Archive for the ‘Authors’ Category

(A response to “Mormons! The Least You Should Know” by By Gregory J. Krieg)
by Fred W. Anson 

I’m not one to complain about so-called “media bias and manipulation”. After all, I live in a county where the natives regularly state that Fox News is ‘the only fair and balanced news source’ and I work in yet another county where Fox News is derisively mocked while they explain that only CNN and MSNBC can be trusted to tell the truth about “what’s really goin’ on!” So candidly, I tend to take all such claims with a grain of salt. However, recently I experienced what I can only describe as “media bias and manipulation” and found it both unsettling and infuriating.

Now first, please understand that unlike a lot of Evangelical Christians I have absolutely no problem with the fact that Mitt Romney is a Latter-day Saint. My stance has always been that, barring complicating factors, if someone is qualified for public office and can competently serve all their constituents fairly and justly then their religion really isn’t all that relevant. And as well known Mormon Studies Scholars Sandra Tanner and Bill McKeever (both residents of Utah and known critics of the LdS Church) have pointed out if it’s wrong for Christians to vote for Mormons then the Christians in Utah wouldn’t be able to vote at all because that’s all that’s on the ballots in their state.

So let’s table the politics shall we – this article ain’t about politics folks!

Now, if the media is reporting on a religion – be it mine, yours, or someone else’s – they should get their facts straight, agreed? And what if they’re publishing is presented as a fact/reality check, or a trustworthy primer on the religion for the public this is doubly true, agreed again?

And ABC News reporter Gregory J. Krieg seems to agree too, for in his May 25th  article entitled, “Mormons! The Least You Should Know” he boldly states, “Ignorance creates a vacuum and vacuums, especially in politics, abhor decency. So, in the interest of adding some factual bits to the nonsensical debates sure to follow, here is the least you should know about Mormonism.”  Wow! Awesome! Finally a reporter from mainstream media who “gets it!”

50 E North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah: The LdS Church Office Building

However, speaking as someone who is actively engaged in Mormon Studies, what followed was factual only if you’re willing to accept the “outsider” or “public” version of Mormonism espoused by the LdS Church’s public relations department and ignore what it actually teaches, practices, and believes.  As someone  said well in the comments section, ‘“I find it ironic that you title your article, ‘Mormons! The Least You Should Know,’ end the article with, a edict to do thorough research, yet fail to answer your own question correctly. Perhaps you did not follow your own advice and you believed the first source you checked. Regardless of what your first source was, it is in error at best and dishonest at worst.”   Those words echo my feelings on the article precisely!

Simply put this article, despite it’s noble purpose and grand claims, in the end appears to have been written by someone whose sole source was the LdS Church.  Now that wouldn’t be a bad thing were it not for Mormonism’s well documented practice of “Lying for the Lord”:

“Lying for the Lord refers to the practice of lying to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion, a practice which Mormonism itself fosters in various ways. From Joseph Smith’s denial of having more than one wife, to polygamous Mormon missionaries telling European investigators that reports about polygamy in Utah were lies put out by “anti-Mormons” and disgruntled ex-members, to Gordon B. Hinckley’s dishonest equivocation on national television over Mormon doctrine, Mormonism’s history seems replete with examples of lying. Common members see such examples as situations where lying is justified. For the Mormon, loyalty and the welfare of the church are more important than the principle of honesty, and plausible denials and deception by omission are warranted by an opportunity to have the Mormon organization seen in the best possible light. This is part of the larger package of things that lead many to describe Mormonism as a cult. “Lying for the lord” is part of Mormonism’s larger deceptive mainstreaming tactics, and conversion numbers would drastically lower if important Mormon beliefs were fully disclosed to investigators.”
(source http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord )

Given this dynamic it’s stunning that the author – or his editors for that matter – didn’t seem to find it necessary to cross check and verify the “facts” given to him by, it seems to me, the very institution that he was investigating.  And he seems to confirm this suspicion with a stock, “don’t believe everything you read on the Internet”  sweep of his journalist hand after directing his readers  to Mormon.org as a “user-friendly” website that can be trusted. This is telling  because those of us engaged in Mormon Studies and culture know that website is nothing more than a proselytizing tool for the Mormon Church that presents the public with a scrubbed and polished “for public consumption” version of Mormonism rather than a true, honest, and forthright view of the institution.

And while readily acknowledging that the Internet can be filled with misinformation this cavalier dismissal of opposing points of view by a implied “voice of reason” is especially troubling. That’s because there are some remarkably reliable and  objective Mormon Studies websites out there that just lay it out for all to see and let the pieces fall where they will.  For example,  please consider MormonThink.com – a website whose home page purpose statement speaks volumes:

“Mormonthink.com is a site produced largely by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are interested in the historical accuracy of our church and how it is being taught to its members and portrayed in the media.

We invite scholarly debate by critics, true-believers and anyone interested in Mormon history.

There is a lot of misinformation on the LDS church that is presented by both critics and defenders of the faith – particularly on the Internet. We present both sides fairly and let the reader decide.”
(source http://www.mormonthink.com/ bolding and underlining added for emphasis)

So knowledgeable members of the LdS Church know that their institution “lies for the Lord” – former members and Mormon Studies scholars know it too. Perhaps if Mr. Krieg had done a better job of vetting  (or if his editors had cross and fact checked his article before publishing it) he would have realized that he was being “played” by the LdS church.  Personally, I would preferred that he had reported on that rather than willingly or unknowingly playing the role of pawn publisher and “patsy” in regurgitating institutional propaganda via a known, established, and respected, mainstream media source like ABC News – it’s, frankly, a better, more interesting, and more honest story!

– Go to Part 2 –

by Martin Jacobs

Good news for those who are conflicted, and bad news for those who aren’t.
(But not in the way you might think)
Some time back, a friend of mine at church observed that I was quite internally conflicted. She was right, of course, but she seemed to think that I shouldn’t be.

[Author’s note: I had included some words here about a personal situation. Sitting in Church, I realized that they might cause some unnecessary aggravation, so I left, came home and removed them. Hopefully, I’m acting in line with Paul’s admonition below.] 

I have heard these sentiments before, particularly among the friends in my previous charismatic churches. I am writing about them because I feel that they might be well intentioned, but they are ultimately misguided. They are misguided because the idea behind them is not supported in the Bible.

The troubling aspect is not that my friends are concerned with my welfare. They are, and I am grateful.

The troubling aspect is the underlying idea. The underlying idea is that the Spirit-filled person would experience a kind of Zen-like internal calm (in polar contrast to my internal conflicts, for example). This is typically expressed in terms of stilling your mind until it becomes a millpond, so that the image of God can be reflected in you, or so that you can detect the slightest hints of the Spirit’s movements.

Sounds spiritual, doesn’t it?

Though these metaphors sound at home in a typical Christian greeting-card, bookmark or button, they have no equivalent in scripture. Indeed, the more I read the scriptures, the more I see them contending with this kind of thinking.

My concern is that sooner or later, the Christian who holds to the Zen ethic is going to have to decide whether they believe it’s true because it feels right, or because it’s supported in scripture. I can claim some experience in this regard. In short, I tried the former strategy, but it didn’t work, so now, God willing, I’m trying to head down the latter way.

This has led me to revise much of my earlier thinking, and this revising has yielded much internal conflict. If I had avoided the internal conflict, I would not have allowed the Word of God to shape my thinking. See how skewed things become if we evaluate them by how internally conflicted we feel about them?

So, lets take a look at what scripture actually says on the topic. The following is a brief survey, based on the kind of language used by the Zen promoters in Christian circles.

Be still and know that I am God (Psalm 46:10, KJV)
Incidentally, it’s the title of one of my favorite choruses.

Consider what it actually says. The NASB renders “be still” as “cease striving”, but the Hebrew simply states “cease”, “drop” or “abandon” (הרפו / harpu, see http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Psalms+46).

The translators did not miss the boat here, because the meaning of the Hebrew word for “cease” comes out of its context; the Psalmist observes the restlessness of the heathen, and the turmoil of life, and points the believer to the sure refuge of God. As we all know, a castle on a hill cannot be moved (unlike, say, a tent), so, according to the Psalm, what we need to do for our security is to stay in it. The heathen, by contrast, were always trying this or trying that, running around restlessly looking for safe ground.

The metaphors and typology of the Psalm are exquisite, and the message is profound; you will find refuge and our rest in God, so don’t try to find it somewhere else. He, not our internal state of mind, is the fixed point, the rock on which we stand. So, be still and know that (however you might feel about it, or whatever your internal experience of it might be) the God of Jacob is your refuge.

The still, small voice of God (1 Kings 19:12, KJV )
The story goes that, after defeating the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel, Elijah runs away and hides in a cave. Elijah, evidently, is your quintessential anti-hero. God comes to Elijah and asks him what’s going on. Elijah, despite the overwhelming vindication of God at Carmel, is depressed because he thinks he’s the only one of his generation who sees God. God needs to teach him something.

First, God sent a wind, but God was not in the wind.

Then God sent an earthquake, but God was not in the earthquake.

Then God sent a fire, but God was not in the fire.

Then came a still, small voice, and Elijah was ashamed because God had spoken to him.

It’s a beautiful story and it tells us that God does indeed speak to us.

What I find remarkable is that after hearing the still small voice, Elijah expresses exactly the same anxiety as he did before (1 Kings 19:14 is a verbatim repeat of 1 Kings 19:10, the only difference being the substitution of “because” for “for” in the King James Version, but the Hebrew is identical). The difference is that after hearing the voice, Elijah has an answer, or a plan of action, which he then executes.

Consider Elijah’s state of mind when the still small voice came to him. I would not call it “calm”. It looks obvious to me that Elijah is being torn by internal anger, conflict and anxiety, which is why he goes and hides in a cave. My point is that this is the state of mind in which God comes and speaks to him. It is good news for us, because it means that we don’t have to foster an internal Zen-like calm before God speaks to us.

Let this cup pass from me (Matthew 26:39)
This is not a favorite of the Zen promoters. I strongly suggest they spend more time thinking about this than their favorite slogans.

The story here is that Jesus is praying on the night before he will die. He knows what is coming. Matthew describes him as “grieved and distressed” (Matthew 26:37). The good news is that Jesus, being fully and wholly human, is reacting to the situation in an absolutely normal human way. He is reacting the same way you would if you knew that in the morning, you would be publicly humiliated, have the skin flogged off your back, and then you would be impaled on a scaffold and left to die of exposure or asphyxiation in public as your tormentors watched to ensure that they would win.

At this point in time, under these circumstances and in his present frame of mind, was Jesus filled with the spirit?

Emphatically, yes.

We need some theology to explain why. Jesus Christ is both fully and wholly human all the time, and fully and wholly God all the time. How could God not be filled with himself? If you try to take the Holy Ghost out of Jesus in Gethsemane, you start down the short, broad road to the classic heresies.

Incidentally, I wonder if the contentions that Athanasius and the other Church Fathers had with the heretics crystallized on this issue; the followers of Arius believed his story because it felt right, whereas Athanasius stuck doggedly to what the scriptures said.

Consider this: Christ was filled with the Holy Ghost whilst experiencing unbearable internal conflict, grief and distress. Why then, do we insist that the sign of the Spirit’s indwelling is an internal calm. Does God operate differently with us than He did with Jesus? Emphatically, no.

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts (Colossians 3:15)
At first glance, this appears to support the idea of the millpond mind.

Except, that is not what Paul is writing about. What Paul is writing about is actual or potential conflict between believers in the Christian community. The context is so important, it’s worth repeating in full;

“So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.”
Colossians 3:12-17

In this passage, Paul anticipates conflict in the Christian community, and he gives us the perspective and tools to deal with it.

Why is it about conflict? Because Paul writes to a situation where believers need to “bear” one another, and “forgive” one another. They would not need to do so if all they did was sit in a circle and gaze at their navels. These were people who interacted with each other in a human way, and they evidently didn’t always get it right and they didn’t always agree.

The cults make much capital over the apparent disagreements in Christendom. Their mistake, which is repeated too often among Christians who should know better, is that they substitute the unity of Christ’s community with cultural or ideological hegemony. The message of the Gospel, by contrast, is that Christ’s Kingdom is made up of all sorts of people, from every tribe and nation.

In Colossians, Paul gives us the outlook to deal with conflict in the believing community. He lays down the foundation for our relationships; we should take on an attitude that is remarkably Christ-like and highly attractive. It’s based on a whole raft of classic virtues, which are bound together by love. It is in this context that Paul writes about the peace of Christ in our hearts. So, what he is writing about is something that dwells in the space between us as we interact with those with whom we might not ordinarily or voluntarily interact in a way that benefits them.

Then, Paul gives us the tools for the job. His toolkit starts with the word of Christ, and includes teaching, admonishing, psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (we’re back to the role of worship music here), which are all applied with a spirit of thankfulness to God.

We ought to be thankful to God because these people, who might have offended or wronged us, are still beautifully made in the image of God. However much the ravages of sin have disfigured the image of God in every human being, they can never erase it, and that gives us cause to rejoice for even the foulest of sinners, including me.

What Paul’s toolkit does not include is my internal impulses; Paul does not list any criteria related to the state of my internal experience. And, it’s for good reason. As I have written previously, the Gospel of the New Testament trumps the Jesus of our imagination with the Jesus of the Flesh.

Finally, though Paul writes about how we should deal with others, can we rightly apply the same strategy to ourselves? Emphatically, yes. Should I treat myself any differently than anybody else? Emphatically, no.

If the Gospel is true for them, it is also true for me, and for everybody. If I can bear and forgive someone else for his or her conflict, why can’t I bear and forgive myself? I should accept that I will not always get it right, and I will not always agree (not even with myself), but it is Christ who reconciles me and gives me room to live, just as He reconciles all in His new creation.

Good News to Those In Conflict
So, the message about the peace of Christ ruling in our hearts is good news to those in conflict. It means that we don’t have to react to situations in ways that are not normally human. You can be internally conflicted, and still be filled with the Holy Spirit, and still hear the voice of God.

The bad news for those who don’t experience conflict internally or externally is that it is not normally human. This is a real problem because Christ inhabits a space that is populated by normal humans, the first of which is Himself.

For a better and more comprehensive exploration of this issue, I highly recommend Professor Phillip Cary’s book Good News for Anxious Christians: 10 Practical Things You Don’t Have to Do (because they are not in the Bible)

May Jesus Christ draw our vision away from an unhealthy preoccupation with our own internal state of mind, and may we fix our eyes on Him, who is the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2).

(Originally posted on the “MartinOf Brisbane” website. Reprinted with permission.)

 

by Tim
Over the past 180 years the Evangelical world has had two primary missions in response to Mormonism. The first was to protect our own sheep, the second was to call Mormons to repentance and motivate them to join the fellowship of true believers. These were both accomplished by pointing out the heresies inherent in Mormonism and by drawing questions to the trustworthiness of Joseph Smith and Mormon origins. I hope to persuade that the time is now upon us to consider a new approach to Mormonism. I do not wish to criticize the way we have historically approached Mormonism. On the contrary I think the two overall missions have been praiseworthy and Biblically motivated. I do not by any means think that Mormonism stands with historic, orthodox Christianity. I do not think the LDS church teaches truth in regards toward the nature of God. I think the LDS church draws the majority of those it teaches away from the Gospel as taught by Jesus and his apostles. I do not think that Joseph Smith bears the marks of a trustworthy prophet. Despite my continued stance against Mormonism it’s becoming clear to me that a new set of circumstances is now upon us. The signs of a new season are showing and we need to pause for a moment and consider our efforts and the allocation of our resources.

A New Day
We are entering a new day. The world of Mormonism has changed significantly in the seven years in which I’ve explored it. As many have observed, the internet has sparked an information revolution. Materials are widely available and the ability to collaborate and unify with like-minded people has increased tremendously. This has had a tremendous effect on traditional Mormon debates. I’m flabbergasted to see faithful Mormons agree with Evangelicals on the facts of such things as the Kinderhook Plates and the Adam-God theory much less Joseph Smith’s Polyandry and his non-translation of the Kirkland Egyptian Papers. The focus of the debates has changed from “is it true” to “does it matter”. That is a monumental shift.

In addition, non-traditional Mormon voices are beginning to form and they are being heard. The censoring of the “September Six” is not likely to happen in today’s environment. If such an attempt were made by Mormon authorities it would not go well for them. In many ways such efforts would only make those “un-correlated” voices more clearly heard because the controversy would add attention to their work. Grant Palmer was correct when he predicted that church discipline would only increase sales of his book “Insider’s View on Mormon Origins”. Many disaffected and “New Order” Mormons may even hope for church discipline as they continue to speak out on a number of topics.

In many ways our concerns about Mormon origins and the character of Joseph Smith are being carried further and farther by those still inside the church. Ex-Mormons, New Order Mormons, Disaffected Mormons and even some BYU professors and other faithful Mormons are carrying this message forward. Their words about these concerns travel further and farther because it is often wrapped in the package of “Mormon” rather than Evangelical. A perceived friend is more trusted than a perceived enemy.

For many reasons we Evangelicals have been viewed as the enemy. We are not at fault for all of those reasons. Mormonism began with a strong polemic against traditional Christianity and hasn’t let up. In addition we have a Biblical mandate to defend against false doctrines and false prophets. We’ve been correct in taking a stand against the false ideas Joseph Smith presented. Sadly that stand has not always been carried out in love. Evangelicals who think it is appropriate to literally slam their doors on Mormons or in any other way treat them inhospitably have not been the best example of the love of Christ. Those that have intentionally exaggerated or misconstrued Mormon beliefs have given Mormons plenty of reason to view our message and our intentions skeptically. But reasons and motivations for the animosity aside; we need to recognize that the way Mormons perceive us stands in the way of our hope to carry the true Gospel forward. I think we need a new strategy and I think the time to aggressively change modes is now.

Why Change Now
Recently Elder Marlin K. Jensen conducted a Q&A at Utah State University. In that session Elder Jensen stated:

“The fifteen men really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now; largely over these issues.”

This statement isn’t all that revealing in terms of the suspected number of people who are now losing their faith in Mormonism (whether they officially resign or remain members is another topic). What’s remarkable about this statement is that it’s being stated by Elder Jensen, Church Historian and a member of the Quorum of the 70. The real news in his statement is that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are aware that people are losing faith and they are aware of what is causing them to lose faith. That Elder Jensen states this in any kind of public forum is significant. The effects of this apostasy are being felt. In addition the LDS church’s growth rate in the United States is hovering somewhere near its birth rate (which is also dropping). Finally, Generation Y is less committed to the faith of their parents than any generation before it. I do not believe that any sort of significant change will take place within the LDS church to change these trends. The church is too bureaucratic and too invested to make a significant risk that may backfire. In addition the age of the leadership does not incline them to take risks. At best the church will make apologetic answers from unofficial resources such as FAIR more broadly available. But I do not believe this will stem the tide.

People discover questions that threaten the LDS church from search engines not from Gospel Doctrine classes. Those same search engines are already providing these apologetic answers and they are proving to be largely ineffective. Publishing these answers in a manual is only taking a step backwards in technology. Additionally, providing answers in official venues has a double edge, publishing these questions under the church seal reveals them to members who are already disinclined from reading anything that is not officially published by the church.

I predict in the next 20 years there will be a radical shift within the LDS church. If Mitt Romney becomes President that shift may occur sooner (due to heightened media scrutiny). Many people will leave the Salt Lake branch either because they no longer believe the message or because they believe the church is making compromises that it shouldn’t make. We’ve already seen the pattern of this behavior in the Community of Christ and the Worldwide Church of God.

In that sort of environment the LDS church will need friends. Many may be glad to see the organization crumble and hope for its entire evaporation. I do not. I believe the organization of the LDS church can be separated from the heresies of Mormonism. There is much good in the organization and in the people of the LDS church. What doesn’t directly conflict with the authentic Gospel of Jesus should be preserved if at all possible. Jesus is out to make all things new.

If you disagree with me about the organization, I still think it would be appropriate for you to consider changing strategies. Your Mormon friends and neighbors in this time of change will need friends. I’m alarmed and discouraged by the great many ex-Mormons who become secular agnostics or atheists. This is in part the bad fruit of Mormonism. As the saying goes; “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Another part of this is the rising cultural shift toward secularism. A third part has to do with the way Evangelicals are perceived by Mormons. We are rarely viewed as helpful or friendly by Mormons. In our efforts to stand strongly against heresy we’ve become viewed as the opposition. For many in the midst of a crisis of faith the idea of joining in worship with Evangelicals is immediately rejected because of the preconditioned view Mormons have of Evangelicals. A Mormon missionary in distress is not likely to seek out a Protestant minister for help. Again, this isn’t entirely our fault, but perception is the reality that we must deal with. We must make an extra effort to overcome perception. We must do what we can to help Mormons see us as a friendly and helpful face in the midst of a faith crisis.

A New Strategy
For these reasons I believe we need a new strategy. I think we need to largely abandon our role in exposing Joseph Smith and Mormon origins. As I’ve mentioned, I think this work will continue at the hands of Mormons and will have greater traction than anything we could hope to produce. The role “Rough Stone Rolling” has had in changing the tone of the debate should be evidence enough. Terryl Givens has a forth coming book on the evolution and progression of Mormon doctrines. This book will undoubtedly challenge the notion that many Mormon doctrines have been static. Works such as these will continue to erode the traditional Mormon narrative. Our best efforts at expose’ can’t do better than these in terms of effectively demonstrating the LDS church to not be what it historically has claimed to be. The era of Joseph Smith being viewed as a trustworthy figure is closing one internet search result at a time both inside and outside the church.

Instead I think we need to focus on explaining how and why we live out our faith. Many of us have effectively learned how to communicate and frame language in a way that Mormons are familiar with. We need to talk more about the advantages of grace over legalism. We need to proclaim the heart of living solely in the New Covenant. We need to explain better the beauty we see in the Trinity. We need to talk more openly about our own struggles in faith and how we overcame them. We need to better explain appropriate hermeneutics. We need to explain clearly what we mean by “inerrant” and how that differs from “literal”. We need to more boldly proclaim our confidence that the Bible was transmitted throughout history reliably. Many are already doing all of these things, but we need to step up these messages at the expense of talking less about Joseph Smith.

Rest assured, Joseph Smith is being talked about and will continue to be talked about. But don’t spoil your future witness by leading with his failures. Continue to resist his influence. Boldly state when asked about him that you think he’s a false prophet. But don’t get into details. If you are asked for details share them slowly and cautiously. Be confident that everything you know can and will be discovered. The heart of your message is not the bad fruit of Joseph Smith, the heart of your message is the hope that lives within you. Stick to your message. Instead of making you and your ministry the place Mormons become disenfranchised with their faith become the place where they can safely ask “what’s next”. Become a recovery center for the spiritually wounded rather than an artillery range against Joseph Smith. Though some are still converted to Mormonism, the LDS church is not the threat it once was and mostly likely never will be again. I wouldn’t want even a single Evangelical converted into Mormonism but I don’t believe guarding our sheep needs to be our chief focus any longer.

Some may be tempted to disregard what I’m saying. I’ll be branded by some as a compromiser. I can assure you I am not compromising. Instead I’m calling us to see what even the Mormon apostles recognize; the times have changed. We have a new mission. Let us recognize that our battle is not against Mormon flesh and blood but rather Mormon powers and principalities.

Begin your transition. It’s time to be spiritual healers. It’s time to be pastors. Let us no longer erect bulwarks against those lost to Mormonism. Let us now build bridges for those Mormonism has lost.

NOTE: I think the “Transitions” study produced by Western Institute for Intercultural Studies is a great start. Let’s build on it.

NOTE #2: These survey results were posted shortly after I posted this article. They illuminate more on why Mormons become disaffected.

(reposted with permission from the LDS and Evangelical Conversations website)


by Fred W. Anson
A recovery parable
The story is told of an accused man whose guilt or innocence was difficult to determine.

In this culture they had a strange form of justice for such cases. Near the town there was a subterranean cave that the accused was lowered into via a rope. After the prisoner was there a week’s worth of food and water was also lowered down in a basket and the rope pulled back up. The accused was then left to contemplate these words, “There is a way of escape from this prison.  Should you indeed escape you will be welcomed back into society and given a full pardon. However, we will not return for you, check on you or help you in any way. Your future is before you and your fate is in your hands – life or death, guilt or redemption. In this way, and this way only will our justice be served.” And with those words they left.

After his eyes adjusted to the darkness – for the cave was very deep – the prisoner noted that the hole in the ceiling that he had been lowered through was too high to reach.  Further the walls were rough and probably impossible to climb. Yet the only world he knew was outside that hole so he knew he must reach it somehow and pull himself through to freedom, redemption, and justice!  His heart yearned for justice and home.

In the ensuing days dirt was piled high, so were rocks. But there simply wasn’t enough dirt and rocks to reach the hole. When he tried to scale the cave walls after great exertion and pain he would merely get as high as the smooth, slick, unyielding ceiling before falling hard onto the floor. This progressively caused more and more pain and injury with each failed attempt. All the while the sheen of the sun, the chirping of birds and the song of wind above the hole at first teased him then tortured him with thoughts of what a new life of freedom could be “out there!”

He jumped. He yelled. He cried. He sobbed. But no one came to his aid. He raged and stormed at the hole. Still no rescue came. He was alone with only pain and regret as his constant companions.

Then his food and water began to get low. “Rationing and time! Surely, that’s the answer – this is a test of wills I will simply wait them out. They will see my determined resolve, my regret, repentance, and humble state if just enough time passes. In the end they will surely have mercy and come back and save me!” So he carefully measured and extended his supplies well beyond the one week period. But to his shock and horror, still no help appeared. He was alone. And though he barely had the energy to do so, he wept again.

Finally, weak from hunger, thirst and fatigue the prisoner succumbed to the inevitability of a slow, lingering, pain filled death. In his final moments as he lay staring at the hole he quietly whispered, “They lied! The whole world is a lie! Life is a lie! There is no escape from this hell – the hole mocks me while this cold, dark, empty cave consumes me! I am lost.” And with those words he died.

A few days later from the back of the cave in the deep, deep darkness came the quiet sound of crawling men. They squeezed through a hole in the back of the cave just large enough for a man to get through. Finding the body they pulled it through the hole, which lead to another even darker, colder cave that led to a tunnel which lead to a large dimly lit cave which opened to a vast, open forest. It was there where the road back home could be seen past a thick thicket of ripe berry bushes and a rippling creek. Ironically had the prisoner been less fixated on returning by the same means that he had come in he might have found the way out (though hard, complex, and difficult) was there all along.

The former prisoners of that very same cave who now carried this lifeless body had ultimately discovered the answer that others had who died slow painful deaths desperately tried to find. For both the living and the dead the answer was the same: The way out is through.

. . . And so dear reader should you ever find yourself in that dark cave please remember these words, “The way out is through!”

(Adapted with profound thanks and appreciation from “Healing the Shame that Binds You” by John Bradshaw)

by Bill Mahlstadt

Can’t be bought
Can’t be seduced
Can’t be stopped
Forward I go

Won’t be distracted
He’s all I know

Won’t give up
Won’t give in

Get down on my knees
Time and again

No matter the cost
No matter the time

I’m already dead
My life is not mine

Whatever I do
Wherever I’m called

It’s His Infinite love
That overcomes all

With faith I declare it
With love I proclaim

There’s no other God
Called by His Name

Master
Savior
Redeemer
And Friend

I’ll walk with You now
And even when

When I don’t sense Your presence
I know you’re there

Never has been
One as faithful
As You

by Fred W. Anson
It was a simple question that was posted on Yahoo Answers . . .

Q: What’s your experience with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? (good or bad)?
My question is what is your experience with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, its followers (also known as Mormons) and if you could get one message through to Mormons and/or non Mormons, what would it be?

… and, even though most of it got chopped off, here was how I answered in full:

Q: What’s your experience with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? (good or bad)?
A: I’ve never been Mormon but I have a lifetime of Mormon friends and family members and I’ve had direct experience with the LdS Church.

THE GOOD
First, I’ll say that my direct “face-to-face” experience with Mormons has been overwhelmingly positive.

Here’s how I described my face-to-face experience with Mormons in a Facebook article:
“Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Collectively they represent a rich, colorful, tapestry of personalities, talents, giftings, callings, and, yes, even beliefs. Or put another way, I find MUCH good in the Mormon people and Mormon Culture which I applaud, celebrate, revel in and strive to protect. … Mormons are our family members, our friends, our colleagues and our neighbors I do NOT dislike them – in fact, I love Mormons.”[1]

In face-to-face settings Latter-day Saints have always opened their hearts and homes to me and my family even though many of them know that in my role as a Mormon Studies scholar I am generally critical of the of the LdS Church, it’s leaders, Mormon Doctrine, and many aspects of Mormon Culture.

Second, I would also have to say that my direct experience with the LdS Church in Mormon Chapel meetings, Sunday School classes and, sadly, the funeral of a family member, has been equally positive. Their meetings are generally uplifting, inoffensive, include many bits of useful bits of “sage wisdom”. I generally leave feeling better than when you went in – I would liken them to what I experienced in Dale Carnegie classes, Self Help, and/or 12-Step meetings only with Joseph Smith sitting in Dale Carnegie, Zig Ziglar, Denis Waitley, Dr. Bob Smith, or Bill Wilson’s chair respectively.

THE BAD
Without question the worst “face-to-face” experience that I had in a Mormon Chapel meeting was when we attended a 3-hour “Fast & Testimony” meeting.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with these meetings, here’s how they’re described in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
“An LDS fast and testimony meeting is normally held on the first Sunday of each month, where faithful members of the Church are invited to bear a verbal witness of their feelings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The meeting usually follows a fast by the members, usually from at least two consecutive meals and from liquids also. The fast is officially broken by partaking of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In modern scripture, fasting is described as “rejoicing and prayer” (D&C 59:14), which implies that it is more than just abstaining from food. That tone of devotion is also the feeling associated with contributing fast offerings, giving the equivalent cost of the meals, or more, to be used for the poor. The fast and testimony meeting becomes the locus of spiritual sensitivity and contrition, of concentration on the things of God.”[2]

That’s all true but what it fails to mention is that the testimonies tend to be overtly formulaic following this template:
“I TESTIFY TO YOU, I KNOW THE BOOK OF MORMON IS TRUE. I KNOW JOSEPH SMITH WAS A PROPHET OF GOD. I KNOW THE MORMON CHURCH IS TRUE.”[3] And sometimes an, “I love my family/husband/wife/mother/father/etc.”  got thrown as would an “I also testify that (fill in name of current LdS President) is a true prophet of God” and usually ending with an, “In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.”

However, by the end of the 3-hour session, I found that so many of the testimonies were almost word-for-word identical that it was a bit creepy.

But the most unsettling thing of all was when a parent would hold a far-too-young-to-fully-understand child up to the mic and have them parrot the formulaic testimony that they whispered in their ear. This occurred several times, resulting in dabbed eyes from the audience, and tears of joy from family members of the child.

Frankly, it was beyond weird, it was extremely unsettlingly and garnered a, “What the heck is going here? What’s wrong with these people? What’s wrong with this church?” from this author.

In fact, someone captured the audio one of these incidents on YouTube, listen to it for yourself, don’t take my word for it.[4]

THE UGLY
But without question, the worst experiences that I’ve had with Mormons has been on the Internet. The Internet brings out the bad side of everyone but Mormons seem to really, really, really go from “Jekyl” to “Hyde” there.

image credit “Flame Warrior” by Mike Reed

It seems that unless one is glowingly positive about the LdS Church and/or Mormon Culture on the Internet one is quickly labeled an “Anti-Mormon” and subjected to a litany of relentless personal and ad-hominem attacks that, frankly, I was shocked and surprised at given how I’d been treated in all my direct face-to-face Mormon experiences.[5]

I think that Richard and Joan Ostling described this well in their book on Mormonism when they said:
“The thin-skinned and image-conscious Mormon can display immature, isolationist, and defensive reactions to outsiders, perhaps because there is no substantive debate and no “loyal opposition” within their kingdom. With some, it almost seems that the wilderness is still untamed, the federal ‘polyg’ police are on the prowl, and the Illinois lynch mob is still oiling muskets and preparing to raid Carthage Jail. All too often Saints use the label “anti-Mormon” as a tactic to forestall serious discussion.”
(“Mormon America: The Power and the Promise (2007 Edition)”; Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling; p. 115)[6]

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY
So, in the end, my feelings about the LdS Church and the Mormon people goes something like this:

Dislike? Hardly!
Contend with? Gladly!
Expose? Regularly!
Oppose? If necessary.
But through it all, and at the end of the day,
I LOVE Mormons!

Q: If you could get one message through to Mormons and/or non-Mormons, what would it be?
A: To Mormons, my one message would be two questions:
1) “How important is it to you that the truth claims of the LdS Church are in reality true?”
and
2) “Why do you stay in a group that it’s been documented engages in Mind Control tactics and behaviors?”[7]

And to non-Mormons it would be two statements:
1) “If a Church – any church, including the one that I may be in – claims to have the truth it’s probably a good idea to find out if it’s lying to you first.”
and
2) “The best place to find out about a religious group – any religious group, including the one that I may be in – is from former members.”

I hope that this helps.

NOTES
[1]
Fred Anson, “Through it all, and at the end of the day, I LOVE Mormons!”  
[2] Mary Jolley, “Fast and Testimony Meeting”; The Encyclopedia of Mormonism 
[3] The Mormon Testimony “I Testify to You…”‘
[4] “Mormon Parent Coerces Testimony From Child”
[5] In fact, I wrote a Mormon Expression blog on this subject:  ‘Falsely Accused: My Life As An ‘Anti’’ 
[6] Link to “Mormon America” page on Amazon
[7] The assertion that the leadership of the LdS Church and it’s membership engages in Mind Control tactics and behavior isn’t given lightly and/or without empirical support. It is a long standing and widely held view backed by a growing body of evidence:
“The BITE Model and Mormon Control”
“Is Mormonism a Cult? – A Rebuttal”
“The BITE Model Applied Toward Mormonism’s Two-Year Missionary Program”
“The BITE Model Applied Toward Mormonism”

by Fred W. Anson
Perhaps you found the opening of Mike Tannehill’s recent Mormon Expression blog as current and thought provoking as I did:

Link to referenced blog

“There has been a great deal of talk lately regarding whether or not Mormons are Christians. This is not a new argument, it is actually as old as the church itself. When the Church was first founded many thought the nickname of ‘Mormon’ was somehow a reference to Mohammed and that the church was in fact an Islamic faith.”[1]

My first thought was that the historical record exposes the modern assertion that Mormon leaders have always insisted that the LdS Church is “Christian” for what it is – a myth. Rather, it shows that until recently[2] Mormons have wanted no part of Christianity as they saw themselves as something better, purer, more exalted and more enlightened than the “poor, miserable priests” and “the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth”  – as Mormon Apostle Heber C. Kimball referred to the Christians of his day. [3]

EARLY MORMONISM
And other early Mormon Leaders were equally clear on this point:
The First Six Mormon Presidents“What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world”[4]
Joseph Smith, January 2, 1843

“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense…. It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.”[5]
John Taylor, January 17, 1858

“Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom.”[6]
John Taylor, March 1, 1863

Yet, surprisingly their tone not only softened but actually glowed when they spoke of Muhammad and Islam:
“I believe that Mahomet [Muhammad]–who the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize with a great many epithets–I believe that he was a man raised up by the Almighty.”[7]
George Q. Cannon, September 2, 1883

“About six hundred years after Christ a prophet rose in Arabia, by the name of Mahomet, who was born in 569…  
Now this man descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose to scourge the world for their idolatry.”[8] [9]
George A. Smith, September 23, 1855

And Joseph Smith certainly didn’t seem to mind if the religion that he founded was equated with Islam or he with Muhammad – rather he seemed to embrace such comparisons with zeal when he famously said:

General Joseph Smith with Sword“I will be to this generation a second Muhammad, whose motto in treating for peace was the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword. So shall it eventually be with us Joseph Smith or the Sword!”[10]
– Joseph Smith, October 14, 1838

So is it any surprise that seventeen years later (in his September 23rd, 1855 address) Mormon Apostle Parley P. Pratt was still swinging that sword:
“The Greek and Roman Churches, which have been called Christian, and which take the name of Christians as a cloak, have worshipped innumerable idols. On this account, on the simple subject of the Deity and His worship, if nothing more, I should rather incline, of the two, after all my early traditions, education, and prejudices, to the side of Mahomet, for on this point he is on the side of truth, and the Christian world on the side of idolatry and heathenism.”[11]

Parley Pratt“Though Mahometan institutions are corrupt enough, and need reforming by the Gospel, I am inclined to think, upon the whole, leaving out the corruptions of men in high places among them, that they have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations; and in many localities there have been high standards of morals. So far as that one point is concerned, of worshipping the one true God under the name of Mahometanism, together with many moral precepts, and in war only acting on the defensive, I think they have exceeded in righteousness and truthfulness of religion, the idolatrous and corrupt church that has borne the name of Christianity.”[12]

So apparently, the assertion that early Mormonism was more akin to and aligned with Islam than Christianity (while, of course, being superior, more enlightened, and a step above both) isn’t far fetched at all – in fact, it seems that early Mormon leaders enthusiastically embraced the idea.

MODERN MORMONISM
But what about Modern Mormonism, surely it’s Christian – right?

Well, as respected Religious Journalists, Richard and Joan Ostling note, “…it is surely wrong to see Mormonism as a Christian derivative in the way that Christianity is a Jewish derivative, because the LDS faith is in radical discontinuity with historic Christianity.”[13] And expanding on the Ostlings, the late Catholic Scholar, Richard John Neuhaus clarified stating that:  “…Mormonism is inexplicable apart from Christianity and the peculiar permutations of Protestant Christianity in nineteenth-century America. It may in this sense be viewed as a Christian derivative. It might be called a Christian heresy, except heresy is typically a deviation within the story of the Great Tradition that Mormonism rejects tout court.”[14]

Continuing, Neuhaus goes on to explain:
“For missionary and public relations purposes, the LDS may present Mormonism as an ‘add-on,’ a kind of Christianity-plus, but that is not the official narrative and doctrine.

A closer parallel might be with Islam. Islam is a derivative of Judaism, and Christianity. Like Joseph Smith, Muhammad in the seventh century claimed new revelations and produced in the Quran a ‘corrected’ version of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, presumably by divine dictation. Few dispute that Islam is a new and another religion, and Muslims do not claim to be Christian, although they profess a deep devotion to Jesus. Like Joseph Smith and his followers, they do claim to be the true children of Abraham. Christians in dialogue with Islam understand it to be an interreligious, not an ecumenical, dialogue. Ecumenical dialogue is dialogue between Christians. Dialogue with Mormons who represent official LDS teaching is interreligious dialogue.”[15]

So, Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention appears to have showed great insight when he famously observed:
“I think the fairest and most charitable way to define Mormonism would be to call it the fourth Abrahamic religion – Judaism being the first, Christianity being the second, Islam being the third, and Mormonism being the fourth. And Joseph Smith would play the same character in Mormonism that Muhammad plays in Islam.”[16]

And this view isn’t limited to Christian scholars – consider this analysis by Literary and Religious Critic, Harold Bloom:
“Mr. [Mitt] Romney, earnest and staid, who is deep within the labyrinthine Mormon hierarchy, is directly descended from an early follower of the founding prophet Joseph Smith, whose highly original revelation was as much a departure from historical Christianity as Islam was and is.

Joseph Smith, killed by a mob before he turned 39, is hardly comparable to the magnificent Akiva [whom Bloom theorizes invented Judaism], except that he invented Mormonism even more single-handedly than Akiva gave us Judaism, or Muhammad, Islam.”[17]

Thus the words of an early 20th Century editoral committee for Fleming H. Revell have stood the test of time:
“It is generally observed that Mormonism is similiar to Mohammedanism in it’s endorsement of the practice of polygamy and its ideas of heaven. Many other points of similarity between these systems have been noted by students, and the Book of Mormon has marked resemblance to the Koran. As all ancient religions have a modern equivalent, Mormonism can justly be claimed to be the modern form of Mohammedanism, and not incorrectly termed ‘the Islam of America.'”[18]

THE 4TH ABRAHAMIC RELIGION
So the consensus throughout the ages and on both sides of the divide has been that Mormonism isn’t Jewish, Christian, or Muslim – though it may derive forms, terms, and rites from all three. Furthermore, the parallels between Mormonism and Islam are simply too pronounced and too plentiful to ignore:

Similarities between the origins of Islam and those of Mormonism:
– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith were reportedly inspired to start their movements by angelic visits.
The Archangel Jibreel (Gabriel) in the case of Muhammed, and the Angel Moroni for Joseph Smith (following a visit Smith claimed to have received from God and Jesus Christ three years earlier). In each event, the angel in question helped to prepare the prophet to receive a series of revelations from God.[20]

– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith left behind authorized books they claimed to be direct revelations from God, books that their followers accept as Scripture.[19]

Joseph Smith Receiving his call and The Gold Plates from the Angel Moroni– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith were persecuted by hostile locals and later forced to relocate (from Mecca to Medina, and from Missouri to Illinois, respectively) during the formative periods of their careers.[19]

– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith established theocratic city-states during their respective ministries, Muhammad being invited to take the rule of Medina, while Joseph Smith would found Nauvoo, Illinois.[19]

– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings.
Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Yet both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[20]

– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible while simultaneously deviating from it.
In his Koran, Muhammad appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.[20]

– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets.
Muhammad saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus.[21] Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.[20][21]

Artist's recreation of the Book of Mormon Plates– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible.
Muhammad claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim:
“I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[23]

– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith, despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings.
An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.[20]

– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith claimed superiority over Jesus Christ.
Muhammad taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him.

In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim:
“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”
(“History of the Church”, vol. 6, p.408409; )[20][24]

– Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith were polygamists who had many wives.[25]

Other similarities between Islam and Mormonism
– Belief that good deeds are required for salvation just as much as faith.[19]

– Belief that the text of the Bible, as presently constituted, has been adulterated from its original form;[19]

An open Koran

– Belief that their faith represents the genuine, original religion of Adam, and of all true prophets thereafter;[19]

– Belief that one’s marriage can potentially continue into the next life, if one is faithful to the religion;[19]

– Belief that there are multiple degrees or spiritual levels in heaven;[19]

– Belief that a believer’s family, if appropriately faithful to the religion, can join them in the next world, only if they are equally faithful;[19]

– Assertions that modern Christianity does not conform to the original religion taught by Jesus Christ;[16]

– Rejection of the Christian doctrines of Original Sin and the Trinity;[19]

– Absolute prohibition of alcoholic beverages,and gambling;[19]

Poll: Pastors say Mormons not Christians

Click on image to enlarge and read poll results

– Incorporation of a sacred ritual of ablution, though each religion’s rite differs in form, frequency and purpose;[19]

– A “top down” clerical hierarchy that is drawn from the laity and placed into leadership roles, without any requirements for completing collegiate or theological training first;[19]

– Special reverence for, though not worship of, their founding prophet;[19]

–  A continuing history of sects, or splinter groups, who claim to be following the “original doctrine” of the founding leaders and whose practices include violence against dissenters and critics, as well as polygamy. [20]

CONCLUSION
Given these similarities and parallels – along with it’s long legacy of simultaneously denouncing and distancing itself from Christianity – it seems both logical, and reasonable that the LdS Church begin to proudly and publicly embrace it’s unique role as the Fourth Abrahamic Religion and drop the modern Mormon pretense that it’s Christian.[26]

NOTES
[1] Mike Tannehill, “The Mormon Christ”; Mormon Expression Blogs; November 27, 2011
[2] As in the David O. McKay era and later. For a full treatment of how Mormonism slowly transitioned from a movement that considered itself separate from and atagonistic to Christianity to one that insisted that it be identified with it, see “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism” by Gregory A Prince and William Robert Wright.

This mid-20th Century shift was also lightly, but poignently discussed in the PBS Frontline documentary, “The Mormons” in Part Two.
[3] Heber C. Kimball, “Oneness Of The Priesthood – Impossibility Of Obliterating Mormonism – Gospel Ordinances – Depopulation Of The Human Species – The Coming Famine, Etc.”; July 26, 1857; Journal of Discourses, Volume 5, p.89
[4] Joseph Smith, “Teachings of Joseph Smith”, p.270
( also see “Documentary History of The Church”, pp.217-219 )
[5] John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, p.167
[6] John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, p.127
[7] George Q. Cannon, The Journal of Discourses, Volume 24, p.371
[8] George A. Smith, The Journals of Discourse, Volume 3, p.30
[9] George A. Smith, The Journals of Discourse, Volume 3, p. 32
[10] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), pp.230–231.

Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, as follows:
“Except where noted, all the details of this chapter (16) are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Volume 3, p. 167See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. 3, p. 162.”

Please note that Bill McKeever’s artcle, “Joseph Smith – The Second Muhammad?” also contains interesting and valuable information regarding Smith’s speech based on the Marsh statement which Brodie references.
[11] Journal of Discourses, Volume 3, p.41; a transcription of the entire address can be read here.
[12] Journal of Discourses, Volume 3, p.38; a transcription of the entire address can be read here.
[13] Richard Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, “Mormon America”, p. 324
[14] Richard John Neuhaus, “Is Mormonism Christian? A Respected Advocate for Interreligious Cooperation Responds”; “First Things”, March 2000
[15] Ibid
[16] David Van Biema, “What Is Mormonism? A Baptist Answer”; Time Magazine, Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2007
[17] Harold Bloom, “Will This Election Be the Mormon Breakthrough?”; New York Times Sunday Review, November 12, 2011;
[18] Bruce Kinney, D.D., “Mormonism The Islam of America”; Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912; p.5.
[19] Wikipedia, “Similarities Between Muslims and Mormons”
[20] Paul T. Trask, “I Will Be a Second Muhammad”
[21] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, “The Facts on Islam”; Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998; pp.8–9. Also see Eric Johnson, “Joseph Smith & Muhammed”; El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998; pp.6–7.
[22] Genesis 50:26-36 of the Joseph Smith TranslationA good analysis of this topic can be found on pp.108&109 of “Part Way To Utah” by Paul Trask
[23] History of the Church, vol.4, pp.461
[24] History of the Church, vol.6, pp.408409
[25]  See “Muhammad’s wives” and “Remembering The Wives of Joseph Smith”Also note that Joseph Smith, Jr’s FamilySearch.org record (AFN: 9KGL-W2) contains the names of his polygamous wives. This is particularly interesting since as of the date of writing FamilySearch.org is owned and managed by the LdS Church.
[26]While not expliciting advocating this author’s stance in regard to assuming the “4th Abrahamic Religion” designation, some Latter-day Saint panelists on the June 14, 2011 Mormon Matters podcast (“Episode 37: Why Are Mormons Seen as “Dangerous” by Some Evangelical Christians?”) never-the-less agreed with this author that the Mormon claim that it is Christian is not only inaccurate and misleading but creating unnecessary friction and mistrust between the two groups.

This author agrees with that stance. However, you can’t drop the “Christian” label without replacing it with something. In the end, and after much thought, this author considers the “4th Abrahamic Religion” a fair and accurate stance that all parties should be able to live with.