mainstream (if it even wishes to do so).

Bigotry may always reign, unfortunately. But mainstream religion is pushing towards Mormonism as fast as Mormonism is pushing back.

[cdowis]

Although, during my last temple recommend interview, the SP asked if my husband treated me well.

That is not a part of the temple recommend interview.

[Calm]

Seeing as how the "veto," as it were, would prevent both from entering the CK,

It would only prevent the one issuing the veto, not the partner so the veto itself is powerless, though the intent or feeling that created it is not and will prevent that individual who refuses to yield up the ungodly judgment from entering God's presence. Thankfully there is no effect on the innocent target of the ungodly feelings and actions except perhaps sorrow and grief for what might have been as that would be unjust and unmerciful and ungodly on God's part.

As for the marriage covenant, for LDS the covenant only continues to exist in eternity in the highest level of the CK. The covenant is not the bond that is made (the one unit that was two individuals), but rather those actions which sustain, maintain and expand that bond (that truly allows them to become one with each other and with God). Those who do not wish to enter into the highest exaltation will not continue in the marriage covenant because they refuse to engage in those particular sustaining behaviours, or at least in what the marriage covenant means to LDS (I can see a form of marriage/companionship continuing that is not what is understood to be eternal marriage by LDS). There will not be any unequal yoking in the next life, at least not after the Judgment. So in one sense you are right, the marriage bond between the man and woman does cease if one of the partners isn't righteous. However, that doesn't mean that the marriage oath is irrelevant in the CK, but rather that it is of such ultimate importance that without a true and eternal abiding of the covenant in action by an individual, the CK in essence will cease to exist for them.

The LDS marriage covenant is about more than just being companions to each other or even procreation. Individuals may pick and choose what parts they want to live as mortals, but it will be an all or nothing when it comes to the next life (as in the eternal marriage covenant is only valid if there is a total commitment). They may even have a relationship of some sort, even perhaps a covenant between the two if they are parallel in spiritual development, but it will not be the marriage covenant that LDS are talking about here which can only exist between equal and devout individuals. The disregard for the covenant is on the part of the spouse who refuses to abide by it eternally, not by God or a spouse who is still living it in full or as full as the other spouse has allowed her/him to do so. LDS have such a high regard for the marriage covenant that they will treat it with the proper respect and insist that all of it be regarded as having value, not just the easy or comfortable or fun parts.

The covenant is not evaporated on the spot, it ceased to exist for an individual as soon as they ceased to honour it by their lack of righteousness or rejection of the Spirit or whatever distances them from God. Most likely this occurred sometime in their mortal existence and it is a surprise to no one, least of all either of the couple, that it isn't in force when they reach the time for the final choice/judgment. It also continues through mortality and into eternity for any individual that continues to seek God and honour their own covenant even if their partner does not as the covenant is not only between the spouses but even more so between the individual and God.

[Mister Scratch]

The LDS marriage covenant is about more than just being companions to each other or even procreation. Individuals may pick and choose what parts they want to live as mortals, but it will be an all or nothing when it comes to the next life (as in the eternal marriage covenant is only valid if there is a total commitment). They may even have a relationship of some sort, even perhaps a covenant between the two if they are parallel in spiritual development, but it will not be the marriage covenant that LDS are talking about here which can only exist between equal and devout individuals. The disregard for the covenant is on the part of the spouse who refuses to abide by it eternally, not by God or a spouse who is still living it in full or as full as the other spouse has allowed her/him to do so. LDS have such a high regard for the marriage covenant that they will treat it with the proper respect and insist that all of it be regarded as having value, not just the easy or comfortable or fun parts.

Well put, Cal, and a wonderful reply.

I think it's important, however, to bear in mind the initial "myth" listed by Pahoran:

That wives need their husbands' permission to enter the CK.

And, while this is technically not true, I think we can all agree that wives are indeed dependent upon their husbands (in a way that does not apply vice versa) in order to enter the CK. I.e., it is the man who summons up the woman to pass beyond the veil between this world and the next, not vice versa. There is a certain order to things, and in this instance, the order is that the woman is dependent upon the man for entry into the CK. So, to a certain extent, the critics are correct.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think we can all agree that wives are indeed dependent upon their husbands (in a way that does not apply vice versa) in order to enter the CK. 

I can't agree to that.

Please register at least one dissent.

(I can't believe you're still pushing this.)

[Jerubaal]

And, while this is technically not true, I think we can all agree that wives are indeed dependent upon their husbands (in a way that does not apply vice versa) in order to enter the CK. I.e., it is the man who summons up the woman to pass beyond the veil between this world and the next, not vice versa.

How does that make the Husband non-dependent on a wife for exaltation?

[Calm]

There is a certain order to things, and in this instance, the order is that the woman is dependent upon the man for entry into the CK. So, to a certain extent, the critics are correct.

I don't agree. I don't believe we have the full knowledge of what is going to happen or even enough to describe it as you said.

I think much of the relationship may be imagery restricted to mortal life, not the eternal one.

Not all will be married who enter into the CK. Who will be the ones summoning the men?

We are talking about unlimited beings where there is apparently no inherent need to delegate beyond a desire to share in godly experience. We are talking about individuals--men and women---capable at that level at being one with God. Have they already entered into the relationship (it would seem that they have to a certain extent from various blessings and doctrines we have been given). If so, I'm not sure how "summoning" really works, especially if what we are talking about is a lifting of the veil (and what that means....) Exactly how this will play out is quite different then our current limited mortal understanding can portray, imo.