How often have I heard this an other defenses of the Mormon church!
"But I'm a good person/we're good people!" "But we have high standards."
"But we have good family values."
And I say...so what?
Being a good person or teaching high standards and being family focused are good things of course...but they do not make something true, nor do they provide a good excuse to keep following something untrue.
For instance, the argument that "we're good people."
First of all, not all people within a religion or worldview are good.
I've known two active Mormons who were unrepentant rapists. While some
religions may be better and some worse in things like this, there are
bad people in all religions and worldviews--whether their belief is
necessarily sincere or not is another question. I know that at least one
of those rapists sincerely believed in the Mormon religion. Second,
there are good people in the majority of religions and worldviews.
Mormon, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, Wiccan, and so
forth--it doesn't matter. There are good and bad people in pretty much
all of them.
Second, good is a relative term. If we're talking about good on the world's standards, sure, many Mormons are
good. Many people in general are good on that standard. But what about
God's standards? Are people good on God's standards? Let's consider
this. Have you lied? Lusted after someone not your spouse? Stolen? Used
God's or Jesus' name(s) as a cuss word (blasphemed)? Coveted? Disobeyed
your parents? If you're honest, you probably have to say yes to most of
these, and most of us would probably have to say yes to all of them.
This means that in God's eyes, you are not good.
Romans 3:12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone."
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Having
high standard is good, but does not prove a religion right or true. You
could say Muslims have high standards--but does that make it true? Does
it change that their violence and extreme sexism is wrong? Not at all.
Sometimes, high standards go overboard into legalism, and Mormons fall
into this category, creating guilt for those who fail to meet the
standards (even if they're a good person focused on God) and pride for
those who meet the standards (even if they're self-righteous pricks more
concerned about themselves than God). You can get good standards from
many different world views. Even atheists can have pretty high
standards--many are humanists.
Family values are also good, but again doesn't prove a religion right or true.
In fact, Mormons take family to the level of idolatry. Eternal family,
family values, and family focus are taken to such a high level of
teaching and focus that it is often put over God in their daily lives.
Family is is most certainly something people should focus on--a
Christian is certainly admonished to raise their children right. But it
should never be put above God.
So, when all is said and done...yes, maybe that's true. But does that make your religion right, or does it mean you should stay it in if its not right? Definitely not.
About Me
- ~Lee~
- I'm a Christian, married to a wonderful man, Steven, and mother to a wonderful little son. I have many interests and a few noteworthy journeys in life and I enjoy sharing them.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Jesus Didn't Follow the Word of Wisdom
Jesus drank alcohol. No, really. He did.
Some will say that the wine of that time was just grape juice, but that's not precisely true. First, I'm pretty sure they could tell the difference between fermented and non-fermented drink. They did not have refrigeration like we do, so drink would ferment fairly quickly if it was not drank right away. While its likely that they didn't always let it ferment as long as we sometimes do for wine now (e.g. a few years), there still would have often been at least a little fermentation, and therefore a little alcoholic content. We also know from the Bible that people did get drunk off of the wine, obviously an indication of alcoholic content.
Genesis 9:21
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Leviticus 10:9
Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
(Note this is not a prohibition against alcohol at all times, but specifically for going into the tabernacle.)
1 Samuel 1:14
And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee.
Proverbs 20:1
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
Luke 5:39
No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
(Older is more fermented and often better, as a connoisseur will tell you.)
There are also plenty of accounts of Jesus eating and drinking with sinners. In fact, his first miracle was to make good wine for a wedding!
Luke 5:30
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Luke 7:34
The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
John 2:10
And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. (After Jesus turned water to wine for his first miracle at a wedding feast.)
Now, the Bible most certainly speaks against drunkenness, and its easy to consider why when you hear of (and probably personally know) people who cheat only when drunk, or who harm themselves or others when drunk, who make stupid decision they wouldn't otherwise make, or who become addicted to it. None of those things are what a person of God should be doing with themselves.
But drinking not to get drunk? Well, yes, the Bible does allow for that, most certainly...it just said not to have excess, or too much.
Ephesians 5:18
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.
1 Timothy 3:8
In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.
Titus 2:3
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.
However, as Christians we must be conscious of when we drink and with whom, as well as how much.
Romans 14:21
It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.
Notice this verse does not prohibit drinking wine anymore than it prohibits eating meat or anything else--it just says not to do it if it will make someone else fall. So if you're with someone who is an alcoholic, current or recovered, It is probably not a good idea or good example to drink in front of them or especially to offer them a drink. A person like that should not be drinking because they do so sinfully. Does that mean we have to lie to them about the fact that we might be okay drinking occasionally? No, lying is a sin. But we should not tempt those who shouldn't drink or put a stumbling block in front of those who are uncomfortable with it, even if we explain to them why it is alright for some to drink.
The Word of Wisdom's complete ban on alcohol was a product of Joseph Smith's times, just like his ban on coffee and tea--and it was not even presented as commandment, but as a guideline. Its still phrased as a guideline, in fact, and interestingly it allows for wine for sacrament (communion). As we can see from all of the above, the Mormon idea that drinking is wrong for everyone all the time, period, is not Biblical at all. Jesus is the best example of that.
Some will say that the wine of that time was just grape juice, but that's not precisely true. First, I'm pretty sure they could tell the difference between fermented and non-fermented drink. They did not have refrigeration like we do, so drink would ferment fairly quickly if it was not drank right away. While its likely that they didn't always let it ferment as long as we sometimes do for wine now (e.g. a few years), there still would have often been at least a little fermentation, and therefore a little alcoholic content. We also know from the Bible that people did get drunk off of the wine, obviously an indication of alcoholic content.
Genesis 9:21
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Leviticus 10:9
Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
(Note this is not a prohibition against alcohol at all times, but specifically for going into the tabernacle.)
1 Samuel 1:14
And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee.
Proverbs 20:1
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
Luke 5:39
No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
(Older is more fermented and often better, as a connoisseur will tell you.)
There are also plenty of accounts of Jesus eating and drinking with sinners. In fact, his first miracle was to make good wine for a wedding!
Luke 5:30
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Luke 7:34
The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
John 2:10
And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. (After Jesus turned water to wine for his first miracle at a wedding feast.)
Now, the Bible most certainly speaks against drunkenness, and its easy to consider why when you hear of (and probably personally know) people who cheat only when drunk, or who harm themselves or others when drunk, who make stupid decision they wouldn't otherwise make, or who become addicted to it. None of those things are what a person of God should be doing with themselves.
But drinking not to get drunk? Well, yes, the Bible does allow for that, most certainly...it just said not to have excess, or too much.
Ephesians 5:18
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.
1 Timothy 3:8
In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.
Titus 2:3
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.
However, as Christians we must be conscious of when we drink and with whom, as well as how much.
Romans 14:21
It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.
Notice this verse does not prohibit drinking wine anymore than it prohibits eating meat or anything else--it just says not to do it if it will make someone else fall. So if you're with someone who is an alcoholic, current or recovered, It is probably not a good idea or good example to drink in front of them or especially to offer them a drink. A person like that should not be drinking because they do so sinfully. Does that mean we have to lie to them about the fact that we might be okay drinking occasionally? No, lying is a sin. But we should not tempt those who shouldn't drink or put a stumbling block in front of those who are uncomfortable with it, even if we explain to them why it is alright for some to drink.
The Word of Wisdom's complete ban on alcohol was a product of Joseph Smith's times, just like his ban on coffee and tea--and it was not even presented as commandment, but as a guideline. Its still phrased as a guideline, in fact, and interestingly it allows for wine for sacrament (communion). As we can see from all of the above, the Mormon idea that drinking is wrong for everyone all the time, period, is not Biblical at all. Jesus is the best example of that.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Living Waters University: Oscar the Mormon
I just had to share this one. I would have believed the same--any truly honest Mormon would agree with this young man. Yet it blows me away that I once believed it.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
The History They Don't Teach on Sundays
Mormons, how much do you know about church history? I’m sure
there’s a lot you can tell me about some of it—the First Vision, the
translation of the Book of Mormon, the names of some of the cities where
Mormonism was based in the first couple decades such as Kirtland and Nauvoo,
some of the persecutions they faced, the trip to Utah, and you’d probably end
with the Salt Lake Temple taking 40 years to build. If you’ve read up a bit and
have a good memory, you might even be able to tell me some dates and specifics.
Ye the average Mormon can give very little history from the
time the pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley on. And unless you’re a Mormon
apologist—perhaps not even then—the Mormon reader to whom this question is
directed probably aren’t an exception to this rule. Why is that, do you think?
Was it lack of interesting history or teachings? Even brief
research shows that it’s the exact opposite.
Was it lack of records? Hardly. There were scribes recording
faithfully, producing multi-volume collections of sermons (e.g. the Journal of
Discourses, referred to as the JoD) under the direction and approval of the leadership.
Plenty of people kept journals.
Was it the kind of teachings and history going on? Most
definitely.
Some of Brigham Young’s teachings, delivered from the pulpit
as from God and as good as scripture (JoD 13:264) have outright been denounced,
begging the question, who was right, and how can the wrong prophet be a true
prophet? Either Brigham Young was right and the later prophet(s) proved to be
false by denouncing God’s truths, or Brigham Young was false. Whichever was
false, it potential renders all subsequent prophets false as well.
So what are these things that are hidden and denounces? Let’s
look at a few. (Note: this is far from a complete list, not the least because
my studies on this time period are relatively limited as yet.)
Blood Atonement
Multiple times, Brigham Young taught blood atonement from
the pulpit. This is basically the idea that Jesus’ blood doesn’t’ cover all
sins, so we have to have our own blood spilled to cover the most serious transgressions.
Some have speculated that this is why Utah kept execution by firing squad long
after every other state had abandoned it.
“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and
put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would
atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once
do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love
so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it
with clean hands. … There is not a man or woman who violates the covenants made
with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The Blood of Christ
will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments
of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have
to atone for breaking their covenants.” (JoD 3:247)
“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot
receive forgiveness in this world, in that which is to come, and if they had their
eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have
their blood spilt upon the ground. … It is true that the blood of the Son of
God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can
commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in the ancient days, so it is
in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from the stand, still
the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same.” (JoD 4:53-54)
Adam-God
This strange and convoluted doctrine was denounced later on,
and it has been falsely denied that it was ever taught. Church published
documents (primarily the JoD, still sometimes sold at Deseret) contain the
doctrine.
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile,
Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came
into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He
helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the
Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father
and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the
earth, profession Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it
sooner or later.” (JoD 1:50)
“Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near
to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true.” (JoD
5:331)
Theocracy/Dictatorship
Brigham Young was the absolute authority in early Utah—he could
even tell the women how to wear their hair. He even called himself a dictator
in a few instances. His word was law, both in civil and religious matters.
 |
| Porter Rockwell, Brigham Young's bodyguard and a disreputable enforcer of Young's law. |
Racism/Teachings
on Blacks
Brigham Young strongly taught that darker skin color was due
to a curse from God for lesser righteousness. This is reflected in the Book of
Mormon when the Lamanites were cursed with darker skin because of their sinful
ways. Blacks were thought to have been less valiant in the pre-existence. This
doctrine did not change until the 1970’s, when social pressure and church expansion
outweighed the teachings of previous prophets and the ban was lifted, becoming
one of the declarations at the end of D&C.
“When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of
receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being
redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their
resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse
from Cain and his posterity.” (JoD 2:143)
“You see some classes of the human family that are black,
uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly
deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally
bestowed upon mankind. … How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse
that is upon them? That curse will remain upon t hem, and they never can hold the
Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received
the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof.”
(JoD 7:290-291)
“Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be
the servant of servants until the curse is removed. Can you destroy the decrees
of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are
going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They
cannot do that, though they may kill the by thousands and tens of thousands.”
(JoD 10:250)
Strange and False
Teachings
Here are some things that will make Mormons do a double
take. Mormons, before you read this, remember these are church published and approved sources that these quotes originally
came from. Like all the quotes above, these are from Brigham Young unless
otherwise noted.
“Does the earth conceive? It does, and it brings forth. … Where
did the earth come from? From its parent earths.” (JoD 6:36 Heber C. Kimball)
“…no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into
the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day
that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all
things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior,
as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are.”
(JoD 7:289)
“Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet
that shines of an evening, called the moon? …when you inquire about the
inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in
regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to
the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is.
Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in
vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other
planets; and so will this earth with it is celestialized.” (JoD 13:271)
Mountain Meadows
Massacre
September 11, 2001 is not the first massacre for religion in
America. On September 11, 1857, in southern Utah, approximately 120 unarmed
non-Mormon men, women and children were murdered in cold blood by Mormons and
Indians. This massacre of Americans by Americans was surpassed only by the
Oklahoma bombing in 1995. Only one man was convicted for this horrible act, and
went to his death declaring that Brigham Young had made him a scapegoat. There
is much indicating that Brigham Young at least knew of the impending attack on
the travelers, if not that he ordered it. See http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no98.htm
for more information.
As we can see, there are many practices and teachings from
this time that just plain don’t look good or sound good for the Mormon church.
While they cannot be done completely away with while non-Mormons have so much
reliable documentation on them, this time period is studiously untaught on
Sundays. Why? Well…you tell me.
The Polygamy of Joseph Smith
A little-known face
about Joseph Smith amongst the average Mormon is his polygamy. Glossing over
their marital unrest and the many terrible things Joseph put her through,
glowing reports of Emma's faithfulness, strength, and beauty are given, but
never are his relationships with over 30 other wives mentioned.
Some Mormons may
think that Smith's polygamy is even a lie, but historical evidence--grudgingly
admitted by the church historians, leaders, and apologists who are confronted
with it--is not lacking. Even the church-owned genealogy website,
familysearch.org, lists multiple wives.
http://familysearch.org/eng/search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=af/search_AF.asp&clear_form=true
Marriage(s)
|
|||||||
1 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
|||||||
2 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
|||||||
3 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
|||||||
4 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
1842
|
||||||
Nauvoo,
Hancock, Il
|
|||||||
5 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
Abt
11 1843 May
|
||||||
6 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
17
Jan 1842
|
||||||
Nauvoo,
Hancock, Il
|
|||||||
7 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
18
Jan 1827
|
||||||
South
Bainbridge, Chenango, Ny
|
|||||||
8 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
Sealed
19 1852 Jan
|
||||||
Salt
Lake City, Ut
|
|||||||
9 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
26
Jan 1846
|
||||||
10 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
27
Oct 1841
|
||||||
Nauvoo,
Hancock, Il
|
|||||||
11 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
3
Feb 1846
|
||||||
12 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
3
Feb 1846
|
||||||
13 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
May
1843
|
||||||
Smith's
Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il
|
|||||||
14 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
1
May 1843
|
||||||
Smith's
Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il
|
|||||||
15 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
12
Jun 1843
|
||||||
Nauvoo,
Illinois
|
|||||||
16 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
29
Jun 1842
|
||||||
Smith's
Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il
|
|||||||
17 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
27
Jul 1842
|
||||||
Nauvoo,
Hnck, Il
|
|||||||
18 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
Aug
1842
|
||||||
Smith's
Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il
|
|||||||
19 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
20
Sep 1843
|
||||||
Nauvoo,
Illinois
|
|||||||
20 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
2
Nov 1843
|
||||||
21 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
11
Dec 1841
|
||||||
Smith's
Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il
|
|||||||
22 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
|||||||
23 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
|||||||
24 Spouse:
|
|||||||
Marriage:
|
|||||||
As you can see, this list is incomplete--there aren't over 30 wives on this list. But, being on the Mormon website, it does show that it is not denied by the Mormon church that he had multiple wives...and a lot of them.
Smith's polygamy in and of itself might not bother some Mormons, as it was commanded and practiced by the church for a time, the command still being scripture in D&C 132. Some of the facts about his wives would bother many Mormons, though.
One is Joseph Smith consistent denial of polygamy, both publically and privately, even as he took wife after wife. In fact, his denial became scripture for a time--a section of D&C affirmed monogamy, and was later removed when D&C 132 was made scripture. D&C 132 wasn't even given until July of 1843--look at the dates for some of the marriages above. A lot of them happened before this revelation was given.
Joseph Smith also hid his many marriages from Emma, despite D&C 132: 61
"And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."
Since Joseph Smith did not obtain Emma's consent for most of his polygamous marriages, he was in adultery, according to his own revelation.
Then is the fact that about a third of his wives were already married to other men. Even if his other choices in wives could be justified, this obvious adultery cannot. One such wife above was Zina Huntington--she married Henry Jacobs in March 1841 and Joseph Smith in October of the same year. Her legal husband was still living and she still lived with him. Brigham Young later married her and had her live with him instead of her legal husband, sending her husband off on missions, and she eventually rejected her legal husband in favor of polygamy.
Another third of his wives were teenagers, the youngest being Helen Kimball, not quite 15 when she married the prophet under promises of exaltation for her whole family if she would do so. While marrying this young may not have been illegal or unusual, it was illegal and unusual for him to do so with eleven girls when he already had a healthy, living legal wife.
There is also the complete contradiction between different sets of Mormon scriptures on polygamy.
Jacob 2: 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
vs
D&C 132: 33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham. 34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar
to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law;
and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling,
among other things, the promises. 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
38 David also received many
wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also
many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this
time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they
received not of me.
Does this not seem a direct contradiction? In the Book of Mormon it is said that it was abominable for
David and Solomon to have many wives and concubines. In D&C 132
(which incidentally also threatens Emma if she doesn't let Joseph Smith
practice polygamy) it says that it was commanded and that those same men were not in sin!
The Bible supports the Book of Mormon, though. Although
polygamy was tolerated, it was never commanded (except in the case of
the marriage of a brother's wife if the brother died, which was not for
the purpose of polygamy or intimate enjoyment, but for children to
protect and preserve the woman and family). In almost every case of
polygamy we see (Abraham, David, Solomon) we see that polygamy does not
go so well. Yet these things are exactly what Joseph Smith turned around
and claimed to be God's revelation and command later!
Probably most overlooked is the parts in D&C 132 which
plainly state that polygamy is necessary--in fact, eternal polygamous
marriage, not just eternal monogamous marriage, was the new and
everlasting covenant.
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
64 And
again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who
holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my
priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and
administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God;
for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who
receive and abide in my law.
65 Therefore,
it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to
receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him,
because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my
word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the
law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I
commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
After all is said and done, this is what we end up with: Joseph Smith, claiming to be led by God,
- Lied to the public
- Lied to his wife
- Violated even the D&C 132 polygamy guidelines
- Opposed the Bible's teachings
- Opposed the Book of Mormon's teachings
- Broke civil law
- Committed adultery
- Caused women to commit adultery
- Led thousands astray to do the same, and still is, as can be see by Fundamentalist polygamy and unfortunate cases such that of Warren Jeffs
What is it the Bible says about false prophets?
"By their fruits you will know them."
Eternal Marriage?
One of the most compelling Mormon teachings is that of eternal family
and marriage. The idea of being with loved ones eternally is comforting
and compelling. But what did Jesus say about that?
Allow me to set the stage. In Jesus' day, the Saducees did not believe in resurrection--they're "sad, you see." So some of these men get together and decided to ask Jesus a question, to either get him to agree with them or trap him.
The question was based on a part of the Law that required a man to marry his brother's wife if his brother died without giving her children. As my understanding goes, this was not for the purpose of polygamy or the man's enjoyment of multiple wives, but to protect the widow and to carry on the brother's family name by giving her children in her first husband's name.
The Saducees set up a scenario in which this type of marriage was practiced, with multiple brothers marrying a woman as each one died without given her children. They then asked Jesus which brother would be married to her after death. They were likely hoping Jesus would answer in one of a few possible ways. Either he would agree with their beliefs that there was no resurrection so that none would get her, or he'd specify a brother and they'd start throwing scenarios at him to try to prove him wrong. I supposed Jesus could have also said that all the husbands would get her, which even Mormons don't teach, and Jesus would have been rejected for saying this ad scripture never tolerated polyandry, more or less condoned or commanded it.
Instead, Jesus stumped and surprised his questions and listeners. first, he asserted that there would be no marriage in heaven, but that people would be like angels. What specifically he had in mind about angels I'm not sure, but no matter what it was, I doubt he meant that couples will be reproducing spirit children for their own planets. In fact, there is no indication anywhere that I know of that angels reproduce at all, and that being one of the main reasons for marriage in this life, it seems this function--and the covenant that makes is sacred--won't be necessary after death.
Second, he trumped the Saducees by pointing out that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that he is not the God of the dead--the logical conclusion being that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive and therefore resurrected. Not only did Jesus answer the question that he was asked, he also answered the implied question.
Let's now think about this from the Mormon perspective.
First, this story is in more than one Gospel and found in early manuscripts, making it a reliable text, so we can't claim that this part was just put in by men looking to make their own doctrine. Eternal marriage is the more pleasant teaching, so it would be less likely for them to have chosen no marriage in heaven as a doctrine to add in later, anyways. The apostle Paul's own singleness and teachings support that eternal marriage was not required by Jesus.
We can also not say that Jesus and the Saducees weren't talking about faithful Jews, either, as the Jews in this scenario were fulfilling a requirement in the Law. There was no talk of worthiness or lack thereof. A Mormon can't assume, therefore, that this applies only to those who don't make it to the Celestial Kingdom.
That limits the conclusion to exactly what Jesus intended--after death, the resurrected faithful will not be married as they are in this life. He doesn't say anything about whether we recognize or love our spouse still in heaven--I personally believe we do--he just says that marriage as we know it will end.
This means that eternal temple marriage--which incidentally was NOT practiced in the Old Testament temple--marriage for eternity, and producing spirit children are not actually either requirements or part of God's eternal plan for us.
I would also submit that focusing on marriage and family so much idolizes it and puts it above God. If being together forever with family is the main goal, then being together forever with God is not. Even a good thing can become an idol when it is put above God.
I love my husband dearly. Just seeing him come through the front door, or getting a quick kiss before one or the other of us leaves for work or whatever else we might be parting ways to do, makes me happier than any other things of this world has or could make me. But that will be absolutely eclipsed by living in the presence of God after death. I fully expect to still know and love my husband there, but our mutual focus will be on God, not each other. Many of the purposes of earthly marriage will be unnecessary at that time, anyways. Does that make me a little sad sometimes to think that I won't share the same exact relationship, or a better version if it, with my husband after death? I'd be lying if I said no. But I only feel that way because I cannot fathom the joy and love that will exist at that time.
Allow me to set the stage. In Jesus' day, the Saducees did not believe in resurrection--they're "sad, you see." So some of these men get together and decided to ask Jesus a question, to either get him to agree with them or trap him.
The question was based on a part of the Law that required a man to marry his brother's wife if his brother died without giving her children. As my understanding goes, this was not for the purpose of polygamy or the man's enjoyment of multiple wives, but to protect the widow and to carry on the brother's family name by giving her children in her first husband's name.
The Saducees set up a scenario in which this type of marriage was practiced, with multiple brothers marrying a woman as each one died without given her children. They then asked Jesus which brother would be married to her after death. They were likely hoping Jesus would answer in one of a few possible ways. Either he would agree with their beliefs that there was no resurrection so that none would get her, or he'd specify a brother and they'd start throwing scenarios at him to try to prove him wrong. I supposed Jesus could have also said that all the husbands would get her, which even Mormons don't teach, and Jesus would have been rejected for saying this ad scripture never tolerated polyandry, more or less condoned or commanded it.
Instead, Jesus stumped and surprised his questions and listeners. first, he asserted that there would be no marriage in heaven, but that people would be like angels. What specifically he had in mind about angels I'm not sure, but no matter what it was, I doubt he meant that couples will be reproducing spirit children for their own planets. In fact, there is no indication anywhere that I know of that angels reproduce at all, and that being one of the main reasons for marriage in this life, it seems this function--and the covenant that makes is sacred--won't be necessary after death.
Second, he trumped the Saducees by pointing out that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that he is not the God of the dead--the logical conclusion being that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive and therefore resurrected. Not only did Jesus answer the question that he was asked, he also answered the implied question.
Let's now think about this from the Mormon perspective.
First, this story is in more than one Gospel and found in early manuscripts, making it a reliable text, so we can't claim that this part was just put in by men looking to make their own doctrine. Eternal marriage is the more pleasant teaching, so it would be less likely for them to have chosen no marriage in heaven as a doctrine to add in later, anyways. The apostle Paul's own singleness and teachings support that eternal marriage was not required by Jesus.
We can also not say that Jesus and the Saducees weren't talking about faithful Jews, either, as the Jews in this scenario were fulfilling a requirement in the Law. There was no talk of worthiness or lack thereof. A Mormon can't assume, therefore, that this applies only to those who don't make it to the Celestial Kingdom.
That limits the conclusion to exactly what Jesus intended--after death, the resurrected faithful will not be married as they are in this life. He doesn't say anything about whether we recognize or love our spouse still in heaven--I personally believe we do--he just says that marriage as we know it will end.
This means that eternal temple marriage--which incidentally was NOT practiced in the Old Testament temple--marriage for eternity, and producing spirit children are not actually either requirements or part of God's eternal plan for us.
I would also submit that focusing on marriage and family so much idolizes it and puts it above God. If being together forever with family is the main goal, then being together forever with God is not. Even a good thing can become an idol when it is put above God.
I love my husband dearly. Just seeing him come through the front door, or getting a quick kiss before one or the other of us leaves for work or whatever else we might be parting ways to do, makes me happier than any other things of this world has or could make me. But that will be absolutely eclipsed by living in the presence of God after death. I fully expect to still know and love my husband there, but our mutual focus will be on God, not each other. Many of the purposes of earthly marriage will be unnecessary at that time, anyways. Does that make me a little sad sometimes to think that I won't share the same exact relationship, or a better version if it, with my husband after death? I'd be lying if I said no. But I only feel that way because I cannot fathom the joy and love that will exist at that time.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Modesty
I have issues with the Mormon ideas about and attitude towards modesty. I don't have issues with modesty itself, mind you. If I have a daughter, I certainly don't want her dressing like a hooker. But I don't want her to feel as if she's a slut if she wears a bikini to the beach like many other women, either.
Modesty is a societal construct. If humanity was without sin, as it was before the fall, we'd all be naked. It wasn't until after they sinned that Adam and Eve felt shame for their nakedness, because sin had already begun to pervert sexuality and identity as male and female. The idea that God is offended by our bodies is ludicrous.
Societies also change. What was immodest a century ago would certainly not be immodest now. Even Mormon standards of modesty have changed, as evidenced in the garments no longer looking like long johns. In "The Miracle of Forgiveness," I remember reading Kimball vilify women wearing shorts because showing her legs gave men temptation. Now plenty of Mormon women show off their calves.
Different societies have different standards of modesty. There are many cultures today, usually in warmer climes, where women expose far more of themselves than is acceptable in America, and it is not wrong or wanton or inappropriate or anything else. There will always be perverts who see every bit of exposed sin as sexual, but if we were to always worry about that, we'd still be dressing like Victorian ladies.
Part of my problem with Mormon modesty is that, because they are so behind societal standards, what is not sexual in society is sexual amongst Mormons. A girl in a bikini, exposing forbidden parts, becomes a sexual object, even if it is subconscious, yet society finds a woman in a bikini on the beach in summer perfectly natural. Men who would see her sexually would probably do so were she in jeans and a T shirt too, unless they are seeing her that way because she is being immodest in their eyes and therefore making herself a sexual object. This also means that a father or brother who have views on modesty that make socially acceptable dress sexual may see their own sisters and daughters as wearing something sexual and as making herself a sexual object, which can be terribly uncomfortable for both parties for whom that was never the intention or desire. If they saw her summer dress or bikini not as immodest but as socially normal, seeing a female family member dressed that way would not be a matter of dressing sexually anymore.
I also strongly believe that modesty goes beyond a certain cross-cultural standard, as the Mormons would seem to believe. First of all, there isn't really a cross-cultural standard. And secondly, someone can meet the standard and be completely immodest and immoral in other ways, while someone can fall below the mark and be modest. For instance, a girl who never shows cleavage, leg, tummy, or shoulders could be extremely unchaste, whereas a girl simply wearing comfortable socially acceptable summer clothing and wanting a tan can be very chaste.
I also believe there's a time and a place for things, mostly determined by the culture. For instance, I'd never wear short jean shorts to an interview for an office job or a bikini to church service. Both are inappropriate for those situations. But, neither of those things would be out of place on a beach. Similarly, I would probably not wear slacks and a button up shirt to a casual get-together with friends, but I'd wear it to a formal job interview.
There's plenty of things to take into account with modesty, and as I said before, I definitely support modesty. Some things to consider are culture, setting, and perhaps who one is with, if wearing something in particular will be a problem for a certain person even if it wouldn't normally be for that setting, although I would also say that we shouldn't be so overly sensitive to that as to create more problems with modesty (such as making cultural norms sexual) and therefore ultimately hindering instead of helping. I certainly don't want my daughters to dress like sluts and be treated as such or my sons think women who dress and act like prostitutes are good dating material. But I also don't want to make women wearing bikinis out to be such a bad thing and then have my husband be uncomfortable if he sees any daughters we might have in a bikini. I don't want any potential sons to see a girl in a summer dress out at a street fair one summer and se he as a sexual object because they think she's immodest when really she just wants to look cute and feel comfortable. I strongly believe that is just as bad as immodesty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)