I intended to publish some remarks on the comments section of the CNN webpage, but my verbosity got the better of me and my reply was too long. Thankfully I have another avenues in which I can express my thoughts. What follows are my thoughts as they were intended on being published on the CNN webpage, with minor changes in formatting.

–

I usually don’t comment on blogs or websites such as this, but I feel compelled to relate some of my thoughts regarding Ms. Erickson’s unfortunate remarks directed against Mormonism.

For full disclosure I am a faithful Latter-day Saint. I was born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and made a conscious commitment to my religion as a young teenager when I began to seriously investigate not only my faith but other religions. I recently returned from my LDS mission in New England, where happily most people are not as unpleasant towards my faith as Ms. Erickson is. I have participated in the ordinances of the temple repeatedly. I attend my Church services weekly. And I have extensively studied not only the history and doctrine of my faith from both Mormon and non-Mormon perspectives but also other religious traditions such as Judaism and Islam. I am a student at Brigham Young University and am majoring in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, with an emphasis in Hebrew and the Old Testament. I thought I would get all of this out of the way so that nobody wonders about my background.

First, despite her denial to the contrary, Ms. Erickson’s attitude towards Mormonism is thoroughly anti-Mormon. She is egregiously twisting many tenets of Mormon doctrine, most noticeably the Mormon doctrine of deification (which, incidentally, finds remarkable harmony with the early Christian doctrine of theosis) to suit her polemical agenda. Her description of the ordinances of the temple is not only disrespectful towards Mormons, who hold these ordinances in the highest sanctity, but also is saturated with lurid sensationalism that is only appropriate for yellow journalism or a trashy tabloid. As Professor Bushman noted in his response, Ms. Erickson has stripped the Mormon temple ceremony out of its sacred context and warped it into a frightful, but inaccurate, caricature.

Second, her citing of Ed Decker as an authority on Mormonism is quite astonishing. It is not an exaggeration to say that her citing Decker to explain Mormonism is just as misguided as going to a neo-Nazi to seek out reliable information on Judaism or a member of the KKK to get an objective portrayal of blacks. In fact, Ed Decker’s outrageous distortion of Mormonism is so repellent that nobody less than career anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry (certainly no friends of the Mormon Church) condemned Decker for his irresponsibility and unfounded, repugnant, and salacious attacks against the LDS Church. Decker has zero credibility, and his pseudo-scholarly miasmal book “The God Makers” has been debunked by Mormon apologists. For Ms. Erickson to rely on Decker as an authority on Mormonism is shocking, not to mention unfortunate, and betrays her anti-Mormon tendencies.

Third, Ms. Erickson’s disdain for other American religious minorities, particularly Muslims, is rank with bigotry.

Fourth, her continual spewing of words such as “cult”, “indoctrinate”, “dogma”, and characterizing Mormonism as “a complete lie” compromises her objectivity and her qualification to be a commentator on religious matters.

Someone else here has drawn attention to Dr. Hugh Nibley’s wonderful essay “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book (A Handbook for Beginners)”. Those curious to see whether Ms. Erickson’s denial of being an anti-Mormon is legitimate should compare her remarks here with what Dr. Nibley has written. You can read it online for free here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=973

Finally, may I express a word to the editors of CNN? Please be more selective with whom you decide to give airtime on your otherwise wonderful and informative website. Ms. Erickson, I am afraid, has no real contribution to the discussion of the relationship between religion and politics in our modern society. Her polemical ranting is below CNN’s standards of journalism.

The full text of this address can be found at FAIR LDS.

Matthew Roper (MS from Brigham Young University), is a resident scholar at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Dead_Men_Tell_No_Tales.html

It’s a long one (109 footnotes), but well worth the read, in my opinion. I think much of the material will be new for even those who are well-read in things Mormon. Much more so (in spades) for those who happily parade the standard “blood atonement” proof-texts from Journal of Discourses as devastating to Mormon claims that their prophets and apostles were divinely called and sanctioned.

This material is a very small part of some books I’m working on focusing on topics in Journal of Discourses. I have made my own detailed index on over a hundred topics (apologetic, Church-related, background, humor, etc.), which is much more detailed than the standard one published by BYU in 1959 (which listed only seven references for “blood atonement”).

Feedback is more than welcome . . .

Runtime:

47:51

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Important note: Members of FAIR take their temple covenants seriously. We consider the temple teachings to be sacred, and will not discuss their specifics in a public forum.

Here are the resources available from FAIR that I thought were most relevant:

• Penalties in the endowment
• Oath of vengeance
• Changes in Ceremony
• Ancient Temples
• Sacred/Secret

Feel free to leave a comment about anything else that might come up that is related to this chapter.

1. Why does the Mormon church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple built in Missouri in his generation (D&C 84:1-5)

This was not a prophecy, but a command from God to build the temple. There’s a difference. Jesus said people should repent; just because many didn’t doesn’t make Him a false messenger, simply a messenger that fallible people didn’t heed.

Learn more here: Independence temple to be built “in this generation”

Of course even the expanded article doesn’t consider all the possible solutions that can be made. So here is one of my personal speculations I would like to share:

I actually think it is easy (almost trivial) to prove that Section 84 is a commandment. The first publication of a selection of Joseph Smith’s revelations to the early Saints was called the Book of Commandments. The Saints would go to Joseph Smith to obtain a”commandment,” which was their preferred term even over “revelation” or “prophecy.” So each section, 84 included, was primarily a commandment. Hence we have the preface for Book of Commandments stating:

37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

So section 84 is a commandment by definition. The Saints were commanded to build a temple. A question is if it was just a commandment or it was both a commandment and a prophecy. Actually it turns out that this is a distinction without a difference, because if it is a prophecy, its fulfillment is conditioned by a sufficient number of moral agents choosing to obey the commandment and other moral agents choosing not to prevent compliance with the commandment. In other words, agency frequently trumps prophecy. Prophecy is often conditional, whether the condition has been made explicit or not. Prophecy inspires us to see what could be and does not necessarily tell us what has to be. There are exceptions to that rule, as I think God can use his agency to carry out of his promises, especially regarding salvation.

D&C 124:49, 51 makes it clear to me that the Lord withdrew his commandment to build a temple in Jackson county. He accepted “the will for the deed” when he accepted the Saints’ offering. The underlying purpose for building a temple in Jackson County has arguably already been fulfilled. That generation of Saints was not deprived of any temple blessings, they simply built temples elsewhere. I think that after the Saints learned they could not recover their land, the place for the temple became negotiable in the Lord’s eyes. Zion is wherever the Saints gather, sometimes the Saints move to Zion as a designated place and sometimes the place (Zion) moves with the Saints.

If there is any future in conjunction with the temple site in Jackson County, I hope we never put a building there. Why? Because I would rather view dedicated sites there and in Far West as outdoor temples. After all temples are built (at least in part) to symbolize the Garden of Eden which in turn symbolizes heavenly/paradisaical realm(s) where God dwells or visits. I would rather see a Garden of Eden restored. Building a temple there just to more literally fulfill a prophecy would undercut the learning experience that we as a people gained about agency and the persistence of God and his covenant people finding ways to honor (or find a satisfactory substitution for) their promises even after setbacks make the original terms impossible. The atonement enables reconciliation, by allowing for substitutions to be made on our end of the covenant, so why not allow God the same privilege?

I don’t really expect anyone to agree with my take on things. If you asked me a year from now, I might not even have the same understanding. Nibley’s Christian Envy of the Temple  gives me pause as I think about the consequences of over-spiritualizing temple elements to compensate for a profound sense of loss. Maybe  it is actually a good thing the wiki doesn’t cover all possible speculations ! So I ask, what are some of your solutions to when critics raise charges of false prophecy?

The Mormon data in the study was gathered by taking a random sample (n = 7446) of adults (18+) in the US and Canada based on Church records. They mailed or phoned surveys with a 81% response rate, but 15% (included in the 81%) came from the person’s Bishop based on what he knew of the person aided by church membership records. Of the missing 19%, 4% refused to answer, 1% had died or had officially left the Church, and about 14% didn’t respond (the authors likened that category of people who are Mormons, but who don’t self identify as such. The self-identification problem is fairly typical in religious research, but scholars usually forge ahead after acknowledging the limitations. The divorce rates are calculated as number ever-divorced divided by the number ever-married. This percentage was compared to that found for Catholics and Protestants, using prior survey results over several years (this data not originally collected by Heaton and his co-author).

Let me quickly summarize the numbers for male and female divorce rates calculated this way:

Catholic: 19.8/23.1
Liberal Protestant: 24.4/30.8
Conservative Protestant: 27.7/30.9
Mormon (total): 14.3/18.8

Compare those numbers to the 1999 Barna Survey (used here) which calculated its percentage by ever-divorced divided by total number of adults. In this calculation the denominator is relatively larger than ever-married population denominator used in the study above.

Non-denominational 34%
Baptists: 29%
Mainline Protestants: 25%
Mormons: 24%
Catholics: 21%
Lutherans: 21%

As another baseline of comparison, Michael Quinn in Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power page 828 has an entry for 26 JAN 1942 which reads:

first counselor J. Reuben Clark tells reporter from Look magazine: “Our divorces are piling up.” Church Historian’s office in 1968 compiles divorce statistics since 1910 for temple marriages, “church civil” marriages, and “other civil” marriages. Although temple marriages have the lowest divorce rate, in 1910 there was one “temple divorce” (cancellation of sealing) for every 66 temple marriages performed that year, 1:41 in 1915, 1:34 in 1920, 1:27 in 1925, 1:30 in 1930, 1:23 in 1935, 1:27 in 1939, 1:17 in 1945, 1:31 in 1950. 1:30 in 1955, 1:19 in 1960 and 1965. Last rate for temple divorce is almost ten times higher than Utah’s civil divorce rate [a] century earlier.

Finally readers will interested in Tim Heaton’s remarks at the 2002 FAIR conference where he discussed studies that where then more up-to-date and estimated the active Mormon divorce rate using the governmental metric.

“Is there a rebuttal of the points made on the ‘how to prepare for a tour of the temple’ site anywhere? It would be interesting to read responses to it.”

Good question, Marc. I wasn’t able to find any single document that address this particular page on MRM’s site. However, there are responses to the criticisms that Bill McKeever, the article’s author, raises. I thought it might be interesting to examine the article and provide a few answers.

In looking at the article as a whole, it seems to me that Mr. McKeever’s approach of providing questions for readers to ask temple tour guides is rather unchristian. I can’t help but wonder if Mr. McKeever would take umbrage if someone provided disruptive questions to people preparing to tour a newly constructed Baptist church? Or, perhaps, a set of questions that were designed to call into question the beliefs of another sect of traditional Christianity, with the expectation that those questions be used in a public open house being conducted by that sect?

Nonetheless, let’s take a look at Mr. McKeever’s criticisms and questions. In the paragraphs that follow, excerpts from his article appear in red.

Purpose of Temples

Mr. McKeever indicates that those going on a tour during a temple open house will be shown a video about the purpose of temples, both ancient and modern. He finds fault with such a presentation, however:

The problem with this comparison is that it is not reasonably close to the truth. Both the tabernacle and the Jerusalem temple were used primarily for animal sacrifice. When given the opportunity, you might ask your tour guide why the film draws a parallel between Mormon temples and the Jerusalem temple when animal sacrifice plays no role in modern LDS temples.

The answer, of course, is very simple, and is easily found in the Book of Mormon where Christ indicates that the need for animal sacrifice is done away with (3 Nephi 9:19). We no longer practice animal sacrifice because the Lord has told us we don’t need to.

What Mr. McKeever unfortunately fails to grasp is the similarities in the purpose of the temples. Both ancient and modern temples are designed to create a “sacred space” and to bring the devout closer to God. Temples are built at God’s command by all those who seek to do His will.

Angel Moroni

Mr. McKeever indicates that a tour guide may tell people about the Angel Moroni, as depicted in a statue that appears atop most Mormon temples. He indicates that Moroni was an angelic visitor who appeared to Joseph Smith and provided instruction to him. But Mr. McKeever indicates there is some confusion and discontinuity in Joseph’s story:

What may be overlooked is the fact that Smith was not always consistent when naming this angel. In relating this story in 1838, he claimed that the angel called himself Nephi, who was a completely different character in the Book of Mormon narrative. When the opportunity is available, you may wish to ask your guide why the 1851 Pearl of Great Price (p.41) and volume 3:753 of the Mormon periodical Times and Seasons (April 15, 1842) says it was Nephi, not Moroni, who appeared to Smith. It would be difficult to attribute the latter rendering to a “clerical error” given the fact that Smith was the editor of the Times and Seasons at the time his testimony was published.

Perhaps Mr. McKeever should tell his readers that this question–Nephi or Moroni–has been asked and answered for generations. The answer doesn’t need to come from an open-house guide, but can be conveniently found online. (One such resource is here.)

Temple Worthiness

After a very brief explanation of what is required to enter a temple, Mr. McKeever comments on how odd such requirements are:

What makes the concept of temple worthiness so unusual is that people in Bible times did not go to the temple because they were “worthy.” They went because they knew they were unworthy. Israelites saw the temple as a place where they could offer sacrifice on behalf of their sins. They realized all too well that they were unworthy sinners who needed God’s forgiveness. Based on this concept of worthiness, you might want to remind your guide about the story Jesus told in Luke 18:10ff. Here Jesus speaks of two men, a Pharisee and a tax collector, who entered the temple to pray. In Jesus’ story, which of the two men more fits the example of the Mormon?

This characterization and question strike me as just plain mean. Mr. McKeever apparently feels that the Mormon is more like the Pharisee in Luke 18:10-14, who was obviously caught up in unrighteous pride. With no justification to do so, Mr. McKeever suggests that his readers join him in the role of judge and condemn the Mormons because they feel one needs to meet minimal standards of worthiness to approach God in the temple.

Perhaps Mr. McKeever can explain why, even in Jesus’ time, only those who were viewed as partakers of the covenant (the Jews) could approach the temple for any purpose. Could Samaritans? Could non-Jews? Apparently there were standards–biblical standards–on who could enter and who could not.

Baptism for the Dead

After a lengthy discussion on what baptism for the dead is and why it can’t possibly be biblical in nature, Mr. McKeever provides the question that he hopes his readers will ask while on their tour:

You may wish to ask your guide why modern LDS temples have a replica of the molten sea when no such edifice was ever used in the New Testament. If the Mormon temple ceremony is really a restoration of things done anciently, why is this?

Here Mr. McKeever’s conflates the ceremony (baptism for the dead) with the place in which the ceremony is performed (the “molten sea”). If God had commanded that such ceremonies be done in a different place or in a different manner, would Mr. McKeever be more accepting of it?

The fact of the matter is, there is scholarly evidence to indicate that baptism for the dead was done during New Testament times, even without the “molten sea” to which he refers.

Washing and Anointing Rooms

Mr. McKeever talks briefly about locker rooms (for changing clothes) and the washing and anointing rooms:

These special cubicles are to ceremoniously wash and anoint temple patrons who are entering the temple for the first time. These special cubicles are used for the washing and anointing ceremony, a vital part of the personal endowment. When going through this part of the ritual, temple patrons wear only a piece of fabric covering called a “shield.” A temple worker then ceremoniously “washes” and blesses the patron, making reference to various parts of their body. Prayer is offered on behalf of the patron, and the ritual is repeated with the anointing of olive oil. Perhaps you can ask your tour guide why you were not shown the washing and anointing rooms.

It is interesting that earlier in his article Mr. McKeever mentions that in ancient times, people came to the temple with the attitude that “they were unworthy sinners who needed God’s forgiveness.” Yet he misses completely the purpose of washing and anointing–because modern Mormons realize, just as the ancients did, that we are all sinners and need to be cleaned (washed and anointed) before we can enter the presence of God. In addition, washing and anointing was done anciently (see Exodus 29-30). Why does Mr. McKeever accept the practice of the ancients in seeking ritualistic cleanliness, yet not accept the modern counterpart?

As to why people aren’t shown the washing and anointing rooms, perhaps it is purely for logistical purposes. Most of these rooms are small (about five feet square) and are not conducive to being viewed on a public tour.

Temple Garments

Mr. McKeever talks briefly about the temple garment, and then provides a quote from Spencer Kimball about the garment:

Twelfth President Spencer Kimball taught, “I am sure one could go to extreme in worshiping the cloth of which the garment is made, but one could also go to the other extreme. Though generally I think our protection is a mental, spiritual, moral one, yet I am convinced that there could be and undoubtedly have been many cases where there has been, through faith, an actual physical protection, so we must not minimize that possibility” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.539).

Forgiving for a moment that Spencer Kimball made this statement in 1948 and wasn’t made president of the Church until 1973, Mr. McKeever then provides the question for his readers to ask:

You may wish to inquire of your tour guide why Mormons seem just as vulnerable to death in car accidents, etc, as those who do not wear this special piece of clothing.

Did Mr. McKeever miss the answer in the quote he just provided from Spencer Kimball? He stated that “our protection is a mental, spiritual, moral one.” The garments are not intended to primarily offer physical protection, yet this is the question that Mr. McKeever wants folks to ask.

Elder Kimball does state that “there could be and undoubtedly have been” instances where the garment has offered physical protection. Note that such protection, if it exists, is secondary and it only comes “through faith.” The faith isn’t in the “cloth of which the garment is made.” The faith is in Jesus Christ and God. The Bible contains numerous examples of people who have been the beneficiaries of divine protection through faith in Jesus Christ and God. Mormons believe that such protection through faith–even by miraculous means–is still possible today.

You might also ask where in the Bible Christians are told to expect protection from a piece of clothing.

Mr. McKeever knows the answer to this–nowhere. And, Mormons don’t expect protection from a piece of clothing. We expect (as Elder Kimball states) mental, spiritual, and moral protection based upon our faith in God and our faithfulness in keeping divine covenants with Him. The garment doesn’t offer that protection; the garment acts as a reminder of our covenant and nothing more.

New Name

The article goes on to discuss “new names” given in the temple:

Another unique aspect of the Mormon temple ritual is the special name given to each patron. A couple of men’s names are selected and given out alternately throughout each day. The same is true for the women. Normally they are names found in either the Bible or Book of Mormon. Historically, Mormon leaders have taught that the husband has the ability to call his wife from the grave on the resurrection day by using this special name. According to Charles Penrose, who later became a First Counselor to President Heber J. Grant: “In the resurrection, they stand side by side and hold dominion together. Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof” (Mormon Doctrine Plain and Simple, 1888, p.51). You might wish to ask your tour guide what happens to the wife should the husband forget her temple name.

This seems, to me, to be plain divisive, if not derisive. “New names” are not discussed in temple open-house tours, and yet Mr. McKeever gives barely enough information about a topic he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want the reader to understand to make such practices seem weird and strange.

Yet, “new names” are openly discussed in the Bible. (See Isaiah 62:2, Revelation 2:17, and Revelation 3:12.) Would Mr. McKeever like to talk about his new name, perhaps what his is or when he expects to receive it? After all, the Bible promises that the faithful should receive such. (A good article relative to Revelation 2:17 can be found here at the Millennial Star blog.)

Endowment Room

Mr. McKeever discusses a bit about the endowment ritual and focuses on the “secret handshakes and passwords” that he insists are necessary according to the words of Brigham Young:

“Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.416).

He then provides the question that readers may want to ask:

You may wish to ask your tour guide to explain the use of these tokens and keywords. You might also ask your guide where in the Bible it teaches that entrance into heaven depends on secret handshakes or passwords. Isn’t faith in Christ enough?

Note that the question has to do with salvation–entrance into heaven–whereas President Young’s quote has to do with receiving exaltation. In Mormon theology, salvation and exaltation are two entirely different things, yet that distinction is never presented to the reader.

Sealing Room

Mr. McKeever gives a very short explanation of the importance of marriage to Mormons and why Mormons are sealed to each other (to create eternal families). He then suggests his first question:

You might offer your tour guide the following hypothetical situation: A man marries his first wife in the temple, but sadly, she later passes away. He remarries a second time in the temple and finds that he would much rather spend eternity with the second wife. In eternity to whom will he be sealed?

Hypothetical questions are so much fun. Hypothetically, doesn’t Mr. McKeever think that the Lord can answer such questions in eternity?

You might also ask why there is no biblical or historical evidence to support this belief.

Perhaps Mr. McKeever can explain the purpose of the sealing power given to Peter (Matthew 16:19) if not to bless the lives of God’s faithful children? Does that power to seal both in earth and heaven exist today and, if it does exist today, can it be used to seal couples together both on earth and in heaven?

More information on the Mormon concept of marriage can be found here.

Conclusion

It should be clear that the Mormon Church is very misleading when it draws a comparison between its temples and the biblical model. There is actually no comparison at all.

None at all? Mr. McKeever may wish this were the case, but it is not. He misleads his readers and does them a disservice with such conclusions.

Instead, much of what goes on in Mormon temples more closely resembles ceremonies common in Freemasonry. This would make perfect sense since Joseph Smith became a Mason on March 15, 1842 (History of the Church 4:550-551). Shortly after his initiation into Masonry, he instituted the Mormon temple endowment ceremony.

Such criticisms have been answered over and over again. There are numerous resources available online, such as here and here. (Pay particular attention, in the second link, to the extensive resources on this topic listed at the end of the article.)

Hopefully these thoughts and ideas will help answer Marc’s questions.

-Allen

As an example, consider the following from a page published by the Institute for Religious Research. (I’ve take the liberty of removing the scriptural references from this excerpt.)

The people described in the Book of Mormon operated multiple temples. This violates the dictates of the Old Testament Scriptures on two counts: First, God commanded Israel to build only one temple to reflect that fact that there is only one true God. Second, the one legitimate temple was to be built in Jerusalem (Zion), the location designated by God.

The folks are IRR aren’t alone, however. Similar criticisms have been made by James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries). Bill McKeever (Mormonism Research Ministry), in telling people how to prepare for a tour of the temple, that “the Jews recognized only the Jerusalem temple as being God-ordained.” Living Hope Ministries, in their video The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon, focuses on how Jews would never think of building a temple outside of Jerusalem.

Such an argument, however, demonstrates nothing but a lack of knowledge concerning the actual practices of ancient Jews. The fact is that ancient Jews did build temples outside of Jerusalem, and they built a lot of them. The Nephites were exiles from ancient Israelite culture, and would have continued the practices of temple building and worship that they were familiar with.

More detailed information concerning temples in the Book of Mormon can be found at the FAIR wiki. The following video, recently put together by Tyler Livingston, will also be informative on this subject.