There is a long time “proof” that God does not exist that goes like this: “If there is a God, how could there be such injustice and evil in the world?” What they really mean is that they can’t rationally fathom the possibility that all the evil and injustice in the world could somehow be part of a greater justice or morality. Without this further explanation, the “proof” is meaningless.

There is also a “proof” that God does exist that goes like this: “Why do we all — even those of us that claim we believe otherwise — treat morality as if it’s an absolute (that is to say, not merely a construct of convenience of situation) if morality rose from an inherently unjust universe?” What the asker really means is that they can’t fathom the possibility that morality really is merely a construct. (I have never met, and believe I never will, a person that isn’t outraged over immoral conduct towards his or her self rather than just saying, ‘oh, morality is just a construct anyhow, so to each their own.’”)

It seems morality is the main — perhaps only — point of contention over God, and it’s a sharp point that pierces both ways.

Now consider the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:

  20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
  21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
  22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
  23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
  24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
  25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

It’s impossible to draw any definitive conclusions about the details of the afterlife or God’s judgment process from this parable, though Christians desperately try. And we can argue off topic all we want about whether or not the parable sufficiently characterizes our “good” and “bad” examples here for a modern audience’s current sensibilities. But that’s all unnecessary because the intended meaning of the parable is clear. It is no more or less than an affirmation that justice and morality are part of the hardwired DNA of life — if you include post-mortal existence in the definition of the word “life”.

Imagine that for a moment. What if life (or existence) is in fact perfectly just and moral? Jesus is teaching that it is.

This parable haunts me with its impeccable logic: For morality to not be just a construct there must be a God (and by “God” I mean any concept of an absolute higher power, if only absolute morality itself) and life must be inherently moral.

Yet it’s patently obvious mortal life isn’t moral or just, so any worldview where reality is just and moral must include an afterlife in which all injustice becomes part of a greater arc of justice.

Thus morality, God, and afterlife are not three separate things distinct from each other. You can’t have one without the other.

But what really haunts me is that the converse must then be true: if there is no afterlife then life is not inherently just or moral, and we do indeed have proof there is no God. (Likewise, if there is no God or absolute morality then there can be no greater arc of justice that our lives are a part of.)

But it also logically follows that what we call “morality” is but a construct than can be freely made and remade.

I did it using predict logic, tons of examples, and examples from real life conversations with creedal Christians. So that means no one will read it.

It would seem that being precise with your language makes it difficult to read and comprehend. (A fact all programmers know.) Sometimes it’s easier to just use an example, which is less precise but more understandable. So here is an example that covers everything I said in my last post via an analogy.

God is Red, God is Blue

Pretend, for a moment, that the Bible teaches two things. One is that God is red and the other is that God is blue. It’s not hard to see the analogy here to the Trinity doctrine, but I’ll let you come up with it yourself.

Is this a contradiction? Not in and off itself. Paradoxical? Certainly. But there are multiple ways to resolve this seeming contradiction. God can be both red and blue.

But when I try to sincerely have dialog with creedal Trinitarians I get the feeling that they just have a collection of words, called a creed, that they “believe” but have no underlying meaning to those words, with one notable exception: when I try to apply my own meaning to those words. Then, and only then, do the words in the creed take on sudden meaning, just long enough to deny me. Then they go back to having no meaning again. It’s very fluid and frustrating when you are trying to discuss beliefs.

A Typical Conversation with a Creedal Trinitarian

So a typical conversation with a Creedal Trinitarian seems to go like this to me:

Creedal Trinitarian: God is red. God is blue. That’s what the Bible says.

Me: I agree. That is what the Bible says. And I believe that God is red and God is blue.

Creedal Trinitarian: No, you don’t believe that. You don’t even believe the Bible. You believe Joseph Smith. We have different sources of truth, so we aren’t the same and we have no common ground — mutually accepted sources of truth — that we can use as a basis for dialog. I believe the Bible, you believe Joseph.

Me: Yes, I do accept the revelations of Joseph Smith as true, just like I accept the Bible, in fact.

Creedal Trinitarian: But the revelations of Joseph Smith contradict the Bible.

Me: Not to me they don’t. What I mean is, I interpret the Bible AND the teachings of Joseph Smith in ways you aren’t familiar with. I will grant that how you choose to interpret Joseph Smith’s revelations contradict how you choose to interpret the Bible. But the way I interpret Joseph Smith’s revelations and the Bible they do not contradict. Besides, isn’t believing God is red and God is blue “contradictory” in the way you believe it?

Creedal Trinitarian: That’s what the Bible teaches. So I know it’s true.

Me: I know, I already said that. I have said I believe it myself. But what does “God is red” and “God is blue” mean to you. For example, couldn’t it mean that God is half red and half blue. Like he has different parts or aspects of different color?

Creedal Trinitarian: No! The Bible doesn’t say God is half red, it says God is red. It doesn’t say God is half blue, it says God is blue.

Me: Do you understanding it figuratively? I mean do you believe God is red and God is blue means he’s courageous and true, maybe?

Creedal Trinitarian: It doesn’t say God is courageous and true, though He is that too. But it says God is red and God is blue. And that is what it means.

Me: Okay, so you believe all aspects of “God” are red and all are blue and it’s not figurative to you in any way? In what sense do you undertstand those concepts then?

Creedal Trinitarian: I mean I believe the Bible: God is red, God is blue.

Me: Do you mean that God is purple? Purple is both fully red and fully blue. That would be logical.

Creedal Trinitarian: No! The Bible does not say God is purple! The Bible says God is red and God is blue. Red is not purple. Blue is not purple.

Me: Yes, but Purple is both fully red and fully blue.

Creedal Trinitarians: I already said the Bible doesn’t say that. So that is not what I believe.

Me: Okay, maybe God is red all over and blue all over, like dithering. So it appears purple at a distance, but if you look closely he really is, all over red and blue, just not at the same location at the same time.

Creedal Trinitarisn: No! The Bible does not say God is dithered blue and red. That would mean God isn’t fully red and isn’t fully blue.

Me: Do you believe God is like two shades of clear glass layered on each other? One red and one blue? That would make him both red and blue in a sense, right?

Creedal Trinitarian: The Bible does not say God is layered blue on top of red, or vice versa. That would make him black to the eye, and God is certainly not black. That would be blaspheme. The Bible says that God is red and God is blue so that is incorrect doctrine.

Me: But couldn’t those words in the Bible have meant that…

Creedal Trinitarian: No! They mean what they say and they say what they mean. You are so desperately seeking a simple answer that you are falling into heresy. By the way, speaking of contradictions, Joseph Smith taught that God was green! See, right there, Joseph Smith and the Bible contradict each other! You have to admit you accept Joseph while I accept Jesus.

Me: But to me that means God is white.

Creedal Trinitarians: What?!

Me: Yes, under light color theory, red, blue, and green make white light. If you crank up the red fully, the blue fully, and the green fully, you get white. God is white because God is fully red, fully blue, and fully green. Or in other words, God is all colors. See, Joseph Smith didn’t contradict the Bible. And by the way, there was nothing “simple” about that answer. In fact, it’s more complex then what you’ve been advocating. I’ve never claimed God was simple to comprehend, only that He isn’t contradictory.

Creedal Trinitarian: No! God is not green nor white, the Bible denies that possibility.

Me: But the Bible doesn’t say he isn’t green, so it doesn’t deny the possibility. I’m affirming God is red and God is blue, just like the Bible says. I’m simply adding that He is also green and thus He is white.

Creedal Trinitarian: Yes the Bible does deny that God is green. It says God is red and God is blue. Clearly red is not green and blue is not green. Red and blue aren’t white either. We’re talking school child logic here.

Me: But the way you are using those words, red isn’t blue and blue isn’t red either! So it’s a contradiction, not school child logic.

Creedal Trinitarian: I realize it seems contradictory to an unbeliever like yourself, but to me it’s a paradox.

Me: In what sense is it a paradox to you? Normally we call something a paradox when we apply meaning to it that makes it non-contradictory, even though at first it seemed contradictory. “The first shall be last and the last shall be first” is a paradox because we are equivocating the meaning of the words mid sentence for effect.

Creedal Trinitarian: So we are agreed, it’s a paradox.

Me: Yes, I believe it’s a paradox – to me! But the way you are using it, it’s a contradiction.

Creedal Trinitarian: No, it’s not. It’s a paradox. Besides, God can make a contradiction true anyhow. God can do anything.

Me: But if God can make a contradiction true, then why do you see Joseph Smith’s new revelation that God is green as problematic? God can be green in the same sense that you accept God as red and as blue. Thus logically you can’t deny the possibly that God is green (or white) just because the Bible says He is red and blue.

Creedal Trinitarian: No, God is not green. The Bible is very clear on this point. It says God is red and God is blue. Red is not green and neither is blue. White is not green and white is not blue.

Me: I feel like we’re getting no where fast.

Creedal Trinitarian: You are an unbeliever. If you believed in the Bible and accepted it as true over Joseph Smith or your own need to make up simple answers then you’d understand.

Me: I think you have no meaning in your head as to what it means when you say God is red or God is blue except when you need it to deny me. Then it takes on meaning just long enough to exclude me.

Creedal Trinitarian: I just believe what the Bible says.

Me: I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I don’t believe you believe what the Bible says. I think you believe the creedal interpretation of what the Bible is saying.

Creedal Trinitarian: They are the same. One just summarizes the other.

Me: How can you say that? How can you sincerely look at me after this conversation, where I just gave multiple other ways to interpret the Bible’s sayings validly and then, with a straight face, tell me that creeds just summarizes and don’t interpret the Bible?

Creedal Trinitarian: It’s that you believe Joseph Smith. That is why you can’t understand. Satan has blinded you to the truth.

Me: This conversation isn’t really progressing is it?

Creedal Trinitarian: No, it’s not. I think we should agree to disagree.

Me: Okay. *Sigh* Yet another failed attempt to get anywhere with understanding this creedal doctrine.

Creedal Trinitarian: It’s scriptural, not “creedal”. Just read and accept the Bible and you’ll understand.

Conclusion

I want to make it very clear that I am not trying to be disrespectful of creedal Trinitarian beliefs. I think they are quite sincere in their desire to believe the Bible. But the above conversation is a true and realistic example of all my conversations with creedal Trinitarians, at least as far as I’m currently able to process what they are saying.

While I can’t rule out the possibility that I have missed some point that is required for my comprehension, or possibly I am blinded to it by my personal biases, after years of such conversations I am no longer convinced such a point exists. So likewise I must not rule out the possibility that I am correct: that the creedal Trinity doctrine has no meaning even to creedal Trinitarians except when used to judge other people’s beliefs as being “non-Christian.” The end result of this, if I am correct, is that they use the creeds in contradictory ways just like the sample conversation above.

The Trinity doctrine itself doesn’t have to be a contradiction – indeed, I grow more convinced all the time that the Trinity doctrine, at it’s root, is what I believe. What I should have said is that creedal Christians honestly seem to me to be making a choice to interpret or use the Trinity doctrine in a contradictory way.

This, in and of itself, wouldn’t be much of a problem if it weren’t for the fact that creedal Christians have also decided to use that contradiction as a basis for judging others salvation, and have done so for millenia.

I am now going to explain in detail what I mean. This is going to be boring, so I highly recommend that you don’t read this post and skip it altogether unless you like logic or have a strong desire to understand the Trinity doctrines problematic intricacies. Still, I write this an issue it as a challenge to creedal Christians to evaluate what I am saying and either help me understand their beliefs better or consider the possiblity that they believe some contradictions.

The Trinity Doctrine Defined

For the sake of argument, we’re going to take the Athanasius Creed as our “definition” of  “The Trinity Doctrine.” This is a postulate for the sake of argument. Yes, you could argue that the Trinity doctrine is true but the Athanasius creed is false. (An argument I often make myself.) But for this argument, we’re assuming they are one and the same for our purposes.

You can find the text of the Athanasius creed here.

The key to understanding the contradiction in how creedal Christians interpret the Athanasius creed is in “verse” 4: “Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance [Essence].”

A common way creedal Christians explain this passage is to say that God is three “persons” but one “being.” [1]

Now it’s important to understand that the word “person” here does not mean “person” in any dictionary definition sense of that word. So what does it mean? After attempting to study this out, so far, I have never found an answer to that question. All I have found, so far, are explanations that the word “person” doesn’t mean “person” in any “modern philosophical usage.” [2]

However, creedal Christiand believe that because the members of the Trinity/Godhead are different “person” they are distinctly different from each other. Mormon and non-Mormon Christians seem to be in agreement on this point.

However, this doesn’t mean that they are three Gods; for that would be, to a creedal Christian, polytheism. [3] Thus we are told in verse 15 and 16:

So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.

Now this statement is not problematic by itself. In fact, it’s doctrine Mormon’s share with their creedal Christian neighbors. We believe the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. But we also believe in one God and often speak in such terms. Contradiction? Not yet. For we aren’t sure yet what the words actually mean.

If, for example, we think of “God” as meaning “divinity” then this simply means “So the Father is Divine: the Son is Divine: and the Holy Ghost is Divine. And yet there are not three separate and distinct divinities with separate wills, but only one.”

Even the most Tritheistic of Mormons will agree with how I just reworded verse 15 and 16. Yet it’s completely consistent with verse 15 and 16. So we do not “disagree” with that part of the Athanasius Creed, per se.

Now let’s look at verses 5 and 24:

For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers: one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

Is this problematic or contradictory? No, it’s not. This also is something Mormons can agree with, even in our most Tritheistic forms.

What Do We Disagree with in the Athanasius Creed?

Now this is where things get tricky. Is there anything in the Athanasius creed Mormons “disagree” with? No cheating by using how Creedal Christians “interpret” this creed. You are only allowed to look at the words themselves for this exercise. There are only two thing I can find that we directly disagree with in the Athanasius creed. The first is the pronouncement of damnation for not accepting it. (See verse 1, 28, and 44.)

The second is the ban on referring to more than one God in a numerical sense in verse 20:

So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.

Granted, Mormons would probably not choose to word many things the way the creeds do, but there is nothing else there, at least in the words themselves, that can’t be adequately reconciled to our beliefs. [4] Does that mean Mormons and Creedal Christians believe the same things? Not on your life!

How Do We Differ?

At issue here is the fact that you can’t, or shouldn’t, just take a bunch of words and logically say “I believe that” but have no interpretation for those words. This is something I often perceive creedal Christians as doing. They are quick to explain how the words of the Athanasius creed don’t mean what Mormons believe, but not at all anxious to explain what the words do mean, even just for themselves. [5]

One common way to interpret verse 5 and 24 (as quoted above) is to say that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, etc. Okay, sounds good to me.

Another common way to look at the Athanasius creedal view of the Trinity is to say that the Son is 100% God, the Father is 100% God, the Holy Ghost is 100% God. If I understand “God” a meaning “divine nature” then I’m fine with that too. But at this point, things break down. Because, I’m always told by creedal Trinitarians, that by “God” they do not mean “Divinity.” “God” is not a characteristic that you can have, it’s something you are. It’s a form of identity.

But what do they mean? Do they, for example, mean that “God” is a statement of identity in the same way that I might say “Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same being?”

If this is what they mean, then let’s work out the logic for it. We are asserting:

1. The Father (identity) is God (identity)
2. The Son (identity) is God (identity)
3. The Father (identity) is not the Son (identity)
4. The Son (identity) is not the Father (identity)

Assuming all those statements are about identity, do we have a logical contradiction? Absolutely. I have included the proof – and this is an actual logical proof – in the footnotes. [6] Put simply, the idea that the Athanasius doctrine of Trinity is talking about “God” as an identity is a logical contradiction. Period.

No Answer is Good Enough

I do not believe there is an inherent contradiction in the Trinity doctrine. As far as I can tell, I completely agree with the Trinity doctrine as described in the Athanasius creed minus the two points I mentioned.

But merely agreeing with the words seems to not be enough. Apparently the words in the creed do take on meaning in one case: when needed to deny someone else’s sincere attempt to make sense of the Trinity doctrine.

What I’d really like to see is for creedal Christians to take their explanations of their denials of my beliefs and hold themselves to it logically. Let’s consider some examples of what I am saying.

Example 1: Splitting the Substance

Of course it’s easy enough to say: “We aren’t talking about identity. We’re saying that there are two aspects, person and being. There are three persons that are God, but only one being. My proof above is then problematic because it assumes that given a “being” is God that being is the Father and also the Son. But in fact it’s only one person in that “being” that is the Father.

Okay, fair enough. That is a logical argument and it forces me to redo my proof now that I have that further explanation. But here is the problem, this is really the same saying “God” does not identify the person, but only the group. Mormons would have no issue with this formula because we often think of God as being the whole Godhead (a group identity). But creedal Christians find this idea repugnant because it means that the persons are only 1/3 of “God.” So this formula is supposedly rejected by the Athanasius creed because it says the Father is God and the Son is God, not that they are 1/3 of God.

In other words, they specifically treat “God” as a unique identity when denying the Mormon concept of Godhead, but then later treat it like it isn’t a unique identity when denying their Trinity doctrine is a contradiction.

Example 2: Tritheism

Another way I’ve seen the potential contradiction in the Athanasius creed resolved is to admit that there are in fact three persons that are all fully God and that numerically you could understand that as meaning there are three Gods, but that we shouldn’t talk of it that way because people will confuse the concept with Tritheism. Or, in other words, they are admitting that there is both one God in one sense of the word “God” but three “Gods” in another sense. Richard Swinburne seems to have suggested something similar to this approach,though it’s generally considered unacceptable by Trinitiarians.

I have been told, many times, by creedal Trinitarians that this is impossible because it’s the same as saying there is three Gods and thus it’s polytheism. In other words, when denying this approach, the creedal belief in one God becomes a unique identity and we aren’t allowed to consider the possiblity of “God” having multiple meanings. So the creedal statement that there is only one God takes on meaning here long enough to deny this possiblity.

Example 3: Modalism

Another way I’ve seen this addressed is by admitting that the Father is in fact the Son, at least in some sense. But of course this is now the same as the heresy of modalism because the Father is the Son and vice versa. They are the same “person” if you will. Again, the creedal statement that the Father and the Son aren’t the same person suddenly takes on meaning long enough to deny this possiblity.

Incomprehensibility vs. Contradiction

Another common approach to this problem I’ve seen with Creedal Christians is to say “well, I’m not saying it’s comprehensible.” I often get examples of other incomprehensibles, for example, light being both a wave and a particle. “The universe is not comprehensible, so why would God be?” I am told.

But what does the word “comprehensible” mean in this context? If I say that light is both a wave and a particle, I would agree that I can’t really “comprehend” that in the sense that I can’t, in my mind, picture what as “wavicle” looks like. But I can easily “comprehend” that a “wavicle” is something that sometimes has properties of a wave and sometimes a particle. I can easily state the mathematics behind it. I can use the math to make predictions.

This objection is a dodge. It equates “contradiction” to “incomprehensible” inappropriately. I am not asking creedal Christians to give me a set of statements that I can picture in my head (I.e. “comprehend”) I’m asking them to give me a set of statements that they themselves are willing to accept the logical conclusions of.

Will God Make a Contradiction True?

Another common thing I hear from Creedal Christians is God can make a contradiction true.

Now I have no way of knowing if God can or can’t make a contradiction true. But I do know that God says he wouldn’t because making a contraction true is the same as lying. For example, God could declare that you are saved if you believe in Jesus Christ and then send you to hell for it because you are both saved and not saved.

Accepting that God would make a contradiction, for all intents and purposes, scrubs God off the slate (to paraphrase Lewis) for the sake of having any discussion about Him at all.

Oh, and if you are going to accept that contradiction, why not accept an equivalent one: that God is both one God and three Gods. If you can accept that, you now need to accept that Mormons are fully Trinitarians. In fact, you’ll have to accept that Jehovah’s Witnesses are too because Jesus is both fully God and not fully God. There is no longer a basis for rejecting anyone as having truth or not having truth because the very concept of “truth” starts with the assumption that we are not allowing contradictions.

Use of Jargon

I have seen some creedal Christians try to get around their contradictory use of the Trinity doctrine through use of Jargon. By multiplying words, we might be able to eventually hide the fact that we’re avoiding answering the question of what the Trinity doctrine really means. Take a close look at the quote in footnote 1. I believe this is such a case.

Conclusions

I hope I’ve clarified the problem as I see it, as well as my real frustrations with trying to make sense of creedal Christian’s beliefs. There are many ways to take the Trinity doctrine and make sense of it, yet all of those ways are considered unacceptable to creedal Christians. Thus the net result is that they seem to believe a group of words that have no meaning even to them.

Notes:
[1] As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, this is just a word game in many ways. To anyone not already accepting the creeds as the authoritative revealed word of God, the words “person” and “being” would mean the same thing. And, of course, the Bible doesn’t use those words. “Person” and “Being” are non-scriptural and purely creedal. See also footnote 3 for further explanation of how “person” and “being” are not used in any common sense of those words.

[2] Consider this “explanation” of the word “person” given on the same web page as the Athanasius creed:

In modern philosophical usage the term person means a separate and distinct rational individual. But the tri-personality of God is not a numerical or essential trinity of three beings (like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), for this would be tritheism; nor is it, on the other hand, merely a threefold aspect and mode of manifestation, in the Sabellian or Swedenborgian sense; but it is a real, objective, and eternal, though ineffable, distinction in the one Divine being, with a corresponding threefold revelation of this being in the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification. Hence the distinction between the immanent, intrinsic (or ontological) trinity and the extrinsic or economical) trinity; in other words, between the trinity of essence and the trinity of manifestation.

Can someone tell me what any of this actually means? It really comes across to me like a very wordy denial that the word “person” as used in the creeds actually mean “person” at all. It tells us what it doesn’t mean, not what it does mean.

It is sayings like this that make me wish I had a trusted but very educated creedal Christian to ask questions of but could trust he/she wouldn’t get mad if I keep asking penetrating questions and not accept unexplained creedal statements as answers.

[3] Again, this seems to me to be a word game. To a full monotheist, like a Jew or Muslim, three persons that are all fully God is three Gods and thus polytheism.

Let’s put this another way: if it’s okay to redefine monotheism from “one God” to “one God that is found 100% in three distinctly different persons” (Trinity formula) then why isn’t it okay to redefine monotheism to “one God that is a Godhead made up of three persons that are all also fully God.” (LDS formula) Again, this seems like a word game to me.

[4] I know I’ll get push back on this. Mormons are so strongly trained to reject creeds, that the idea that it’s possible to interpret them as Mormon doctrine is more or less anathema for us. Furthermore, there are a lot of questionable things stated in the Athanasius creed that many Mormons (often even myself) would prefer to not interpret as pro-Mormon. For example:

“So that in all things, as aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped.”

But McConkie said we worship only the Father, right? No, actually, McConkie allowed for worshiping them as a single unit. See the details here. So this statement, while abnormal for Mormons is not inconsistent with even McConkie’s own highly tri-theistic teachings. For this statement to have been at odds with our teachings it would have had to have said “we worship the Son by addressing prayers in His name.”

A few others. Verse 9:
“The Father incomprehensible [unlimited]: the Son incomprehensible [unlimited]: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible [unlimited, or infinite].”
 
Mormons don’t like to think of God as “incomprehensible” and we often used this as a dividing point between ourselves and creedal Christians. However, even the most die hard Mormons in this regard will ultimately relent and admit that there are, at least currently to us mortals, things that are incomprehensible about God. I think our general concern with this verse is that it seems to be referring to the Trinity doctrine itself as incomprehensible. And since we don’t agree with the traditional interpretation of Trinity, this is a self reference that we do reject. But the words themselves, we don’t reject.

Verse 8:
“The Father uncreate [uncreated]: the Son uncreate [uncreated]: and the Holy Ghost uncreate [uncreated].”

Do we think of the Son as uncreated? Isn’t he “begotten” and thus created? Or do we think of all intelligence as uncreated and thus the Son is uncreated? It entirely depends on how you choose to interpret this verse. But clearly Mormons could choose to legitimately agree with the words.
 
Verse 33:
“[the Son] Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.”
 
Do Mormons agree with this? Well, we do in fact see Jesus as equal to the father in terms of this “divinity” (I.e. “Godhood”) but inferior in terms of His “Glory.” Close fit to be sure. If I assume “manhood” is a reference to his “Sonship” then I have no problems with how this verse is worded. Of course, traditionally Christians interpret this verse to mean that Jesus is in every way equal to the Father accept when He was a man. And clearly Mormons would disagree with this.

But let’s not get too worried about whether or not Mormons agree with the Athanasius creed or not. That isn’t my point. My point is that the words in the Athanasius creed can’t be separated from their traditional interpretation. This is key to understanding why the doctrine of Trinity is a contradiction in how creedal Christians use it. 

[5] See footnote 1 for further explanation about this.

[6] Here is the proof in predicate logic. This will avoid misunderstandings of what I am saying. Please note, I know very little about predicate logic out side of one class ages ago, so feel free to check me and critique. That’s sort of the point of going through this much trouble — to be sure I’m being precise in what I am saying so that I can be understood.

F =  Father, G = God, S = Son
To display “identity” I’m going to use “if and only if” as my logical statement.

Assumptions:
F ↔ G (I.e. If and only if the Father, then God. Or in other words, the Father is uniquely identified as God)
S ↔ G (I.e. If and only if the Son, then God. Or in other words, the Son is uniquely identified as God)
¬ (F ↔ S) (I.e. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father)

Derivations:
¬ [(F → S) ∧ (S → F)]
¬ [(F → S) ∧ (S → F)] ⊢ (¬(F → S) ∨ ¬(S → F))
¬(F → S) ∨ ¬(S → F)
[(F → G) ∧ (G → F)]
[(F ∧ G) ∨ (¬G ∧ ¬F)]
[(S → G) ∧ (G → S)]
[(S ∧ G) ∨ (¬G ∧ ¬S)]
S → G
G → F
[(S → G) ∧ (G → F)] ⊢ (S → F)
[(F → G) ∧ (G → S)] ⊢ (F → S)
¬(F → S) ∨ ¬(S → F)
(S → F)
(F → S)
(F ↔ S)

In plain English, we just concluded that the Father is the Son, which is a contradiction to one of our assumptions.

Of course you don’t need all this. It should be intuitively obvious that, as wikipedia puts it: “[The Trinity Doctrine] appears to imply that identity is not transitive—’for the Father is identical with God, the Son is identical with God, and the Father is not identical with the Son.’”

The problem with me saying that is that, well, we all know it’s true — for other people. But due to the narrative fallacy, we think we’re the exception not the rule.

To prove that, at times, we’re all the rule, I am forced to start with a fake example because it is the only way to not derail the conversation immediately.

When Family History and Church Collide

I was studying my family history about an ancestor named Isaac Washington Pierce, Sr. Around the same time I was reading History of the Church. Imagine my surprise when I realized that the two connected; my ancestor is mentioned in History of the Church.

Isaac Pierce was part of the Kirtland camp that left Kirtland to follow Joseph Smith to Missouri. He is listed as being part of the camp on page 93 of History of the Church, Vol 3.

But more importantly the death of his baby, which happened while making the journey to Missouri, is recorded.

Under the Saturday, September 15 entry it states:

“Here T.P. Pierce’s child died, and was buried on Sunday, near Elder Keeler’s house.” (History of the Church, Vol. 3)

But now we have a bit of a problem, the name recorded is “T.P. Pierce” but there is no T.P. Pierce in my family. So could this be another Pierce? Perhaps. But there is no other “Pierce” family listed amongst the Kirtland camp even though History of the Church Vol 3, p 91 – 93 give a full list of the members of the camp.

Our best guess is that T.P. Pierce is Isaac’s wife, whose name is actually Phebe Baldwin Pierce.

But wait, it gets even more messy; my family’s records show the death of Isaac and Phebe’s baby as September 13, 1838, not September 15, 1838. But the Kirtland camp recorder records no deaths on September 13.

Could this be two different Pierce families with two different babies that happened to die two days apart? Well, while we can’t rule out the possibility entirely, the odds are very low. The fact that there is only one I.W. Pierce family listed as being part of the camp on the camp’s constitution and the fact that the initials are close to right – at least they got the “P” right even if it’s in the wrong position – and the fact that there is only one baby’s death recorded twice but within 2 days of each other makes it very likely that this is the same family and same baby’s death we are recording.

And yet we have two dates for the baby’s death. How could this happen? Well, it’s not hard to see that a mistake was obviously made. But which is the mistake? Is it History of the Church or is it my family’s history?

But is this really a concerning discrepancy? Of course not. Discrepancies like this happen all the time in the historical record. Historians must deal with such inconsistencies.

What If It Were Miraculous?

Though this discrepancy is unconcerning, let’s pretend for a moment that we’re dealing with something miraculous rather than mundane. For the sake of argument, pretend like the death of this child connected to a miraculous truth claim of a religion. Let’s get really crazy and let’s pretend that the son of Isaac Washington Pierce Sr. (named Isaac Washington Pierce, Jr.) went on to found the Completely Reformed and Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CRRLDS) and that his foundational miracle was the visit of an angel and a dictated revelation from the angel that in parts states:

“I come to deliver these truths to you on the 13^th of September, the very date of the death of your father’s child when part of the Kirtland camp traveling to Missouri. For God is mindful of your family.”

We now have a miraculous event tied to one of the two dates in question, which means that the inconsistency just took on a whole new level of importance. What before was clearly just the natural inconsistency of the historical record now becomes the basis for denying the truth claims of the CRRLDS.

So let’s imagine we are anti-CRRLDS’s making an argument that the revelation in question was fraudulent.

The Anti-CRRLDS for September 13 Date Being Wrong

The CRRLDS is clearly making up their founding revelation. The revelation claims to have been delivered on 13 of September, 1838, the date of the death of the Sr. Pierce’s child. But the Kirtland camp recorded keeper gives us the truth date as 15^th of September.

Let’s consider this rationally, what are the odds that the camp record keeper in the Kirtland camp, who was keeping a daily journal, got this date wrong? Pierce Jr. fabricated this revelation on the date he thought the child died, but we know he used the wrong date. My guess is that angels don’t make mistakes like this.

The Apologist Response for September 13 Date

There are two dates recorded, but we feel that the parent’s personal records in question are more likely to be correct. We all know that daily journals sometimes get written days later with retro dates and this could easily be a mistake.

What I find interesting is that the Anti-CRRLDS argument really seems like a good argument. It would cause me to pause and wonder at the possibility that the foundational revelation for the CRRLDS is a fabrication.

And I also have to admit that the apologist response seems weak; it seems like a lame reaction to an obvious factual problem. (“Is that the best you can do?” I think to myself.) Given that I’m not really a fan of the CRRLDS I think this would be a sufficient argument to make me simply dismiss their truth claims out of hand.

But wait! Let’s switch the dates around and try this again! Pretend that the revelation had the date that is listed in History of the Church instead of the date in the family records.

The Anti-CRRLDS for September 15 Date Being Wrong

The CRRLDS is clearly making up their founding revelation. The revelation claims to have been delivered on September 15, 1838, the date of the death of the Sr. Pierce’s child, as recorded and published in History of the Church. . However, we know from family records that the real date of the death of his child was September 13, 1838.

Let’s consider this rationally, what are the odds that the family remembered the death of their own child wrong? Pierce Jr. fabricated this revelation on the date he thought his father’s child died, but we know he used the wrong date. My guess is that angels don’t make mistakes like this.

The Apologist for the CRRLDS for September 15 Date

There are two dates recorded, but we feel that the Kirtland camp recorders date is more likely to be correct. After all, camp recorders often record right on the very day whereas family records are probably recorded later.

Oh my goodness! The Anti-CRRLDS statement still seems strong to me. And the apologist rebuttal still seems weak. I know myself well enough to know I’m still going to dismiss the CRRLDS out of hand based on this attack.

But how could this be? How can either way seem like a legitimate attack and in both cases the apologist rebuttal seems weak?

Two Improbables

The reason both attacks seems strong and both rebuttals seem weak is because the odds of either date being wrong is highly improbable. It makes little sense to our minds that a daily note keeper could record a death on the wrong day but it makes no more sense to us that a family could mis-remember the death of a baby and record it wrong. Yet one of these two improbables happened. The apologists must defend an improbable event to a skeptical audience either way.

When there is nothing miraculous involved with the inconsistent dates, there is really no reason to worry about the improbability of either event, so our minds fill in the gaps without effort. When there is something miraculous at stake, our natural skepticism – and by this I mean our natural bias – kicks in and suddenly the inconsistency seems like a counter proof to the miraculous event.

The Illusion of Information

But does the date discrepancy tell us something meaningful about whether or not the CRRLDS revelation is made up or not?

Since we know this is a real non-miraculous historical discrepancy, and since we know there is no such thing as the CRRLDS, we know this is a made up foundational revelation. But that fact – that this foundational revelation is made up – is literally unrelated to the date issue. It’s like trying to determine the stock market using astrology. The inconsistency of the dates tells us nothing about whether or not this foundational revelation of the CRRLDS is made up.

Let me say it again: Despite what an effective counter argument this seems to be in proving the CRRLDS revelation a fraud, the fact that there is an inconsistency in the dates literally told us nothing about whether or not the CRRLDS revelation was a fraud. Nothing as in zippo, nada, nill, nothing, not a single thing at all.

Both of the “anti” attacks are really just narrative fallacies. Both are 100% information deficient because they convey, in Black Swan terminology, only the illusion of information.

By comparison, the apologists defense really does convey useful information because it concentrates on what we don’t know. It is unfortunate that our brains simply aren’t wired to recognize that the apologists are more factually right then the attackers.

Just the Facts Ma’am

This example will illustrate the problem of history in general and LDS history in particular: so much of it is only the illusion of information. Yet our brains are incapable of identifying the difference between real information and the illusion of information. Yes, there are facts here, but what are they really?

In my made up scenario the undisputed points are: [1]

1. The baby died either on September 13 or September 15.
2. There was a foundational “revelation” for the CRRLDS that mentions one of the two dates.
3. The foundational revelation may or may not be a fraud.

The narrative used by the anti-CRRLDS to “prove” that the foundational revelation is a fraud supplies no information but instead is a good story that helps the information stick in our minds. Our minds, grasping for such a story, can’t help but feel that somehow the narrative conveys additional information that is probably true.

But as we’ve shown, the narrative actually conveys no information at all. All it’s really doing is taking an inconsistency that was naturally supplied by the historical record and then playing off our natural bias against the CRRLDS to help us form a narrative fallacy that explains the data points in an unfriendly way.

Did the Inconsistency Matter In the First Place?

But did this inconsistency even matter at all? I can prove it didn’t. Let’s take our anti-CRRLDS and demand an answer to the one question that really did matter: if the two dates matched would that have convinced them that the revelation was true?

Well, it would seem that fact 1 and fact 3 are unrelated then, because apparently even without an inconsistency, the revelation is still believed to be a fraud. This whole inconsistency never meant a thing to anyone. It’s merely a misdirection to justify a predestined conclusion.

Conclusions

This made up example illustrates the ease with which we can confuse a narrative fallacy that conveys no information at all with real information. It also illustrates that our biases play a substantial role in how we judge narrative fallacies as being meaningful or not – even when they are obviously not meaningful. It also demonstrates that that history is naturally full of improbable inconsistencies and that the existence of these inconsistencies tells us nothing about whether or not the events or related events were fraudulent. It also demonstrates that even if the inconsistencies in the historical record did not exist the probability of fraudulence does not change.

Notes:

[1] I hesitate to even call the above “facts” because in reality the only “facts” we have are that someone said the baby died and died on one of those two days. It’s, of course, possible that baby didn’t die, or that we had two babies, or that both dates are wrong. But since no one is disputing any of that, I’ll stick with my simplified list, even though this list isn’t actually a list of real facts either.

“History is opaque. You see what comes out, not the script that produces events, the generator of history. There is a fundamental incompleteness in your grasp of such events, since you do not see what’s inside the box, how the mechanisms work. …the minds of the gods cannot be read just by witnessing their deeds. You are very likely to be fooled about their intentions.” (The Black Swan, P. 8 )

In a previous post I discussed the realities of The Black Swan, those improbable events that rule our lives but we pretend don’t and can’t happen. I also discussed how in actuality “randomness” is really just incomplete information. And finally I discussed how we feel the need to reverse engineer explanation for historical events — even though it’s impossible — and how, once we do, we have a really hard time realizing that there is more than one viable explanation for the same event. [1]

Which brings me to how this all directly relates to the LDS Church and specifically to the intolerance we show each other on the Bloggernacle at times. It is all directly related to two facts:

1. History is a collection of facts demanding interpretation before we can process them.
2. Thus all history is mostly narrative fallacy.

This means that two people can and will interpret it differently and both will have been fooled by their brains to believe that theirs is the one best way to explain those facts and only an idiot or liar would think otherwise.

It’s not hard to see that this simple explanation explains everything about the relationship between more believing and less believing Mormons. Indeed, it explains the relationship between Mormons and Evagelicals, and Evangelicals and Liberals and… Democrats and Republicans, and Communists and… well… it sort of explains life. Let’s leave it at that.

Why? Because some people have a narrative fallacy in the mind that proves or disproves the truth claims of the LDS Church (or fill in the blank point of view). To those that think they disproved it, it’s just obvious that the LDS Church is not “the one truth church.” Depending on their personal point of view it might also seem “obvious” to them that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, or that he was sincere but misguided, etc. To those that think they have proven it, the same could be said, but in reverse.

Furthermore, anyone that is held bound by a different narrative fallacy must seem like they are being deceptive, or at least brainwashed, by comparison. After all, both of you are being fooled by randomness (i.e. lack of information) on the subject into creating narrative fallacies to explain the outcome. And both of you, having defective brains, can’t help but feel “you’ve figured it all out.”

This is why we need to understand the real limits of history if we are ever to “get along.”

NNT is a huge history buff, so he wanted to treat history and historians well. Unlike financiers, sociologies, and statisticians, which he feels are usually charlatans, the historian’s craft has value even if that value is not actually finding out “what really happened.”

History is useful for the thrill of knowing the past, and for the narrative (indeed), provided it remains a harmless narrative. One should learn under severe caution. History is certainly not a place to theorize or derive general knowledge, nor is it meant to help in the future, without some caution. We can get negative confirmation from history [i.e. find a Black Swan and thereby prove something], which is invaluable, but we get plenty of illusions of knowledge along with it. (p. 199)

NNT’s advice to use history safely is, “Learn to read history, get all the knowledge you can, do not frown on the anecdote, but do not draw any causal links, do not try to reverse engineer too much – but if you do, do not make big scientific claims.” (p. 199)

This seems like obviously good advice, but as NNT points out, it runs counter to the current thinking by modern historians. He quotes historians that are “explicitly pursuing causation as a central aspect of [their] job.” (p. 199) Isn’t that what we’ve always been taught is the whole point of history? Are we not told that historians are to find cause and effect and that this is useful so that we aren’t “doomed to repeat” our mistakes?

His conclusion: “The more we try to turn history into anything other than an enumeration of accounts to be enjoyed with minimal theorizing, the more we get into trouble. Are we so plagued with the narrative fallacy?” (p. 199)

Apologists

Mormon history suffers from an additional issue. It’s inextricably intertwined with religion — on both sides of the divide. Everyone knows that believing Mormons comprehend their history through the filter of their religious beliefs, but disaffected and non-Mormons do as well — and as much.

I believe this is why there are “good” apologists and “bad” apologists. The good apologists will realize the non-rationality of their beliefs (not irrationality, just non-rationality – that their beliefs are not a proven fact) and admit it up front. They will identify their biases clearly to those they address because their goal isn’t to prove. And they will take only a defensive stance (i.e. “you don’t have proof that my beliefs are wrong.”) not an offensive attack. They will never try to prove their beliefs using “reason” – which is really just a series of narrative fallacies – because they will realize there is no proof one way or the others and that rational verification is beyond our reach.

By comparison, the bad apologists will advance their personal narrative fallacies as “proving” their position. They will claim that anyone that does no agree with them, despite having the same facts, is being deceptive or must be intellectually inferior. They will use mockery when confronted with counter facts and will not be able to admit “yes, there is more than one viable way to read these facts, but I read it this way.”

But what is less acknowledged is that we are all apologists, believing or unbelieving. And there are good ones and bad ones on both sides.

So ask yourself, which type of apologist are you? Are you a good apologists or a bad apologist for your belief system?

Notes:

[1] NNT has another excellent quote about this:

The human mind suffers from three ailments as it comes into contact with history, what I call the triplet of opacity. They are:

1. the illusion of understanding, or how everyone thinks he knows what is going on in the world that is more complicated (or random) than they realize;
2. the retrospective distortion, or how we can assess matters only after the fact, as if they were in a rearview mirror (history seems clearer and more organized in history books than in empirical reality); and
3. the overvaluation of factual information and the handicap of authoritative and learned people, particularly when they create categories – when they “Platonify.” (The Black Swan, p. 9)

This time, I’m going to mostly just go with quotes from the book, as they say it all:

The Limbic System’s Role in “Emotional Thinking”

The role of emotion in shaping “rational” thinking is tremendously underrated. Strong evidence shows that human behavior is the product of both the rational deliberation that takes place in the front areas of the cerebral cortex and the “emote control” — emotional reasoning – that originates in the limbic system. …As Princeton sociologist Douglass Massey writes: ‘Emotionality clearly preceded rationality in evolutionary sequence, and as rationality developed it did not replace emotionality as a basis for human interaction. Rather, rational abilities were gradually added to preexisting and simultaneously developing emotional capacities….’

Human behavior…is not under the sole control of either affect or deliberation but results from the interaction of these two qualitatively different processes… Emote control is fast but is largely limited to operating according to evolved patterns. Deliberation is far more flexible… but is comparatively slow and laborious.  (p. 187)

Our Lack of Rational Thinking When We Have a Vested Interest

Just prior to the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential elections, two group of subjects were recruited – fifteen ardent Democrats and fifteen ardent Republicans. Each was presented with conflicting and seemingly damaging statements about their candidate, as well as about more neutral targets such as actor Tome Hanks…

…when the participants were asked to draw a logical conclusion about a candidate from the other — “wrong” — political party, the participants found a way to arrive at a conclusion that made the candidate look bad, even though logic should have mitigated the particular circumstances and allowed them to reach a different conclusion. Here is where it gets interesting. When this “emote control” began to occur, parts of the brain normally involved in reasoning were not activated. Instead, a constellation of activations occurred in the same areas of the brain where punishment, pain, and negative emotions are experienced.

Once a way was found to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted, the neural punishment areas turned off, and the participant received a blast of activation in the circuits involving rewards – akin to the high an addict receives when getting his fix. In essence, the participants were not about to let facts get in the way of their hot-button decision making and quick buzz of reward. ‘None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged,’ says Westen. ‘Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones. (p. 189)

It Affects Everyone

“motivated reasoning” — that is, political bias (in this case, at least) – appears to be qualitatively different from reasoning when a person has no strong emotional stake in the conclusions to be reached.

‘Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret ‘the facts,’ according to Westen. (p. 190)

The Need for Tolerance — Why You Can’t Trust Your Own “Rational” Thoughts

This next quote struck home to me due to all the pro and con views of Prop 8 flying around. I ask both sides of the issue to read the next quote humbly and with an open mind:

Similar reasoning has led kindhearted individuals to support “feel-good” programs such as busing, which seemed, on the face of it, to be an outstanding method to integrate school systems. Opponents of this program – whatever their reasons – were seen as racists, which meant that rational concerns about the program were discounted. The results was that cities such as Detroit were devastated as the well-to-do moved to the suburbs, out of range of the managed busing system. This worsened the segregation the busing had been designed to remedy. (p. 191)

But simply looking at the research results, one must conclude that people’s first emotional responses about what’s wrong, who is to blame, or how to proceed, particularly in relation to complex issues, must always -– always -– be considered suspect. There is no simple algorithm for teasing rationality from emotion. An ardent Democrat or Republican, a dyed-in-the wool community union organizer, a young devotee of Scientology, a Palestinian suicide bomber, or a KKK grand kleagle could each reason the above paragraphs and think. I’m not irrational –- it’s those other idiots who can’t see the obvious. But we all have pockets of irrationality, some large, some small, no matter if we are mathematicians who make our living doing proofs, wealthy philanthropists, or stay-at-homewives.  If there is one thing that is important for us to know, it is that emote control allows our best traits – love, caring, loyalty, and trust – to be used as manipulative levers. (p. 192)

The book’s name comes from the idea that the human brain is not wired to deal with improbable events so we simply discount their possibility:

Before the discovery of Australia, people in the Old World were convinced that all swans were white, an unassailable belief as it seemed completely confirmed by empirical evidence. [i.e. no one had ever seen a Black Swan to that date] …[this story] illustrates a severe limitation to our learning from observations or experience and the fragility of our knowledge. One single observation can invalidate a general statement derived from millennia of confirmatory sightings of millions of white swans. All you need is one single… black bird. (p. xvii)

More to the point: “Black Swan logic makes what you don’t know far more relevant than what you do know.” (p. xix)

A “Black Swan Event” has three attributes:

1. “…it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility”
2. “it carries an extreme impact.”
3. “in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.” (p. xvii)

The book makes the case that everything in life of significance is due to Black Swan events, yet our brains are wired to pretend they don’t exists and won’t happen again.

“Black Swan blindness” plays out as a major part of our lives. It is the reason why we often get into debt to the point where even a few weeks of not having a job would destroy us financially speaking. We are all wired to ignore Black Swans despite their overwhelming impact in all our lives.

…our minds are wonderful explanation machines, capable of making sense out of almost anything, capable of mounting explanations for all manner of phenomena, and generally incapable of accepting the idea of unpredictability. [Black Swan] events [are] unexplainable, but intelligent people thought they were capable of providing convincing explanations for them – after the face. Furthermore, the more intelligent the person, the better sounding the explanation.  What’s more worrisome is that all these beliefs and accounts appeared to be logically coherent and devoid of inconsistencies. (p. 10)

Financial Markets and Financial Experts

Finance theory is the first well accepted “science” to be debunked under the Black Swan. Financial markets are primarily based on Black Swan events, not the bell curve based statistical measurements in modern portfolio theory.

…the application of the sciences of uncertainty to real-world problems has had ridiculous effects …Go ask your portfolio manager for his definition of “risk,” and odds are that he will supply you with a measure that excludes the possibility of the Black Swan – hence one that has no better predictive value for assessing the total risks than astrology. (p. xviii)

Yet we continue to use modern portfolio theory as if it meant something. This faith in a model that is a mismatch to real life reaches hilarious proportions at times.

How likely is a 10 sigma event on a bell curve? It’s so infinitesimally small that there is no point in considering it.  Every mathematical financial model in existence assumes that there will be no 10 sigma events because they just aren’t worth considering.

But how often do 10 sigma events happen in the stock market? Did you know that if you remove the 10 ten biggest one-day moves for the U.S. Stock market over the past 50 years, your returns are cut in half? Half the gains in the stock market are directly due to Black Swan events that the mathematical models we rely on assume will never happen.

And consider the stock market crash of 1987. That was a 20 sigma event! “If the world of finance were Gaussian [i.e. a bell curve statistical model as we assume], an episode such as the crash [of 1987] (more than 20 standard deviations) would take place every several billion lifetimes of the universe.” (p. 276)

Note: I wrote this article before the current stock market crash were we ended up with multiple sigma events all in one week.

So why do we continue to use a mathematical model that apparently has negative value? Because “people want a number to anchor on. Yet the two methods are logically incompatible.” (p. 276)

On Melting Ice Cubes

Any process that is based on retroactively explaining a set of data suffers from similar problems. NNT challenges us to imagine a melting ice cube and to predict what the puddle will look like after it melts. “If you have the right models… you can predict with great precision” (p. 196)

Now imagine instead a puddle of water on the floor. “Now try to reconstruct in your mind’s eye the shape of the ice cube it may once have been. Note that the puddle may not have necessarily originated from an ice cube.”

The first direction, from the ice cube to the puddle, is called the forward process. The second direction, the backward process, is much, much more complicated. The forward process is generally used in physics and engineering; the backward process is nonrepeatable, nonexperimental historical approaches. In a way, the limitations that prevent us from unfrying an egg also prevent us from reverse engineering history. (p. 196)

NNT applies this concept to trying to determine history. The issue with history is that it’s impossible to reconstruct what really happened, we only know what the end result was:

The brings me to a greater problem with the historian’s craft. I will state the fundamental problem of practice as follows: while in theory randomness is an intrinsic property, in practice, randomness is incomplete information… (p. 198)

Narrative Fallacy

But we can’t help but believe that we can reverse engineer history. Why? Due to something called the Narrative Fallacy. The Narrative Fallacy relates to the third attribute of a Black Swan: “human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.”

I have noticed that we come up with simple explanations for every complex thing around us. Unfortunately these explanations are actually fiction.

The narrative fallacy addresses our limited ability to look at sequences of facts without weaving an explanation into them, or, equivalently, forcing a logical link, an arrow of relationship, upon them. Explanations bind facts together. They make them all the more easily remembered; they help them make more sense. (p. 64)

And why do we naturally do this? NNT’s explanation is evolution created our brains this way. However, he points out that this isn’t the whole story. “The problem of narrativity… is not so ‘psychological’… it is more generally a problem of information. …Information wants to be reduced.” (p. 64)

He gives some humorous examples of how the narrative fallacy often leads us astray:

In an experiment, psychologists asked women to select from among twelve pairs of nylon stockings the ones they preferred. The researches then asked the women their reasons for their choices. …All the pairs of stockings were, in fact, identical. The women supplied backfit, post hoc explanations. (p. 65)

He also uses the famous example of split brain patients. (p. 65) In certain epilepsy patients there is an operation done to separate the halves of the brain. It is then possible to talk to each half of the brain separately by showing writing to only one eye. When the person then performs the act asked, unbeknownst to the part of their brain that talks and explains things, they invariably concoct an immediate explanation that is made up but they are convinced is true. For example, the researcher might ask the patient’s right hemisphere to walk across the room. When they do so, they then asked the person (who talks and explains through their left hemisphere) why they just walked across the room. They might respond, “I wanted to get a Coke.”

NNT explains this is because “you interpret pretty much as you perform other activities deemed automatic and outside your control, like breathing.” (p. 66) This is why I could recognize narrative fallacy in others but not myself. This is why I can’t stop myself from falling into them.

And if I could stop narrative fallacies, it might not turn out to be a good thing. Narrative Fallacies are a survival technique to be able to deal with the complexities of the world. “The same condition that makes us simplify [i.e. so that we can deal with our complex lives] pushes us to think that the world is less random than it actually is.” (p. 69)

Does Having More Information Make You Smarter?

In Psych 101 I remember learning about an experiment where subjects were shown an out of focus image slowly being brought into focus. The subjects that watched the image from the beginning were at a disadvantage to correctly comprehend the image compared to subjects brought in part way through the focusing process. NNT uses a similar experiment to prove that more information is actually harmful to comprehension:

Show two groups of people a blurry image of a fire hydrant… For one group, increate the resolution slowly, in ten steps. For the second, do it faster, in five steps. Stop at a point where both groups have been presented an identical image…. The members of the group that saw fewer intermediate steps are likely to recognize the hydrant much faster. Moral? The more information you give someone, the more hypotheses they will formulate along the way, and the worse off they will be. They see more random noise and mistake it for information. The problem is that our ideas are sticky: once we produce a theory, we are not likely to change our minds – so those who delay developing their theories are better off. When you develop your opinions on the basis of weak evidence, you will have difficult interpreting subsequent information that contradicts these opinions, even if this new information is obviously more accurate. (p. 144)

This is why people that listen to the news on the radio or television continuously obtaining up to date information on a subject will be at a disadvantage compared to someone that, say, reads a weekly magazine. (p. 144) This means knowing more information isn’t the same as knowing more.

It also means one person’s theory on an unknowable truth isn’t really measurably better or worse than anyone else’s theory on the same subject. As NNT puts it:

Consider that two people can hold incompatible beliefs based on the exact same data. …One may have a million ways to explain things, but the true explanation if unique, whether or not it is within our reach. (p. 72)

I originally intended to end this post here. But I then came across another book that explained that the basis for our problems with Black Swans is actually very much biological. I will post the rest later this weekend. And I apologize for having so many posts so close together. This is such an important subject that affects all of us. But it’s a complex subject that really does need several posts and time to digest.

Your life lays on the floor, shattered before you. Are there any pieces worth salvaging, or is none of it worth a darn? Is there even a God? Does life have meaning?

You aren’t sure what to do or where to go from here. You want to believe in God still, because there was so much joy in it, but you can’t just will it to happen over what your brain tells you the truth is. And you feel all alone because there is no one within the LDS Church you can really talk to about your doubts in a meaningful way.

What do you do when you come to realize that you faith had been misplaced all these years? You wish you could die.

I didn’t know about the New Order Mormon community during this period of my life, so I thought I was unique and I was very alone.

Through years of prayer, fasting, giving up on prayer and fasting, returning to more prayer and fasting, and finally receiving definitive answers from God, I emerged with a new, and somewhat uncomfortable, world view.

Rational Blind Spots

It started out as noticing “undesirable” patterns in others, only to start to notice them in myself as well. Sadly, whenever I did notice it in myself, it was already “after the fact” and usually years later, well after any passion over the situation had long since defused.

First, I noticed that other people — as well as myself — have blind spots to reason. In fact, the only time we can seem to consistently accept reason is when there was no or minimal passion involved.

Because of these rational blind spots, people don’t easily drop ideas they hold. Our ideas are part of our identity and part of who we are. Giving them up is a kind of death of self.

However, I noticed two strange exception to this rule of thumb. The first exception was when when there is an emotional reason to change one’s mind also present. In that case a change can happen rather quickly with “new reason” replacing the old.

A real life example: My boss at work couldn’t say enough about how great our company was right up to the moment in which she quit; then she couldn’t say enough bad. She thought she was being reasonable in both cases.

Another example: I didn’t question my beliefs in the LDS Church until there was a moral dilemma (I.e. an emotional issue) involved. I doubt anything else could have caused me to pause at all.

The second exception to when we can give up our ideas is when there is overwhelming social acceptance of our peers of a counter idea. This last is perhaps the most powerful. In studies, it has been found that “social truth” can actually override plain facts, such as getting a person to call the obviously shorter of two lines the longer.

“Just Give Me a Good Reason”

A related truth is that every person I have ever met, including myself, thinks they are an exception to the above rule. Commonly I hear people say “well, I (unlike most poeple) can change my mind if you can give me rational reasons.” (Or, more to the point, they might say something like “If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument …”)

We are all good at thinking of examples of where we changed our minds due to accepting reason and thus we identify ourselves as open minded. Yet, I rarely actually see any one do this in front of me. Have you?

Exception to this exception: I seem to perceive people that I have a high rate of agreement with as willing to change their minds and be open minded more often then I do of people I don’t agree with much. (i.e. “I see Fox News fairly cover the issues all the time, because they care about the facts, but CNN doesn’t!”) I have come to recognize this as a bit of desirable self projection.

The Curse of Certainty?

I also noticed that people felt certain about things they couldn’t rationally be certain of. In fact, uncertainty was a rarity except when the subject didn’t matter to the person. I found I could easily be uncertain about Bigfoot’s existence, but not about the rightness or wrongness of my spiritual or political beliefs.

Also, people tend to be very good at explaining that they used to be so certain, and they are sure glad they aren’t like that any more, all while being so certain of whatever their new beliefs are.

For a good example of a post on Mormon Matters guilty of this, click here.

“Other People Just Can’t Critically Think Like I Can!”

I noticed that people, including myself, can easily see the problems inherit in someone else’s beliefs, often quite accurately, but not in their own.

A libertarian friend was fond of saying that “other people” don’t “think critically.” His complaints about conservative and liberal beliefs were often factually true and good examples of out of the box thinking. Yet he couldn’t think critically of his own libertarian beliefs if his life depended on it. This, unfortunately, led him into some rather wacky conspiracy theories that everyone around him could see only a non-critical thinker could believe.  It also made it impossible for other people to separate his good thinking from his bad thinking.

The Power of Stories

We’re suckers for a good story. Our rational processes seemed to collapse around them. O.J. Simpson ran from the law because he was guilty. Thus I knew for certain he was guilty. And why else would Saddam Husein refuse to fully cooperate other than because he was hiding weapons of mass destruction? Thus I knew he had weapons of mass destruction.

First Impressions

I observed that what information we receive first has a huge impact on us. Truly first impressions matter the most — and you really do need to go tell your boss your side of the story before your co-worker does.

This last is particularly humbling because it means I’m easily manipulated. To use an example from Church History: if I were told by someone that Joseph Smith only mentioned one personage in his 1832 account of the First Vision because he made up the two personages later, this idea will “stick” in my mind. Even reading the actual account (which actually mentions no personages at all) would not change my mind because I’m already primed to interpret a lack of two personages as meaning one personage.

But suppose that same person told me that Joseph Smith didn’t want to expose the world and the Church to the physical separateness of the Trinity because they weren’t ready for it; so Joseph choose to hide that fact in his 1832 account of the First Vision by generically referring to both personages as “the Lord.” Now I’m primed to read the 1832 account of the First Vision in such a way that it seems completely in agreement with the 1839 account and you’ll never convince me that Joseph only saw one personage.

If later I hear someone say that the 1832 account only mentions one personage, I’m actually now primed to think of that person as lying since I know (or at least think I know) that it doesn’t mention any number of personages at all and it’s really obvious to anyone “who is sincerely reading what it says.”

In Whom Do You Trust?

Humbled by these realizations, I was further humbled to realize that knowing I was a defective thinker didn’t actually stop me from continuing to be a defective thinker.

What do you do when you come to realize that your faith has been misplaced all these years? I wanted to die. For in Whom can I trust and place my faith if I can’t trust my own brain?

There is a danger in trying to force fit the Book of Mormon into a pre-existing theological doctrine of deity. It is the same danger that exists in trying to force the Bible into a pre-existing theological doctrine of deity.

Scripture — whether the Book of Mormon or the Bible — supplies us points of data. They do not supply us a specific theology. Theology is how we interpret or put those points together into a coherent whole for ourselves.

But often our theologies are merely approximations of scriptural teachings.  After all, profound truths must somehow be turned into concrete concepts or we can’t wrap our mind around them.

In this article, I’m going to attempt to actually list all the data points but not (at least not yet) attempt to “best fit” it to a theology.

Jesus is God

This is the most fundamental message of the Book of Mormon and the Title page states so:

…to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations…

2 Nephi 26:12:

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

Jesus is specifically indicated as being fully God and fully Divine. There is no Book of Mormon concept of Jesus being a sub-god of some sort.

Jesus is specifically referred to, by those worshiping Him, as their Lord and God:

3 Nephi 3:18:

And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.

See also Mosiah 13:28,33-34; Helaman 8:22-23; 3 Nephi 11:10,14;

Jesus is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of His Father

2 Nephi 25:19

19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Alma 9:26:

26 And not many days hence the Son of God shall come in his glory; and his glory shall be the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, equity, and truth, full of patience, mercy, and long-suffering, quick to hear the cries of his people and to answer their prayers.

3 Nephi 20:31:

And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name.

See also Mosiah 4:2; Alma 5:50; Alma 6:8; Alma 7: 9-10, 13; Alma 13:16; Alma 16:19-20; Morm 9:22 and many many more. (See here)

Jesus is Worthy of Worship

In some sense of the word “worship” — we shall allow for more than one sense of that word –  Jesus is to be worshiped, though the proper sense is specifically stated as worshiping the Father in His name. 

2 Ne. 25: 16, 29

16 …until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind-and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things.

29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out. 

When Jesus is On Earth, He is Treated as a Separate Personality from His Father

3 Nephi 19, previously discussed, Jesus explains that the people prayed to Him only because He was present while the Father was not. He prays to the Father while they pray to Him and he explains that He wants them to be one in the same sense that He and the Father are one.

3 Nephi 19:21-23:

21 Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words.

22 Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them.

23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we [the disciples and the Godhead] may be one. 

3 Nephi 11:6-8

6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them:

7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name-hear ye him.

8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven… 

Jesus Existed Before His Incarnation

Ether 3: 14

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Indeed, the majority of the Boo k of Mormon enforces the idea that Jesus existed before His Incarnation. [2]

When Jesus is in Heaven, Prior to His Incarnation, He is Treated as a Separate Personality Than His Father

2 Nephi 31:11-12, 15

11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved. 

Compare also to 3 Nephi 31:18:

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

Jesus Has the Title “Father” Because He Created All Things

Often, Jesus is referred to as the Father when we are specifically talking about Jesus as Father of Heaven and Earth because he created “all things”. 

Mosiah 3:8

8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. 

Hel 14:12

12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

Ether 4:7

7 And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are. 

Alma 11:38-39

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; 

Compare to 3 Nephi 9:15

15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name. 

See also 2 Nephi 25:12; Helaman 16:18;

Jesus Fully Represents and Even Identifies as the Father

But Jesus is also presented as being called the Father because He fully represents and even identifies as His Father. This is specifically stated as being because they share the same will. Thus they are “one God” because they have one moral will. The very best example of this is the incorporable Mosiah 15:1-5 

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-

4 And they [not "He"] are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. 

This passage is so full of meat that we’ll have to revisit it under another point later.

Against all odds or sense, Mosiah 15:1-5 is the passage most used to “prove” that the Book of Mormon teaches modalism. But modalism does not teach anything like this passage. The closest fit to a literal interpretation of this passage is actually Swedenborgian, not modalism. [3]

However, it’s not really Swedenborgian either since v. 2 specifically states that Jesus is God (in v.4) due to subjecting His Flesh to the will of the Father. To the best of my knowledge, Swedenborg had no corollary to this. And this is to say nothing of the rest of the context of the Book of Mormon, which does not allow for Swedenborgian teachings at all.

Ether 4:12 also specifically teaches that Jesus fully represents the Father

12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me-that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

Compare also to Morm 9:12 and Ether 3:14;

The standard Mormon “explanation” for why Jesus identifies as His Father in some cases is to refer to the doctrine of Divine Investiture. I will have to deal with this in a future post.

Jesus, Prior to His Birth, is a “Spirit Body” with a Physical Image – Not a Formless Spirit Filling Everything

This fact comes out when the brother of Jared sees the pre-mortal Jesus and see a physical form like a man’s.

Ether 3:6-8

6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

7 And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

8 And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood. 

It might be tempting to say that God was just taking a physical form so that the brother of Jared had something to look at. But the actual passage does not allow for that possibility because of the reason Jesus Himself gives for why the brother of Jesus saw a physical form:

Ether 3:13

13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you. 

According to this Book of Mormon passage, to be in the presence of God is to be physically standing next to Him. So the physical form of Jesus is literally His presence. The popular Christian idea that God has no physical presence, because God is everywhere present fully, is thus eliminated as a possibility. [4]

We are Physically Created In the Image of God

Ether 3:15-16

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. 

Gen 1:26-27 is specified in the Book of Mormon as being a physical image, not just sharing having free will like God has or some other spiritualized interpretation. This is one of the most ignored aspects of the Book of Mormon, that it declared a physical God in which we are physically the image of. Compare this passage also to Mosiah 7:27

27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth- 

It’s difficult to twist this passage to mean anything but that Gen 1:26-27′s “image of God” was meant to be a literal image, not a figurative one because it specifies that Jesus’ human form was the image of man because we were in the image of God. In other words, it specifies it both ways so that you can’t miss the point.

The Spirit of the Lord is Also Presented as Being With a Human Form

1 Nephi 11:1, 11

1 …I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord…

11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof-for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another. 

Compare this wording also with 1 Nephi 1:12, 1 Nephi 7:14-15, 1 Nephi 13:15 and many others were the Spirit of the Lord is referred to.

The Idea that God Is, Was, and Always Will Be a Spirit Is Considered Heresy

The heretical Zoramites believed that God was a spirit, is a spirit, and will always be a spirit forever. This shocks our true believers who immediately recognize the heresy involved.

Alma 31:12-15

12 Now, when they had come into the land, behold, to their astonishment they found that the Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week, which day they did call the day of the Lord; and they did worship after a manner which Alma and his brethren had never beheld;

14 Therefore, whosoever desired to worship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice, saying:

15 Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. 

Jesus is the Son of God Because of His Physical Birth

I previously used Mosiah 15:1-5, but let’s look at it again with an eye to what we mean when we refer to Jesus as the Son of God

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son- 

Since the rest of the Christian world considers Jesus the only Begotten because He was Begotten before the world began [5], this passage is significant theologically and separates the Book of Mormon view of Christology from the rest of the Christian worlds.

What The Book of Mormon Doesn’t Teach

What the Book of Mormon doesn’t say is as important as what it does say. It does not use the phrase “of one substance.” It does not tell us that Jesus and the Father are “one person.” It does not tell us God is a formless spirit. It does not tell us that God is equally present everywhere. It does not develop an Athanasius-like formula of “one God.” There is no mention of “persons” vs. “beings.” In fact, it does not use any creedal phrases at all.

What the Book of Mormon Doesn’t Confront

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon never actually deny any popular view of God directly. Though clearly not Modalistic or Trinitarian, nevertheless, only a careful parser ever feels their modalistic or Trinitarian views are deeply threatened by the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon did not force people to confront their false views of God right away but instead left plenty that a Modalist or a Trinitarian would relate to or feel comfortable with, even while preparing them for something else later.

Full Analysis

The following chart summarizes the relationship between what the Book of Mormon actually teaches compared to the theologies of Joseph Smith’s and our day:

* Clearly Trinitarianism does teach that in heaven Jesus and the Father are seperate personalities. However, there seems to be at least some discomfort over something as blatant as 2 Ne 31:11-15 where Jesus and the Father both talk to a prophet from heaven. So I listed this one as “maybe.”

Conclusions

In conclusion [6], we can now easily see that The Book of Mormon doctrine of deity is not fully Modalistic, nor Trinitarian, nor Tritheistic but does share some attributes with each. Each might even be considered an appropriate approximation of the nature of God, to some degree, but none is definitive. In reality, the Book of Mormon denies all of the popular existing theologies about God. [7] 

Notes:

[1] One poster once quoted Melodie Moench Charles to me as, in his view, a fair evaluation of the Book of Mormon’s doctrine of deity: “Although modalism is the best description for Book of Mormon theology generally, it is not apt in every instance. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Book of Mormon authors were intentionally constructing a theology that would fit any previous or future model or label. Nor did they seem concerned about making sure that the theology of any one part of the book was always consistent with the theology of other parts.”

I do not disagree with this analysis. In essence, Charles tells us that the Book of Mormon teaches Modalism, except for the parts that don’t.

Likewise, I feel that any of the following statements are also equally true:

The Book of Mormon teaches Trinitarianism, except for the parts that don’t.

The Book of Mormon teaches Tritheism, except for the parts that don’t.

Charles wrote her article, “Book of Mormon Christology”, as a response to how Mormons often, in her view, retrofit their doctrines of Deity onto the Book of Mormon. A point that is often valid. Yet she never realizes she’s fallen into the same trap herself, ignoring all evidence that runs counter to her theory of Nephite theology.

[2] Charles uses Ether 3:14 as the sole nod to the anti-modalism inherent on the Book of Mormon throughout: “On one point the Book of Mormon’s christology differs from what early Christian modalists believed. Although Jesus’ description of himself as Father and Son in Ether 3:14 is thoroughly modalistic, its context is not. In this same verse Jesus says, “I was prepared from the foundations of the world to redeem my people.” This, coupled with his identifying himself as Jesus Christ a millennium before his birth, suggests a “pre-existent” Christ. Always concerned to preserve the notion of the unity of God, early Christian modalists rejected the idea that Christ existed apart from his father prior to his incarnation. They would not have attributed to Christ any of God’s activity prior to Jesus’ birth. For example, they interpreted John 1:1-18 as describing the Word’s creation of the world allegorically, not as Christ’s literal pre-existent activity (Kelly 1960, 120).” Charles in “Book of Mormon Christology.” It is unclear why she ignored all the other anti-modalistic statements found throughout the Book of Mormon.

[3] Wikipedia explains: “Both Michael Servetus and Emanuel Swedenborg have been interpreted as being proponents of Modalism, however, neither describes God as appearing in three modes. Both describe God as the One Divine Person, Jesus Christ, who has a Divine Soul of Love, Divine Mind of Truth, and Divine Body of Activity. Jesus, through a process of uniting his human form to the Divine, became entirely One with His Divine Soul from the Father to the point of having no distinction of personality.” This is not classic modalism. In fact, the only thing it has in common with modalism is the lack of three “persons.”

[4] This doesn’t mean that God isn’t “omni-present.” It just means that that word “omni-present” means something other than God being physically present everywhere, as some Christians assume. 

Note: In the comments below, Aaron pointed out that Evagelicals make a distiction between physical presence and personal presence and thus, using an Evagelical point of view, it is possible for them to believe in a physical presence of God distinct from His personal presence.

Mormons make a distinction between their belief that God is everywhere present, which is understood in a spiritual sense, but not everywhere physically present. See the comments for further discussion.

Thus the two points of view converge moreso that I expected.

[5] “One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God ‘begotten, not created”; and it adds ‘begotten by his Father before all worlds.’ Will you please get it quite clear that this has nothing to do with the fact that when Christ was born on earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin?” (Mere Christianity, p. 138)

[6] I apologize if I missed your favorite verse or excluded a reference to something that I should have included. Collecting all the statements in the Book of Mormon about the Doctrine of Deity together in one place isn’t as easy as it looks to. I’ll have to rewrite this article after I next read the Book of Mormon and find more passages that develop its collective doctrine of deity.

[7] As does the Bible.

“Brainwashed” is probably ranked with the weakest possible arguments. If I say you’re brainwashed, I can ignore the chance that someone might be able to disagree with me and have a valid point. If I can relegate you to a pat little category, I don’t have to listen. A little wake-up call, folks: it could be easily said that we are all brainwashed. We are all products of our environment. Quit name-calling and try—just try—to understand another person’s point of view for once. You might find yourself stretching and growing. You might even find yourself becoming wise.

Two related comments:

When a debate reduces to the point of namecalling it’s all over. Names are the verbal equvalent of throwing rocks, which is what kids do when they’re scared. (said by jendoop)

Jendoop—I love your turn of phrase, and your point. When people turn to namecalling it is generally because they are scared. Perhaps a little more compassion towards them is in order. (said by SilverRain)

Discuss

Most people don’t want to believe less. They want to believe more. People who do make the decision to believe less tend to be skeptical types, and not infrequently end up at the bottom of the slippery slope. This is why Whitmerites and RLDS end up as Protestants, and liberal Protestants end up as atheists, whereas fundamentalists and messianic sects continue to thrive and multiply.

Discuss.

Tolerance: I hear that word a lot. Words are funny things because they often mean different things to different people. And sometimes (often? usually?) other people have little incentive to bridge any communication gap.

I would like to try to come up with a good working definition of the word “tolerance” to use as a way of guiding my interactions with those I disagree (and sometimes strongly disagree) with. But this definition shouldn’t just be a warm fuzzy. It should be a substantive and, as much as possible, objective basis for determining what is or isn’t tolerance.

But what is tolerance?

Tolerance means literally “to tolerate” something. This directly implies that the belief system (i.e. “religion”) being tolerated is one that a person, by definition, disagrees with and perhaps even dislikes. This might ease the burdens of tolerance to realize that it in no way implies you have to pretend to like something you don’t like or pretend to accept things you truly believe to be wrong.

So let’s start with this as the basis for our definition: Tolerance is to literally “tolerate” something, not to accept it or like it. In fact, as far as I can tell “tolerance” in no way implies not fighting against something you disagree with; it simply defines what fighting techniques are legitimate, fair, or just.

What Tolerance Isn’t

It is unfortunate the the word “tolerance” is in the process of no longer meaning “to tolerate” something. Instead, we regularly tell people they are being “intolerant” if they disagree with us or if we don’t like what they are saying. This new and growing definition of “tolerance” literally removes all virtue from the word and concept, for if we are labeled intolerant for doing nothing more then disagreeing, then unfortunately someone’s beliefs are going to “win out” while the others are forced to shut up. What a sorry state that would be. Indeed, it would be a form of tyranny.

Along those same lines, “tolerance” seems to also be used to mean “don’t offend me.” But I’m afraid “inoffensive” and “tolerance” may at times be worlds apart. Yes, intolerance is always offensive. But tolerance is often offensive at well. Why? Because offensive isn’t a description of some innate property of an item or idea, it’s a description of how someone else reacts to it. Thus if we use “offensiveness” as a basis for tolerance or intolerance, the word becomes 100% subjective and has lost all meaning.

Even taking the word to mean “what the average person finds offensive” is problematic. In the south back during segregation, the “average person” found it offensive to have unsegregated water fountains or to have Caucasians have to be around African Americans. Was that tolerant? It is if we decide that tolerance is based on majority rules.

It’s hard to imagine how the word “tolerance” could ever be useful at all if we base it on the idea of “offensiveness.” Clearly the majority view on everything would be “tolerance” and the minority view (that the majority of people don’t like) would be “intolerance.” Not a very useful definition.

So Then What is Tolerance?

Okay, wise guys, I can hear some people say: It’s easy to state what “tolerance” isn’t. But give me a definition of what it is.

While I think this is a tall order, I think it’s entirely possible to come up with a workable and useful definition/description of what tolerance is.

Tolerance Level 1

I believe there are two types, or degrees, of tolerance. The most basic one is the most important one. Tolerance level 1 is nothing more or less than legally allowing people to express their beliefs and views without fear of violence either illegally or from the government – that monopoly on legal violence.

This first definition of tolerance deals only with the governments and lawbreakers, not private law abiding individuals.

Why limit this view of tolerance to violence and government only? Because this is where the biggest dangers lies.

Examples:

• Jim Crow laws disenfranchising certain races
• Segregation laws that favored certain races over another
• State religions being favored to the exclusion of other religions
• The law looking the other way while hate groups (this might be the KKK or Missourian mobs) use illegal violence to control an undesirable group
• Not enfranchising women
• Disenfranchising women as a way to control juries or the vote of the territory.
• Requiring a religion to have to live in certain places or counties
• Legally requiring a group to not live in certain areas or states
• Court systems refusing to apply the law to undesirable groups
• Defining a Church as not a legal charity because of their offensive beliefs
• Prosecuting polygamy, even if handled in private only, but not prosecuting private adultery
• Outlawing private religious practices or beliefs

These are all obvious examples of government intolerance or intolerance though use of illegal violence. These will always be the worst kinds of intolerance.

I think it’s important to separate degrees of intolerance for another reason: intolerance level 1 is the only type of intolerance we should ever make laws against. Intolerance level 2, which I will now describe, should be a matter of conscience alone.

Tolerance Level 2

The problem that I see with tolerance level 1 is that it’s not as useful a definition modernly because we rarely speak of tolerance in such a limited way. Under tolerance level 1 a modern skin-head group – so long as they don’t break laws – is “tolerant” because they aren’t in the government enacting laws nor breaking existing laws. But is this really what we mean when we speak of “tolerance” today?

As I mentioned before, all too often what we mean by “tolerance” today is some fuzzy undefined feeling. And all too often the word “tolerance” is really just hiding it’s own form of “intolerance” because it’s being used to shut down a minority view through it’s own form of hate and public humiliation. I think it would be tragic to let “tolerance” come to mean “intolerance towards disliked minority views.”

So I propose this list on what “tolerance” should mean today. This is the best list I could come up with so far, though it’s probably incomplete.

Tolerance Does Not Mock Other People’s Beliefs

One of the most obvious examples of this for me, as a Mormon, is when various Christian denominations intentionally take things sacred to my own LDS religion, such as our temple, and show them in public in mocking ways to get people to laugh at them.

On the other hand, there is an old joke told by Mormons about “what would catholics do if Jesus had been killed by stoning.”

There is simply no place for mocking in tolerant conversation. Instead, choose to disagree with others respectfully and civilly.

I need to make a dividing line here between mocking a belief or belief system and being a “harsh critic” of a belief or belief system. The first is always intolerance but the second could be tolerance if handled civilly. “Harshness” is not intolerance in and of itself.

Tolerance Does Not Misrepresent, Lie, of be Deceptive about Other People’s Beliefs

Clearly tolerance allows no room for lies – even of the half-truth variety. Now of course it’s not always possible to get your facts straight, so you may inadvertently say something untrue about another religion. (I’m guilty as charged.) But once you find that what you are saying is not true, do not continue to spread the lie because it supports “the cause”? Do you find a way to justify the lie? Also, ask yourself, “do I at least make an attempt to confirm information I hear about other religions or am I so anxious to spread something bad about a religion that I’d rather not know if it’s true or not?”

I’ve known many people that claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people will be saved. This is a half-truth meant to deceive. I’ve known many people to say that Mormons worship many gods. This is not really true either. The list could go on and on.

I think the single most common example of this tactic is the one where a Christian of a more orthodox denomination calls a Christian of a non-Orthodox denomination a “non-Christian.” If a person knowingly chooses to label a group in a way that causes people to misunderstand what that group really believes, it is deception.

Tolerance Does Not State Other People’s Beliefs in Ways Meant to Get a Negative Reaction

This is related to mocking, but is a lighter form of it. It’s also related to deception.

Again, we need to give some latitude to people as they may honestly not know how to best state the beliefs of another religion. But all too often it’s clear that people state other people’s beliefs in a negative way simply to deceive, mock, or scare others.

Here are some real life examples:

• An atheist stating that Christians are American’s second and Christians first so they can’t be trusted politically.
• Referring to the Christian communion as “ritualistic cannibalization” of Jesus.
• Muslims commenting that Christians are polytheists because they believe in the Trinity. They also like to claim that Christians believe God had sex with Mary because Jesus was begotten of God.
• Protestants claiming that Mormons believe in merit for their works because Mormons don’t believe that salvation was a transaction that happened once and for all upon accepting Christ.
• Claiming that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers.

These are all examples of taking a true belief of one religion and twisting it until it’s no longer even recognizable. We must do better than this form of misrepresentation of other’s beliefs if we are striving to be tolerant.

Tolerance is Being Respectful and Civil in Your Communication to People of Another Belief

Treat people as you want to be treated yourself. Yelling and screaming is never tolerant. Talking down to people and calling them stupid or childish (or implying as much by saying something like “you need to use your brain.”) isn’t tolerant either. Any form of name calling or disrespectful labeling is intolerant.

A common example of this is the use of the word “cult” amongst some Christians. The word cult literally would encompass every religion in the world, if properly understood. Yet it’s well known that people take it as an insult, which is how I imagine it’s intended. One poster on the Internet pointed out that if you neighbor only referred to you as an “animal” they would be both technically correct and intentionally insulting you.

Tolerance Does Not Use Stereotypes

This is another hard one, because sometimes there is truth in a stereotype. The problem with stereotypes isn’t that they are universally false, but that they are not universally true. This is precisely why we must avoid stereotypes.

Now we are getting to the essence of what “prejudice” is. The word “prejudice”’s root is to “pre judge.” It’s to assume something about an individual because he or she is part of a group rather than judging the individual on their own actions and merits.

I would submit that spreading stereotypes about a group at all is intolerant because of the damage it does to individuals, even if the stereotype has some truth to it. We all know that often the stereotypes end up having little or no truth to them; but even if there is truth to them, it is still intolerant to spread or use stereotypes.

Examples of this are abundant:

• Assuming a member of one race is less smart than another
• Assuming that a member of a group is more violent than average
• Assuming that a member of a group is more likely to steal or shoplift
• Assuming that a member of a group is sheep-like
• Assuming that all members of a religion believe the same
• Assuming that a member of a group will say or do stupid things

I think a great recent example of this form of intolerance in it’s most ugly form was those that claimed Mitt Romney was incapable of being President because only an idiot would believe in Mormonism. I see no difference between such a view and the most vile forms of racism. Please note, this would not exclude people from thinking Mitt Romney was incapable of being president on other grounds based on things actually known about him personally rather than assumptions about him based on a group he was a member of.

To use a real life example, it would be intolerant for me to say that “Evangelical Christians are all bigots.” That’s a stereotype and it’s unfair. But it’s not intolerant for me to raise the issue that many self identified Evangelical Christians I have met –- but not all of them or even most of them –- misrepresent Mormon beliefs in deceptive or bigoted ways and often do so after learning what to say in classes supplied by their ministers. The first is a stereotype, the other is a legitimate issue that needs to be raised and discussed even though it’s uncomfortable. Tolerance is never a reason to not address real issues.

Tolerance Allows People to State their Own Beliefs; It Does Not State it For Them

It’s amazing how often we violate this rule of tolerance. I was once discussing religion with a Protestant that clearly hated me for being LDS. He told me that I didn’t believe in hell. I told him I did. He then –- in an amazing display of arrogance –- claimed that I didn’t know what I believed because he had a book somewhere that quoted Brigham Young saying that there is no hell. (He didn’t have the quote handy, but presumably he was using a quote that really just stated there was no traditional hell of fire and brimstone. But of course, regardless, it hardly matters what Brigham Young said or didn’t say if we are talking about my personal beliefs and I personally believe in hell.)

I asked this Protestant if he he’d studied LDS beliefs as long and as much as I did. Of course not. I explained that I had numerous statements, yes, even from Brigham Young, about the reality of hell. Did he budge? Nope. He didn’t want to talk about what I believed in, only in what he thought I should believe. It was somewhat humorous and very scary. If only this had been an isolated event for Evangelical Protestant Christians.

The truth is that we’re all the worldwide experts on our personal beliefs. If I believe in hell, then that means I do. Period. He is being silly to tell me what I believe. On the other hand, he did have the right to give me the quote and let me explain how I fit it or don’t fit it into my beliefs. But due to his lack of interest in doing that, we never went there.

Not allowing people to state their own beliefs is so common that I’m willing to bet every single one of us has violated it as some point. It’s almost comical how often this rule gets violated. For some reason, this rule is really hard to recognize in our own selves but easy to recognize when someone does it to you.

That being said, it’s not the most common form of intolerance I’ve noticed. The most common form would be:

Tolerance Does Not Use Dual Standards

This one is the most difficult of all, because no one ever believes they are using a dual standard. No matter how much of a dual standard you support, you’ll always deny that you have a dual standard at all. So unlike the rules above, which are generally obvious and very straight forward -– at least in retrospect -– this one is extremely difficult to live. Thus we need to cut people some slack over this rule.

A real life example of a double standard was when some non-Mormon Christian demanded to see the Gold Plates that the Book of Mormon was translated from and had a good laugh over an angel having taken them away so that there was no proof. To them it was obvious that God would never do such a thing. But then why didn’t Jesus just show himself to the world today and end all doubt about his resurrection. What we have here is a dual standard.

Atheists seem particularly susceptible to dual standards because they prefer to think of their beliefs as “not a religion” and thus they think it correct to silence other belief systems in politics while allowing their own to be discussed.

One poster on Yahoo Answers said of “people with religions” (excluding himself from this category): “Christians and people of all religions needs to stop making policy and political decisions based on their religious beliefs.” Apparently it’s okay to make political decisions based on the morality and ethics of atheists, but not for people who believe in God.

Another poster suggested that perhaps if every country in the world were “secular” that maybe atheists and Christians would not be at odds. He asked, “are you opposed to religion or people who use religion to dominate politics?” The “best answer” he choose said “People should be free to believe in whatever faith or religion they choose to. Trouble only arises when they try to insist everyone else should believe the same way–or when their way of thinking actually affects the rest of society–like lobbying politicians to enact laws based on the religious superstitions–like blocking stem cell research.”

Clearly these atheists believe that if Christians just left their religion (i.e. system of belief and moral compass) at home when voting that things would be better. But it doesn’t occur to these atheists that they themselves are a religion that contains at least one member: themselves. Should they also leave their beliefs and their moral compass at home when they vote?

Let’s take the example of stem cell research. Some Christians, but by no means all, believe that a fertilized egg is already equivalent to a human being. Some atheists, but by no means all, believe that until the unborn child breathes it’s really just part of the woman’s body. Who’s right? Are they both wrong? And how can well tell?

The frank truth is that science can’t help us here. The egg and sperm cell are alive even before they join and then there is a gradual but steady process of formation into a baby. So does an unborn child deserve some or all legal protections of a born child? Why or why not? Is there really no moral difference between cutting your hair and aborting a baby? Why or why not?

These strike me as very obvious and very legitimate political issues. I see no alternative to working out societal standards on a divisive issue like this but through the political process. In short, I encourage everyone to use their set of beliefs and moral compass and vote their conscience. The suggestion by these atheists that Christians are some how forcing their beliefs on others misses the point that frankly the reverse would be atheists forcing their beliefs on Christians. Do atheists really expect Christians to stand by and watch human life be killed (as some Christians believe –- rightly or wrongly) and do nothing at all? Accepting this is nothing short of asking the political system to favor one religion over another by allowing one to speak up and the other stay silent.

Is Tolerance Always a Virtue?

One word of caution about tolerance. It may sound like I think tolerance to be a universal virtue. I’m not sure it is.

Charity is an example of a universal virtue. There is never a time or place to be uncharitable. Conversely, it is not hard to think of cases where we should not “tolerate” at all. Should we be “tolerant” of child pornography? I would suggest that we shouldn’t. Not every thing should be tolerated.

Tolerance is a very important virtue when it comes to freedom of beliefs and religious practice but it may not be a virtue in all circumstances.

Conclusions

In reality, all these “rules” on how to be tolerant are very straightforward. They could be boiled down to this: Tolerance is treating others how you want to be treated.

Or to put this another way: Tolerance is being consistent. Indeed, “inconsistency” and “intolerance” are very nearly the same thing when it comes to discussing beliefs.

While this is easy in principle, it’s difficult in practice due to the prejudice that lives in all of our hearts. Only actively working against our prejudices can allow us to overcome them and to be tolerant in our actions and words.

And perhaps this is the most important point I can make. We all practice intolerance. I do it all the time. It’s nearly impossible to be perfectly tolerant even in situations where you believe you should. So don’t make the mistake of labeling yourself as “tolerant” as if it’s something you either are or you aren’t. Instead work at being it.

Questions

So what do you agree or disagree with? Can you advance your own contrary definition of tolerance? Do you disagree with any of my examples? Would you add anything to my list? Would you remove anything?

I refused to use the word “Chiasmus” during the lesson. I’m not an expert in ancient Hebrew poetry, so I thought I’d leave such arguments to others. And really, I don’t care. What I did want to emphasize was the structure of Alma’s thoughts about his own redemption. Alma has structured his thoughts beautifully and very creatively.

Alma 36 uses a series of thoughts that lead up to Jesus Christ, and then reverse back out, often with the reverse thought. For example, first his limbs get paralyzed then after he turns to Jesus they can move again. First he tries to destroy the Church, then he wants to build it up. Etc. You get the picture. It’s stunningly beautiful.

I was worried that a discussion about if it’s a Chiasmus or not would detract from the beauty and what we can learn from Alma’s intended structure.

Luckily I made it all the way through the class with only one woman mentioning it was “a type of poetry” but she didn’t even mention that it was Hebrew-ish or ancient poetry. There is a PhD in my class that was the editor for the Arabic Book of Mormon and I was very lucky he didn’t bring it up and derail the lesson.

This was my hand out for the class. It’s a slightly modified version of Jeff Lindsay’s web presentation to keep things symmetrical. The numbers in parenthesis are the verse.

Grab a Book of Mormon and follow along:

(a) My son, give ear to my WORDS (1)
 (b) KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS of God and ye shall PROSPER IN THE LAND (2)
  (c) DO AS I HAVE DONE (2)
   (d) in REMEMBERING THE CAPTIVITY of our fathers (2);
    (e) for they were in BONDAGE (2)
     (f) he surely did DELIVER them (2)
      (g) TRUST in God (3)
       (h) supported in their TRIALS, and TROUBLES, and AFFLICTIONS(3)
        (i) I KNOW this not of myself but of GOD (4)
         (j) BORN OF GOD (5)
          (k) I sought to destroy the church of God (6-9)
           (l) MY LIMBS were paralyzed (10)
            (m) Fear of being in the PRESENCE OF GOD (14-15)
             (n) PAINS of a damned soul (16)
              (o) HARROWED UP BY THE MEMORY OF SINS (17)
               (p) I remembered JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD (17)
               (p') I cried, JESUS, SON OF GOD (18)
              (o') HARROWED UP BY THE MEMORY OF SINS no more (19)
             (n')  Joy as exceeding as was the PAIN (20)
            (m') Long to be in the PRESENCE OF GOD (22)
           (l') My LIMBS received their strength again (23)
          (k') I labored to bring souls to repentance (24)
         (j') BORN OF GOD (26)
        (i') Therefore MY KNOWLEDGE IS OF GOD (26)
       (h') Supported under TRIALS, TROUBLES, and AFFLICTIONS (27)
      (g') TRUST in him (27)
     (f') He will deliver me (27)
    (e') As God brought our fathers out of BONDAGE and captivity (28-29)
   (d') Retain in REMEMBRANCE THEIR CAPTIVITY (28-29)
  (c') KNOW AS I DO KNOW (30)
 (b') KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS and ye shall PROSPER IN THE LAND (30)
(a') This is according to his WORD (30).

On April 5^th, 1839, not long after the Mormons had been forcibly removed from Missouri on the authority of Govern Bogg’s extermination order, Theodore Turley, a faithful Mormon, returned Far West with Elder Kimball on a mission to visit the governor and to visit the prisoners in Liberty jail.

As Elder Turley tells the tale, he was at Far West when eight men presented him with the revelation of Joseph Smith given on July 8, 1838 (D&C 118) that stated that the Twelve would “take their leave of the Saints Far West on the building site of the Lord’s House on the 26^th of April” (p. 306, vol 3).

This group’s purpose was to assure Elder Turley that there was no possibility that this “prophecy” would come true because if the Twelve returned to fulfill it they’d be killed. (p. 307) Of course Turley defended the prophecy and told the men it would be fulfilled nonetheless. [1]

Amongst this mini-mob was a former member of the Church named John Whitmer. Indeed, he was one of the eight witnesses. The mob then told Elder Turley he should deny the faith even as a former member, John Corrill, was now doing by writing a book against the Church.

According to History of the Church Elder Turley, recognizing John Whitmer’s presence with the group, then tells the following tale: [2]

Turley said, “Gentlemen, I presume there are men here who have heard Corrill say, that ‘Mormonism’ was true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and inspired of God. I now call upon you, John Whitmer: you say Corrill is a moral and good man; do you believe him when he says the Book of Mormon is true, or when he says it is not true? There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and they are false?”

Whitmer asked, “Do you hint at me?”

Turley replied, “If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith.”

Whitmer replied: “I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them;” and he described how they were hung, and “they were shown to me by a supernatural power;” he acknowledged all.

Turley asked him, “Why is not the translation now true?”

He [Whitmer] said, “I could not read it [in the original] and I do not know either it [i.e. the translation] is true or not.”

Whitmer testified all this in the presence of eight men.

This is a great story. It’s a so-good-it-gives-you-chills kind of story. Here is one of the eight witnesses in the presence of a mob, that he is now part of, testifying of the truthfulness of having seen and handled the plates as one of the eight witnesses. And the best explanation he can come up with to explain the inconsistency of his own actions is the rather lame excuse that he doesn’t know if the Book of Mormon was translated correctly or not.

But as I read this story in History of the Church, my natural skepticism kicked in. I know from my own experience that I can’t trust one side of a story. Heck, I can’t trust two sides of a story!

Here in lines the problem, there is virtually no chance that this event unfolded exactly the way Elder Turley remembered it. Think about how succinct this whole conversation is compare to the way it would have evolved in real life.

If it really happened exactly the way Elder Turley tells the tale, why didn’t the mobbers all ask for baptism, or at least tar and feather John Whitmer?

The Other Side of the Story

In my mind, I pretended like I had just found a document written by a member of the mob that told his view of the same event:

I, M. Mobocrat, having been born of badly parents, do hereby testify that today I saw a man named Theodore Turley confront John Whitmer today about the Book of Mormon. Whitmer really put Turley in his place by pointing out that just because Joe Smith shows off a bunch of plates that this doesn’t prove that his ‘translation’ of it was from God. Whitmer sure did make Turley look stupid.

Now of course we don’t actually have an alternate account of this event. But if we did, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it said something just like this. Of course DAMUs and anti-Mormons would be thrilled and would accuse old Elder Turley of lying through his teeth. They’d probably even claim this was tantamount to John Whitmer denying his original testimony. But in real life, both of these accounts could be 100% truthful at the same time. How?

It has to do with the way the human brain works.

A Possible Scenario

Pretend with me, just for a moment, that we travel back in time and hid a video recorder in the same room. Safely back in the 21^st century, we play the video recorder and this is what we hear:

Mob Person 1: “Yeah, Turley, you should deny your faith and get out of the Mormon Church just like John Corrill did. Hey, you can write a book against the Church like he is doing.

Turley: [Noticing John Whitmer in their ranks] Well, gentlemen, sometimes people say something is true and then later recant their testimony. Didn’t John Corrill once say the Book of Mormon was true and then later deny it? When was he being more truthful?

Mob Person 2: He was being more truthful when he came to his senses and stopped believing in something as ridiculous as the Book of Mormon and stopped worshiping Joe Smith.

Mob Group: [Snickers and chuckles]

Mob Person 3: Pardon me Turley, but obviously Corrill thought it was true at one time because he was hoodwinked by that imposter, Joe Smith. Then he realized that God wasn’t with Smith when we kicked you all out of Missouri to defend ourselves.

John Whitmer: I think he’s actually talking about me, boys.

Mob Group: [Turning to look at Whitmer.]

John Whitmer: Is that what you are hinting at, Turley?

Turley: Yes, John, tell me which is more true, when Corrill said the Book of Mormon was true and went on record or when he said it wasn’t true.

John Whitmer: You want to know about my own testimony as one of the eight witnesses, don’t you?

Turley: If the cap fits… You once testified that Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from an angel. Your testimony is still printed in that book!

Mob Person 1: I’ve heard enough of this. We’ve delivered our message, let’s go.

John Whitmer: Very well, I’ll tell all. Yes, I did sign that affidavit as one of the eight witnesses, though I never said I saw an angel deliver it to Smith. And I don’t regret my testimony. But I also don’t regret leaving the Church. Joseph Smith is a fallen prophet, or maybe was never one to begin with!

Turley: [Getting upset] How can you say that? No one was able to see those plates except a select few who God allowed to see them. You were one of, what, twelve people, that God allowed to see the plates? What a privilege from God that you are squandering.

John Whitmer: Calm down, Turley, there is nothing mysterious about what I did. Joseph Smith told my brothers and me that we’d get to see the plates. All I ever did was claim to have seen them. That’s it. That doesn’t mean that I have to believe Joseph was or still is a prophet sent from God.

Turley: [Losing his cool and a little worried about his own testimony] I don’t get you, Whitmer! You don’t mind signing a document saying that God allowed you to see the plates but then you don’t mind turning your back on God like this!

Whitmer: You say I was shown these plates by God? Well, I admit it seems unlikely that Smith could have forged them, though to be frank I’m not sure if they were gold or copper. So, yeah, maybe something supernatural was involved. But did you ever consider the possibility that it wasn’t from God? What if the devil led Smith to some plates in the ground, what then?

But even if it had originally come from God, how could we possibly know if Smith continued in that charge and didn’t take advantage of the situation? We all know how poor he was and even he admits the temptation to profit from it. Maybe even back then Joe Smith was a fallen prophet — called by God but it’s him that turned his back on God!

Turley: [Losing his cool now] You saw the plates! God never let me see them. But I believe in the Book of Mormon and you don’t. Explain that!

Whitmer: [Shaking his head] You just don’t get it, do you, Turley? Seeing the plates doesn’t mean the Book of Mormon is “true” as you say. Yeah, I saw the plates. I handled them and I saw engravings on them. They were strange workmanship. So maybe that does mean the plates themselves came from a supernatural source – one way or another.

But what does that mean about the Book of Mormon? Nothing. It just means that there was once some plates. The Book of Mormon itself may have no relation to the plates at all! Joseph may have made that part up entirely out of his mind. I have to say, Turley, I’m not ready to go charging after Joseph Smith every way he takes us with unquestioning loyalty when I have no idea if he’s really doing God’s will or not. I think he once was most likely, but he took off in his own direction. Now were dealing with paramilitary groups, threats of violence against apostates, threats of violence against their neighbors, and it never ends! So let me ask you, Turley, how can you still believe in Joseph Smith? He’s rotting in jail right now and there he’ll stay! Some prophet of the Lord!

Mob Group: “Good one Whitmer.” “You sure showed him.” “Put that Mormon in his place!”

Turley: [Smiling to himself] Well, I can see that we’ve said enough, so I’ll take my leave gentleman. Whitmer, I enjoyed this conversation immensely.

Conclusions

Now obviously this is all just coming out of my imagination. But it’s easy to see that the real conversation might have been far more nuanced then how Elder Turley tells us. And it’s easy to see how a believer like Turley and an unbeliever both present in the same conversation would focus in on entirely different aspects of that conversation.

This is how history works, I’m afraid. All too often we quote someone like Elder Turley, or his unbelieving equivalent, and don’t realize just how different the original conversation they are reporting might have been compared to the way they sincerely remember it.

Yet what alternative do we have? History is nothing more then, as one of my history professors put it, professionally reading a lot of old gossip.

The Challenge

So here is the question: Is it okay to share a story like Elder Turley’s in Sunday School without a critical examination of how it’s natural for someone like Elder Turley to exaggerate? Bear in mind that we have no way of knowing if he did or didn’t, we’re just guessing he did because that’s normal, natural, and unconscious.

I feel that history is the stories themselves, myths and all. I have my doubts that historians’ have the ability to reconstruct “what really happened.” Indeed, I believe that approach is often a much bigger lie than just telling the stories as is.

Because of these feelings/beliefs I have, I, for one, would not hesitate to tell this story in Sunday School even though I have my suspicions of exaggeration.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t be against mentioning my suspicions of exaggeration, but it would depend on the context and setting. I doubt Sunday School would be the right place to bring them up. The Bloggernacle would be a much better setting to mention something like that.

So how do you feel about telling a story lsuch as this exactly as it’s presently recorded in a Sunday School setting? Oh, and if you disagree with me, please explain how you can do so while maintaining consistency – that is to say fair treatment of others — in all aspects of your own life since telling one side of a story is a human foible that I guarantee we’re all guilty of in large amounts. [3]

Notes:

[1] As I’m sure you all know, the Twelve sneaked in a night and fulfilled the charge.

[2] History of the Church, vol 3, p. 307-308. I’m sure most of you know that History of the Church is actually a second hand source culled together out of other people’s journals and testimonies and then rewritten as if Joseph Smith was telling the tale. The antis have made much over the fact that it seems like a primary source but is actually a secondary source. But of course they are just unfairly holding record keepers of that day to the modern standards of historians today. And besides, let’s admit that a secondary source put together by scribes that lived through all these events using the primary sources available to them has value in and of itself.

[3] A fair question would be how I feel about anti-Mormons that pass along what I feel are exaggerated stories against the LDS church? Would I still feel this is fair? Answer: Yes. Regardless of what faith you are trying to build up through your myth telling, I feel passing along historical stories “as is” is always a fair tactic.

That being said, I get a good laugh out of how often the story being told is then passed along to someone of another faith, say an anti-Mormon telling a story to a Mormon (or vice versa), with the naive expectation that this somehow proves something. I feel we could all do with a more realistic view of what history really is, especially when dealing with others of a different faith then our own.

“Each student in the class opened his book to the page specified.”

And back then we spoke of mailmen, chairmen, policemen, garbage men, etc. A person with a below average IQ was “mentally retarded” and someone that was overweight was “fat.” It was just the way things were.

Old habits die hard.

My initial introduction to politically correct English were somewhat negative. For example, I remember reading an Editorial in The Daily Universe talking about how horrible politically correct English was with all its meaning deficient words like: “horizontally challenged,” “special,” and “mail person.”

My view changed when I took a Technical Writing course from a self proclaimed “radical feminist.” I remember her being very quirky and often hypocritical; and I have my doubts about many of the technical writing principles she taught. But she did an incredible job of explaining the need to avoid “sexist language” and by extension sold me on political correctness.

One example she used was the sentence I just mentioned above: “Each student in the class opened his book to the page specified.”

According to her, in a study done they asked a group of men and women to draw a picture based upon that sentence. The women all drew a picture of a mixed gender class. The men all drew a picture of a male-only class. I could see her point.

I appreciated that she was careful to avoid a mistake many advocates of politically correct English make; she did not blame the individuals. “Of course the men drew the picture as a male-only class,” she said, “that’s what it literally said. They were just understanding it more literally then the women,” she said.

The Power of Language

She pointed out that we think with language. Thus if there is a gender bias, even unintentional bias, in our language then it will translate to a gender bias in life. This is why politically correctness is so important.

This explanation helped me past one of my own biases against political correctness; I now knew it wasn’t about torturing old fogies that can’t get with the program. She taught me to see political correctness as changing the way we use language so that we change the way we think to be more neutral or fair.

The very words we use affect how we feel about something. Saying a person is “a porker,” “fat,” “over weight,” or “obese” all mean the same thing technically, but carry vastly different connotations. This is where the real power of political correctness comes from: connotations.

A recent example I came across illustrates this: it is not an accident that we now refer to the “jungle” as the “rain forest.” At a time when protecting the rain forest really is a top priority, this slight change of language is well justified as it’s very likely to affect how we think and thus how we act.

It’s “Special”

One unfortunate side effect of political correctness is that some words were experimented with that had no meaning. To this day this is what anti-political correctness advocates think of when they think of political correctness.

While there may be nothing wrong with referring to a mentally challenged individual as “special” there is an issue with communication that must be dealt with. The word “special” tells an outsider nothing about one’s mental condition any more than “horizontally challenged” tells them something meaningful about one’s weight. Words that don’t communicate are not good words. This form of political correctness must be allowed to disappear.

But then I have to wonder: who is keeping such meaning-challenged words alive? Is it political correctness advocates or is it people making fun of political correctness? I have to admit I’ve never actually anyone use “horizontally challenged” as anything but a joke.

Do as I Say, Not as I Do: The Dark Side of Political Correctness

In my opinion, another stumbling block to many for feeling comfortable with political correctness is the fact that the political correctness advocates are often such bad examples of what they are advocating. I’m afraid my professor was such an example.

I can still remember her insisting on tolerance towards women in one sentence and then suddenly breaking into a deep voice to make fun of other professors as BYU (who she obviously saw as all men, due to her deep voice) and their “authoritative” ways. This mocking of other professors (besides herself of course) was worsened by the fact that she was the only overly authoritative professor I ever had at BYU.

I still remember her telling us all that we’d get to pick our own grades and she wasn’t in charge of the class. Empty words coming from a professor that decided what the class wanted based on what she wanted. I would have preferred for her to just admit she was a tyrant and that we need to conform to her ideas. I would have received a better grade that way.

For example, she had this idea that you could make a resume better by using a yellow highlighter on it to call attention to certain points. Every student in the class knew what a bad idea that was. I made the mistake of believing her when she said we could talk her into changing our grade at the end of class if we disagreed with her advice. On the last day of class, when I sat down with her to discuss why I felt my grade should be higher because no one in my industry would look upon a yellow highlight on a resume as a good thing, she merely brushed me aside and used her authority (which she wielded like a sword) to insist that “the class has decided this was a good idea.” Oh yeah, show me one person in that class beside her that agreed. But of course they all feared her so no one would dare speak up.

I think this is a real danger of being an advocate for tolerance. You can quickly become your own worst enemy and not even realize it. This is something I see as a problem with myself as well. I think it is more common then we realize.

Uneven Tolerance

The other concern I have with political correctness, and tolerance in general, is the fact that we, as a society, apply it unevenly. We believe certain categories of people deserve tolerance while others should be left in the cold. My professor’s sensitivity to gender-bias against women but lack of tolerance to male professors was just one example of this.

Recently I was listening to a podcast out of Yale about over weight people going to Doctors. It turns out that obese people tend to hate going to doctors because doctors treat them poorly. For one thing, they tend to cringe when having to touch their body. If my doctor cringed when he or she touched my body, I’d hate going to the doctors as well. And if there was a doctor that treated, say, African American’s this way, we’d brand him or her fast as the bigot he/she is.

The speaker also made the point that on television obese people are often there for comic relief via over weight jokes. The speaker claimed he’d just finished a study with statistical evidence to back this up. The interviewer asked him “Aren’t you over reacting? Isn’t it just a joke?”

His response: “Would you say that about racial jokes?”

The Darker Side of Word Control

Perhaps more concerning is when “political correctness” is used as a weapon to control other people’s thoughts for the sake of intolerance rather than tolerance.

Due to my interest in tolerant language, I have become sensitive to how words are used. So imagine my shock when I realized that a certain newspaper I read solely referred to people in favor of legalized abortion as “pro-choice” and referred solely to people against legalize abortion as “anti-abortionists.” Do you think this choice of words was an accident? Do you think it’s meant to be neutral, fair, or tolerant?

This is the very reason why I find referring to Mormons as “non-Christians” – especially if done with intent to deceive – to be an act of intolerance and deeply concerning.

Political Correctness as a Gospel Principle

In the end, political correctness, or at least the idea behind it, is really “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.” But it adds the interesting, but correct, point that through use of language we may inadvertently bias the way people think about others in intolerant ways.

This book is, in large measure, a response to earlier research done by sociologists and family scientists, like Jesse Bernard, that wrote influential books “proving” that marriage was good for men and bad for women.

It makes an interesting read to see how one set of “evidence” that seems so overwhelming suddenly appears to be dicey at best and dangerously wrong at worst through a simple re-slice and reapplication of the same set of data. It is things like this have gone a long way towards convincing me that we know so much less than we think we do.

But what I found the most interesting was their carefully thought out definition of marriage and their well expressed concerns with our ongoing attempts to redefine marriage out of existence.

Marriage does not have one historical definition to be sure, and I think we can all admit that the victorian idea of marriage as the only sexual relationship for which you can’t be put in jail is gone for good. Waite and Gallagher waste no time on such a notion of marraige and instead strive for a modern workable definition of marriage that does not exclude other types of lifestyle, such as cohabitation, from the public discourse. Waite and Gallagher make a strong case that if marriage is accepted as a distinctive type of relationship that this does not invalidate the other types and will even enhance them by making them more distinct and allowing greater options.

And what is marraige? A good portion of the book is written to fight against what they see as the myth that “Marriage is essentially a private matter, an affair of the heart between two adults, in which no outsider… should be allowed to interfere.”

As sociologist Andrew Cherlin put it, married folks “are more likely today than in the past to evaluate their marriage primarily according to how well it satisfies their individual emotional needs. If their evaluation of these terms is unfavorable, they are likely to turn to divorce.” Psychologists, in particular, have played a key role in persuading Americans that marriage is primarily for and about adult happiness. Deconstructing the idea that marriage has other stakeholders besides the spouses, many argued instead that it is the parents who fail to divorce who are derelict in their duties to their kids.

Even lawmakers, judges, and policy analysts have begun to view marriage as part of a continuum of commitment rather than a distinct and distinctive relationship. Cities, courts, and corporations have begun to extend the benefits of marriage to other kinds of couples deemed the “functional equivalent” of marriage, and even to describe special supports for marriage as a form of “discrimination” against the unmarried. [For real life application of this, see this link here.] In a series of U.S. Supreme court cases covering a variety of specific issues, the Court ruled that laws that take marital status into account violate the equal protection clause.

Because we view marriage as an inner emotion rather than an outer reality, we have a hard time conceiving that the state of being married, in and of itself, could enhance people’s lives. Marriage is a piece of paper – a marker perhaps of things that matter, such as more money or better education, but in and of itself neutral in it effects. So for many years, family scholars tried to pierce the veil of marital status to uncover the “true” explanations for why married people, and children raised by married parents, seemed so much better off and why, in particular, children raised outside of marriage faced so many additional burdens and struggles.

We’ll try to unlock the secret mechanism at work in the marital vow, to show you how and why marriage itself makes a difference. Equally important, we’ll show how marriage can work its miracle only if it is supported by the whole society. Marriage cannot thrive, and may not even survive, in a culture that views it as just another lifestyle option. So when people become afraid or reluctant to use the M-word or to base public or social support on the status of being married, marriage is indeed in trouble.

Waite’s and Gallagher’s premise is that marriage should never be privatized because then its exactly the same as cohabitation and thus it ceases to exist.  

Marriage is something else entirely. Marriage is a public relationship made through a public commitment.

For at the heart of the unacknowledged war on marriage is the attempt to demote marriage from a unique public commitment – supported by law, society, and custom – to a private relationship, terminable at will, which is nobody else’s business. This demotion is done in the name of choice, but as we shall see… reimagining marriage as a purely private relation doesn’t expand anyone’s choices. For what is ultimately takes away from individuals is marriage itself, the choice to enter that uniquely powerful and life-enhancing bond that is larger and more durable then the immediate, shifting feelings of two individuals. What you lose… in thinking about marriage in this newly privatized way, is no less than the marriage bargain itself.

To summarize Waite and Ghallager as succinctly as I can, they make the case that marriage is not a private matter between two adults (that’s what cohabitation is) but instead a public commitment made through a three way contract between the two spouses and the public. The public, represented by the government in the contract, is as much as stakeholder in the contract as the spouses. This is why a divorce can only be finalized with the government’s permission, for they are one of the contract holders.

This contract involves pledge value produced by the couple for society and vice versa. In this view of marriage, it is literally a contract, not a legal right.

Marriage is not only a private vow, it is a public act, a contract, taken in full public view, enforceable by law and in the equally powerful court of public opinion. When you marry, the public commitment you make changes the way you think about yourself and your beloved; it changes the way you act and think about the future; and it changes how other people and other institutions treat you as well.

The marriage contract is in one sense liberating: the security of a contract frees individuals to make long-term exchanges that leave each person better off. But any contract also necessarily constrains the parties involved: They are less “free” to break the terms of the contract. Marriage is no exception.

aka Why We All Believe This Even if We Claim We Don’t

Overheard on the Bloggernacle, or in the office, or just about everywhere:

All religions contain overlapping ideas and in this overlap exists the real voice of God.

Or

It is arrogant for such-and-such religion to believe they are right and everyone else that disagrees with them is wrong.

Or

There is so much evil in the world due to people believing their doctrines are more true than anyone else’s. There are many ways to heaven and it’s different for everyone.

I want to give these ideas the due they deserves before I give them the critical analysis they require.

The idea that all religions are “true” is beautiful. From this idea we can easily jump off into our imagination and see a world where we all see other religions as our brother and sisters and where there is no contention between beliefs because all are equal. It is a world where Jihads and Crusades never take place and we can pick the best ideas from all religions and form a super belief system both tailored to our own needs as well as our neighbors.

I wish such an idea could ever be logically possible. But it’s a little like imagining a world where we have legislated that “winters should be mild or cookies more nourishing than vegetables.” It just can’t happen.

The Overlap of All Religions: Morality Alone

Where do all religions overlap? If we are talking about religions that believe in a higher power then there are exactly two areas where all religions overlap:

1. There is a higher power
2. We should love that higher power and our neighbor

If we include ethical atheist religions in this list then we might have to eliminate #1 in some cases, though frankly it’s pretty common for the term “atheists” to really just mean “I believe in a higher power, but not one of the ones represented by any world religion.” 

But at a minimum, the intersection of all religions is that we should all love “goodness” (be that perceived as a higher power or not) and our neighbor

I can’t over state the importance of this overlap. If it didn’t exist I think we’d have a pretty definitive proof that there is no higher power at all. And I can’t overstate the value of having people believe, like from my quotes above, that this is the single most important aspect of any religion: for most religions agree that it is one of the most if not the most important aspect of their religion.

Can All Religions Be “True” In the Intersection of Their Beliefs?

What I can’t logically accept is that the idea that all religions are “true” due to this overlap.  Nor can I accept that such an idea could ever be seen as a good thing by anyone belonging to any religion; for at its heart this idea isn’t so much saying that all religions are equally true as it is saying that all religions are equally false. There in lies the ugly side to this otherwise beautiful and well intended thought.

What a religious belief system offers unique to the world is a way to make sense of our lives and the universe. Each does this in different ways and those ways, I’m sorry to say, are mutually exclusive from each other. Consider the following points. How could both statements in column A and B ever both turn out to be true at the same time? And how could it not matter which is correct if one or the other were true?

I have to accept this reality: that there is no way column A and B can ever be fully logically reconciled. We might be able to come up with some partial reconciliations, but likely those compromises will please no one.

In saying this, I do not mean to imply that all religious beliefs are mutually exclusive from all others. Of course only some of our beliefs are mutually exclusive from others. But it’s the mutually exclusive ones that often matter the most to us.

Whatever the real truth turns out to be, someone is going to be disappointed, hurt, or at least at a disadvantage based on what they believe. There is no other possiblity.

This is why the idea of all religions being equally true via an intersection of beliefs rings equally hollow to all. It is the truth claims of the religions that make them worth believing, not the intersection of what they all have in common.

Non-Triumphalism Considered

What I find interesting is that this seems to be every bit as much true for religions that specifically try to reject Triumphalism. Triumphalism is defined by Wikipedia as “..the attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, culture, or social system is superior to and should triumph over all others”

Non-Triumphalism is a difficult concept for me to wrap my mind around because it’s a self contradiction. Now I can certainly understand how a person can have a belief system whereby there are multiple belief systems that can all lead to a good results – that is to say, multiple beliefs systems can lead to “salvation” however that is defined. But this isn’t the same thing as Non-Triumphalism per se.

In fact, Mormonism is one of the strongest examples imaginable of exactly such a belief system. There is salvation to be found in all religions in Mormonism. (There are a handful of competing religions that allow for such universal salvation for all belief systems, Mormonism being only one of them, and I will consider them later.)

But could there ever logically be a set of mutually exclusive belief systems where all are equally true? Or could there ever be one religion that is “more true” than another and yet it does not matter?

“To Each Their Own” – “Whatever Works for You”

The one situation where knowing or having the truth would not matter would be if absolute-hard-core-atheism turned out to be true. If our lives are nothing more than an accident of atoms coming together into DNA that happened to evolve a sense of consciousness and morality merely for the sake of replicating that DNA more productively, then we may indeed have a situation where what one believes does not matter at all – because the truth does not matter at all. 

Its a little like taking a happy 70 year old woman, content in her memories of her perfect life long marriage to a now dead spouse, and telling her that it’s all a crock because he cheated on her during their entire marriage. It may be the truth, but it’s not a helpful truth. In this one circumstance — when the real truth is worse than the illusion –and this one circumstance only, could we truly say “whatever works for you.” [1] Best to just let them believe what they want because it makes them happy. Under any other circumstance, truth matters, at least to some degree.

And yet, I have to wonder at the number of atheists that actively try to rid the world of all believers to make the world a better place. It would seem that even self proclaimed hard cord atheists are usually secretly Triumphalists bringing a greater spiritual truth to the world through the spread of their doctrines. If existentialists really exists at all, they are exceedingly rare.

Let’s put it a slightly different way: if there is no ultimate spiritual truth at the center of existence then the truth of our existence does not matter. But if there is an ultimate spiritual truth at the center of our existence then that truth will matter — period. And the closer you are to it, the better off you’ll be.

I think people struggle with this concept because they confuse ‘salvation’ with ‘advantage.’ Most of us grew up surrounded by a predominately Protestant Christian culture where ‘salvation’ is the only ‘advantage.’ This is why we get so easily confused over the difference. But even if believing a “truth” does not save or damn us by itself, it may yet give us an advantage or disadvantage of some sort. Indeed, a central truth about the meaning of our existence must give us an advantage or it isn’t, by definition, a truth about the meaning of our existence, now is it?

Are There Non-Triumphalists?

I believe this is why there is no such thing as a Non- Triumphalist in practice, for there will never be a person that claims to be Non-Triumphalist in their beliefs that does not also believe some or all of their beliefs really do make the world a better place. Why else hold their beliefs at all?

Indeed, the single most common form of Non-Triumphalism is to believe in Non-Triumphalism as a “doctrine, culture, or social system is superior to and should triumph over [Triumphalism.]” Thus Non-Triumphalism itself is the best proof of the logical impossibility of Non-Triumphalism.

A Real Life Example

I once had a manager that used to claim that all religions were equally true… well, except for the Catholics (his former religion) because they were a crock and just wanted your money.

I once challenged him on the illogic of his belief because he and a Hindu programmer were arguing over if one can only reincarnate seven times (as the Hindu programmer believed) or an infinite number of times (as my manager believed.) I pointed out that logically it can’t be both. It can’t be that everyone can only have seven “chances to get it right” and also have an infinite number of “chances to get it right.”

He smiled at me and pointed out that they can both be right, but for themselves. I smiled back and explained that this meant his belief system was superior to the programmers because, all things being equal, who wouldn’t prefer an infinite number of chances instead of just seven? That meant the ”seven chances” belief was hurtful or limiting compared to the managers infinite chances belief and should be discarded. In other words, knowing the “truth,” as the manager believed it to be, mattered significantly.

Later on, when I was explaining to a Baptist co-worker about one of my favorite movies, The Other Side of Heaven, my manager couldn’t hold back a snide remark about how ridiculous it was to send a missionary overseas to someone else and try to convert them from their religious beliefs. “Everyone should just believe what they believe and introspect based on that. We should never try to covert people to our personal beliefs.”

“Isn’t that what you are doing to me right now with that very comment?” I asked.

He was caught red handed.

His comment showed another inconsistency with his belief system. If he really believed religions are merely a preference, like flavors of ice cream, then the correct comment for him to make would have been “what an incredibly great thing for that missionary to bring additional options to the people of that island so that they had more options to choose from!” But he didn’t say that and he certainly didn’t feel that way either.

We had proof that he did not believe that religious beliefs were a mere preference after all.

Superset Religions – Mormonism and The Bahai

But let’s consider another logically possibility. What if the truth is a union rather than an intersection of all religions? What if all religions have a piece of the puzzle, so to speak? Well, obviously, that would mean that anyone that put the puzzle together (or more of the puzzle together) would have “more truth” and thus that person’s belief system would be “the truest” religion. Plus, as I mentioned above, all religions have some mutually exclusive beliefs, so something has to give. Logically this doesn’t really get us to our goal of all religions being “equally true” though it might get us to all religions “having truth.”

I personally believe this is the “best” approach to the problem and the best possible outcome we can hope for. All other alternatives we consider will always turn out to be less ideal than this one, I’m afraid. 

As I mentioned previously, there are a handful of religions that believe in the superset approach; Mormonism being one of the most well know, even if most people ignore those aspects of Mormonism in popular portrayal.

Another I’m familiar with is the Bahai. I used to meet regularly with a couple of sisters that were Bahia and share my beliefs with them and they shared theirs in return. The Bahai are fond of saying that they believe all religions are true.

It only took a couple of sessions with the sisters to realize that what they really meant was “all religions have important truths” or “all religions can bring you closer to God, though not in equal measures.”

I truly found much to love in the Bahai religion and if Mormonism turns out to be false, I vote for Bahai as the next best alternative. But they do not believe all religions are equally true: “Bahá’u'lláh described a greater covenant between God and mankind. He also described a lesser covenant between each Messenger and the people of the time.” (link) It is best to believe in Bahá’u'lláh. 

Superset Religions – NDE-Based Religions

Another contender to be a union or superset religion are the Near Death Experience (NDE) based religions.

NDEs do not really constitute a “religion” per say because NDEs differ as much as they are similar. But by selecting out the parts one wants to believe in, it’s possible to form a well formed religious belief system out of the tidbits from NDEs.

One of my favorite books, What Dreams May Come by Richard Matheson, is a fictional account of life after death based on his own research into NDEs. Thanks to Matheson’s introduction to the book, we know that the story represents the beliefs Matheson personally held. And it’s the best detailed attempt I’ve seen to create a religion whereby all religions are true via the idea of a union or superset of beliefs. In Matheson’s view of heaven, all heavens of all religions exist exactly as believers imagined them. This is because in Matheson’s Hinduish beliefs, thought forms into reality. Thus when you die you quickly find that your “spirit body” is physical so long as you think of it that way. Likewise by thinking of a house for yourself, you can create a house. Likewise, if you create a “heaven” through your thoughts then this “heaven” becomes your reality. You are limited by your own thoughts and nothing else.

I love this book and, like the Bahai, if Mormonism isn’t true, I sure hope something like this is instead. But make no mistake; it proved impossible for Matheson to come up with a logical way for all religions to be “equally true.”

(Interestingly, the ultimate goal in Matheson’s religion is to raise in your spirituality until, “the progressing soul becomes at one with God – formless, independent of time and substance though still aware of personal identity.” Sounds familiar?)

But I soon noticed that Matheson’s belief system favors the types of people he was friends with and considered his political allies. Our main character, Chris Nielsen, is an ethical atheist in life and does not believe in an afterlife. He is shocked when, at death, he is ushered into a place that he thought did not exist at all. Virtuous atheists have nothing to fear from the afterlife.

But then we come to realize that Matheson believes Christians, particularly conservative ones, have an inferior belief system compared to atheists. For example, Chris meets his Aunt Vera in heaven:

Aunt Vera had found the ‘heaven’ she desired and believed she would find – totally religious. She goes to church almost constantly. … ‘You see, Chris, we were right,’ Aunt Vera said to me. And, as long as she believes it, her Summerland [heaven] will be contained within the boundaries of that conviction. There’s nothing wrong with it. She’s happy. It’s just that she’s limited. To repeat: there is more. 

At least Aunt Vera is happy, because other traditional Christians aren’t so lucky:

I looked across the hall in startlement as a man began to shout. “I am a Christian and a follower of my Savior! I demand to be taken to my Lord! You have no right to keep me here! No right! … [Chris' guide says,] “One of the many who expect to sit at the right hand of God and believe that those who fail to share their ideas are doomed to eternal torment. In many ways, these are the most backward souls of all. 

So apparently religious beliefs matter a lot after all. And people that Richard Matheson considers political allies fare better than his political adversaries. Boy, didn’t see that coming.

On the other hand, even atheists might bump into some troubles if they don’t believe “the truth.” When Chris’ wife decides to snuff herself out of existence because of her sadness over Chris’ death, she awakes in a personally created hell and must live there until the time that she was appointed to die naturally. Do you think this “truth” might be something worth knowing, even for an atheist? Again we see that knowing a truth matters and thus what you believe matters.  [2]

Conclusion

My conclusion from these examples is simple: it is not possible for all belief systems to turn out to be equal unless there is no ultimate truth at all. Then it simply doesn’t matter if you have truth or not. But of course, we all sense this is not the case, even atheists, so we all Triumphally fight for what we believe that universal spiritual truth to be and claim our beliefs to be the best and truest.

Or to put it another way, logically speaking there can be only one true (or most true) religion, at most. There is no other way possible, no matter how uncomfortable that truth might be. But then there is an upside to this belief. It means there is a purpose and reason in seeking a greater understanding of God and we can honestly hope to benefit from discovery of truth. Perhaps it’s best that we look at the positives instead of the negatives.

Footnotes: 

[1] Every time I write something like this I can, without fail, count on someone misunderstanding it and then railing against what they thought I said. So let me respond in advance to the ways I believe what I just wrote will be misunderstood.

1. If you are an atheist that believes people should not be constrained by religion or religious upbringing so that they can search out what makes them the happiest, then by definition you believe in a universal spiritual truth that all must reconcile themselves against or be at a disadvantage. So I wasn’t writing about you in this section. You are, however, the perfect example of what I am writing about: someone that believes they have the one true religion.
2. If you are an atheist that believes atheism makes you happy because you don’t have to answer to anyone and you think others might feel the same way if they just realized there is no God, then you also have a universal spiritual truth that you believe all must reconcile themselves against or be at a disadvantage. I wasn’t talking to you in this section and you also just proved my point because you believe you have the one true religion.
3. If you are an atheist that really and truly believes people should believe what they want and it doesn’t matter because when we all die we’re dead anyhow so it’s best that people find happiness any way they can while in this miserable life, then I *was* talking specifically about you. Now please don’t prove yourself  a hypocrite by arguing with me – or anyone else — ever again because the moment you do, you are no longer this type of atheist and you are now claiming to have a universal spiritual truth that all must reconcile themselves to. Arguing will also prove that you believe you have the one true religion.  In fact, if you really do fit this description you will never read this because a blog like this would matter so little to you you’d not bother with it. To each their own, right? And you certainly won’t be posting a comment because you’d, at a minimum, believe what I’m writing is “as good” as anything else out there if I believe in it. So there will be nothing to discuss.

[2] For those that have only seen the movie, this is different from the book, I’m told. Apparently the “suits” thought it would be more dramatic to have an never-ending hell whereas Matheson actually believed all souls eventually, with help from those in heaven, raise out of hell. Hell had an end even if it took a thousand years.

Prepare for the ultimate philosophical smack down between a David and a Goliath! In one corner we have our champ Craig L. Blomberg who I have been told is one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world. Simply put, he’s brilliant.

Our contender is my former missionary companion who was never anything but a junior companion.

Craig Blomberg comes out of his corner swinging, in How Wide the Divide? His upper-cut is the logical impossibility of the Mormon concept of becoming divine and having more than one Omnipotent “being.” He says,

Even simple logic should suggest that it is contradictory to have more than one omnipotent being; otherwise, for example, not only would God be able to judge me but I would be able to judge God. Both of us could theoretically destroy each other, and then there would be no eternally existing God. (How Wide the Divide? p. 212)

Well, spectators at home, Mormonism has taken a blow. It starts to fall and swoon. Blomberg may have just disproven Mormonism altogether using “simple logic.” So everyone on this website, please close up shop and go home, this show is over.

But wait, here comes my poor little companion out of his corner with a one-two punch response to Blomberg – and years before Blomberg ever tried his upper cut!

In passing my companion once mentioned to me that the Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to disprove other Christians with the very same argument Blomberg uses. It seems the Jehovah’s Witnesses are fond of saying, “How can there be three Almighties? That’s a contradiction! All of Christianity is wrong, including Craig Blomberg’s form of it! [Note: okay, I admit I added that part.] Jehovah is the only Almighty and Jesus is not an Almighty! “My Father is Greater than I.” This is simple logic! All of Christendom should convert to the religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because we are the only ones being logical!”

“But Elder Nielson,” he said to me, “They are wrong. This isn’t logical. If multiple beings have the same purpose and will — if they never come into conflict over what they want — you can logically have an infinite number of Almighties.”

So there we have it: my former companion’s inadvertent response to Craig Blomberg’s “simple logic.” It would appear our Goliath is down for the count, logically speaking. He never made it past round 1.

The Aftermath: One Moral Will Theology

My former companion’s brief comment resulted into my additional scriptural studies on this topic. This proved a profitable approach to scripture study, particularly with the Book of Mormon.

I have named this doctrine: “One Moral Will Theology.”

At the same time my companion clarified for me the profound importance of Jesus’ teaching that He and the Father were one (John 10:30) and that He desired His disciples to be one with Him in the same way He is one with the Father. (John 17:11, 21) It turns out Jesus didn’t just want us to “be one” (D&C 38:27) because it’s unseemly when we don’t behave ourselves.

And it came to pass that I realized that in Mormon theology the Trinity Doctrine and Plurality of Gods Doctrine are really one and the same doctrine.

Logic and Reason: Are Human Beings Capable of Using Them Evenly?

All these years later, I am still dumbfounded at the ease with which my companion shunted aside such a logically “sounding” surface argument. It has made me question the purpose of even having logic/reason discussions such as this. If this is the best a massively brilliant person like Blomberg can do, how well am I doing?

But what really amazes me are the following three take aways from this match up:

Point #1: Even Really Smart People Are Incapable of Using Reason If It Goes Against Their Beliefs

How could someone as smart as Craig Blomberg not figure out that the Mormon view of Deity suffers no “simple logic” problem like he asserts? It’s certainly not a lack of familiarity with Mormon theology on this subject; his grasp of Mormon theology through out the book proves this.

And how could he not see that his “simple logic” could be – is — used against him just as easily and would mean little more?

Once we realize that to everyone in the world — save creedal Christians only — that “being” and “person” are synonyms, consider a slight rewording of Blomberg’s quote:

“Even simple logic should suggest that it is contradictory to have more than one omnipotent person; otherwise, for example, not only would the Father be able to judge Jesus but Jesus would be able to judge Father. Both of them could theoretically destroy each other, and then there would be no eternally existing God.”

Do you think Blomberg would still feel this is good logic? Is he ready to go join the Jehovah’s Witnesses now?

Point #2: We Don’t Differentiate Between “Logic” and “Assumption”

Perhaps more uncomfortable is the realization that Blomberg’s logic is actually sound; it’s just based on assumptions Mormons don’t hold. I will grant that his unspoken assumption plays to our intuition: the fact that no two persons on earth ever completely share one moral will and purpose. That is to say, we have no direct experience with people that share the same purpose and will so it’s hard for us to conceive. Blomberg’s “logic” is only “logic” if we start with the assumption that such a thing is impossible.

Worse yet, as per my reworded quote above, it would appear that Blomberg’s argument was based on an assumption that he does not himself hold to be true. What we have here is a double standard in his logic.

But this is only the beginning of my woes because:

Point #3: This Post is A Waste of All Our Time

Because either a) I think I’m being logical, but in reality I am just fooling myself to believe that I am because it’s convenient for my point of view (see point number 1); or b) I am being logical but it won’t matter because anyone that disagrees with me (including Blomberg if he were to read this) will fail to comprehend the logic presented because it’s convenient for their point of view.

Either way this post was pointless.

In the past, Clay asked me if I thought that someone who believes The Book of Mormon to be fiction lost their salvation. My answer was, no, I do not believe such a belief causes a person to lose salvation in and of itself. DougG asked me if I believe people that believed the Book of Mormon was inspired but not historical should be rooted out of the Church. My answer to that question was, no they shouldn’t be.

Both of these questions made me think of some counter questions for those that believe The Book of Mormon is inspired of God but just a work of fiction:

• Do you still study The Book of Mormon as a guide to your life on a regular basis?
• Do you still prayerfully seek for truths in The Book of Mormon to apply into your life?
• Did you do any of the above types of study when you thought The Book of Mormon was also historical?
• Do you limit your study of The Book of Mormon to only finding 19th century patterns now or are you open to finding unique eternal truths there for our day?
• Do you limit your study of The Book of Mormon to only what you need to do to fulfill a calling? (Like say preparing for lessons.)
• Did coming to believe The Book of Mormon was only inspired fiction cause you to reduce your efforts to study it in any way?

Lest I leave out TBMs from this post, I have a similar set of questions for you:

• Do you study The Book of Mormon as a guide to your life on a regular basis?
• Do you prayerfully seek for truths in The Book of Mormon to apply into your life?
• Do you limit your study of The Book of Mormon to only finding ancient patterns?
• Do you limit your study of The Book of Mormon to only what you need to do to fulfill a calling? (Like say preparing for lessons.)
• Or is The Book of Mormon more useful to you as a differentiator then a doctrinal source?
• What benefits do you feel there are to believing The Book of Mormon is historical? Does believing it is historical make much of a difference to the way you study or use The Book of Mormon?

Update: Based on working on the wording of the question with John Hamer, here is a possibly more neutral re-wording:

If The Book of Mormon once taught you a message that had enriched your life, and if you possessed a firm testimony that it was inspired of God, but later you felt you learned its narrative had solely modern origins, how has this, in real life, affected your relationship with the Book of Mormon? (i.e. change in how or how much you study it or use it) Do you still continue to seek spiritual guidance from it? Do you still do it in the same manner before you decided it was a modern work?

So first of all, let me say that I don’t have a very strong opinion about this case and don’t claim to understand it. As I explained to the guy I car pool with, I suspect the FLDS is breaking laws but I also suspect that there is little chance of a fair trial for the FLDS, so we may never know if things were handled properly or not. Apparently I was wrong.

With the state court of appeals now ruling that things were handled improperly, I guess we might get to the bottom of this after all.

I confess I don’t understand the law very well, so I’m not in a position to make an analysis, but the following quotes from this article seemed telling, to me at least.

The appeals court said the state was wrong to consider the entire ranch as an individual household and that the state could not take all the children from a community on the notion that some parents in the community might be abusers.

The court said that although five girls had become pregnant at age 15 or 16, the state gave no evidence about the circumstances of the pregnancies. It noted that minors as young as 16 can wed in Texas with parental consent, and even younger children can marry if a court approves it.

Of the 31 sect members CPS once said were underage mothers, 15 have been reclassified as adults — one was 27 years old — and an attorney for a 14-year-old girl said in court that she had no children and was not pregnant, as officials previously asserted.

Was the State seizure motivated by bigotry to any degree? Or was there really cause for concern? Will Harry Reid have egg on his face? Why can’t we just make better laws to protect the ones needing protection?

Discuss.

More coverage here.

In this post, I want to apply what we’ve discussed to a real life situation: Bruce R. McConkie’s talk on worshipping Jesus.

Case Study 2: Do Mormons Worship Jesus?

The word-offense in question comes from Bruce R. McConkie’s now famous (infamous?) talk entitled “Our Relationship with the Lord” where McConkie states that Mormons do not worship Jesus.

Anti-Mormons, with eyes full of glee, shout “Ha! Mormons don’t worship Jesus! We do!”

Disaffected Mormons say “McConkie says Mormons don’t worship Jesus, but Hinckley changed that doctrine and now Mormons do worship Jesus! (See! That’s proof the Church isn’t Divine!)”

And even believing Mormons might ask “So which is it? Do we or don’t we worship Jesus?”

But all such questions, by their very nature, are really just word-offense. None of the above questions attempt to capture the real nuance taught by Elder McConkie on the subject.

The question that a person sincere about understanding McConkie (and perhaps by extention, sincere about understanding the LDS Church) would ask is “In what sense does McConkie believe Mormons worship Jesus? In what sense do they not worship Jesus?”

Now through word-offense, it might be easier and more fun to attack McConkie and simplify his full nuanced beliefs into something he never taught, but let’s keep in mind that, thanks to the Bible, this can be done to any Old Testament-believing religion:

1 Chr 29:20 states: “And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king.”

Through word-offense, I can now make the claim that all Bible-believing Christians and all Jews believe that King David was a god and that he is to be worshipped. And thanks to the single use of the word “worship” for both King David and God, I can wreak some real havoc against any counter arguments about how they are worshiped in different senses of the word. [1]

This issue of word-offense on the word “worship” is not just a Mormon issue.

With this in mind, let’s make a sincere attempt to understand McConkie’s full nuanced teachings about worshipping Jesus so that we can understand what he really meant.

Understanding the Purpose and Context of McConkie’s Talk

Bear in mind Joseph Smith’s teachings that we need to try to understand the context of a scriptural (or in this case Apostolic) statement to really understand it: “I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire [sic], what was the question which drew out the answer…” (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 276 – 277)

McConkie tells us himself that he was concerned that members of the Church might be starting to pray unto Jesus directly to gain an inappropriately intimate relationship with the 2nd member of the Godhead that down plays or excludes other members:

Now, it is no secret that many false and vain and foolish things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus.

He [the Father] is the one to whom we have direct access by prayer, and if there were some need–which there is not!–to single out one member of the Godhead for a special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be the one to choose.

There are yet others who have an excessive zeal which causes them to go beyond the mark. Their desire for excellence is inordinate. In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous.

Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed.

It is a fine and sacred line, but clearly there is a difference between a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord, which is improper, and one of worshipful adoration, which yet maintains the required reserve between us and him who has bought us with his blood.

McConkie Used the Word “Worship” in Multiple Senses

McConkie did not intend for us to understand that Mormons do not worship Jesus in any sense of the word. Again, he tells us this plainly:

I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense…

In the full, final, and ultimate sense of the word the divine decree is: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might, mind, and strength; and in the name of Jesus Christ thou shalt serve him. [D&C 59:5]‘

In What Sense Does McConkie Say it Is Appropriate to Worship Jesus?

In this very talk alone, I was able to make the following list of McConkie’s ideas of appropriate attitudes towards Jesus that would, in many people’s minds, constitute worship:

1. Awe
2. Reverence
3. Gratitude
4. Love
5. Service
6. Fellowship
7. Revealer and manifester of God the Father
8. The way to the Father
9. Praise his holy name
10. Ascribe unto Him honor, power, glory, might, and dominion
11. Treat Him as Lord, God, and King
12. Worshipful adoration

McConkie adds:

We do not have a fraction of the power we need to properly praise his holy name and ascribe unto him the honor and power and might and glory and dominion that is his. He is our Lord, our God, and our King.

In What Sense Does McConkie Say It is Not Appropriate to Worship Jesus?

As quoted previously, the only example he specifically gives of inappropriately worshiping Jesus is praying directly to Jesus or forming a special or more “intimate” relationship with Jesus to the exclusion of or down playing the other members of the Godhead. To McConkie, this distinction is the difference between a lesser form or “worship” and “worship” in the “true and saving sense.” (“Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator,” says McConkie.)

It would certainly seem that the LDS Church does indeed believe in addressing all prayers to the Father alone, though in the name of the Son.

Worshipping Jesus as Part of the Godhead: Deconstructing McConkie’s Doctrine of Deity

Now this might seem to be the end of our inquiry here: McConkie says that we both do and don’t worship Jesus. We do in that we have certain feelings towards Him appropriate to Diety alone. We don’t in that we don’t directly address Him in prayer because that is reserved only for the Father. I think it would be significant if we could at least get this much out of McConkie’s talk and end our word-offense over it.

But as it turns out, there is more to the story, as McConkie himself tells us.

You see, McConkie, ever on the attack against his (in my opinion incorrect) understanding of “sectarian Trinitarianism” [2] was himself somewhat of a “Social Trinitarian.” For example, McConkie says:

Thus there are, in the Eternal Godhead, three persons–God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Testator. These three are one — one God if you will – in purposes, in powers, and in perfections.

McConkie, as with all Social Trinitarians, does not seem to make a complete separation of the Godhead/Trinity. In my opinion, this proper understanding of McConkie’s own theology of God is necessary to understand McConkie fully.

To McConkie, while we are to address prayers only to the Father – this is McConkie’s key point – such worship is actually towards all members of the Godhead, in a sense, because they are all one.

Look one more time at this quote… and read it very carefully… it will pop out at you now:

He [the Father] is the one to whom we have direct access by prayer, and if there were some need — which there is not! – to single out one member of the Godhead for a special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be the one to choose.

McConkie later adds:

First, be it remembered that most scriptures that speak of God or of the Lord do not even bother to distinguish the Father from the Son, simply because it doesn’t make any difference which God is involved. They are one. The words or deeds of either of them would be the words and deeds of the other in the same circumstance.

McConkie’s Full Teaching: We Do Worship Jesus When We Worship the Father Because They Are One

I do feel McConkie was not entirely clear on this last point within this particular talk. But if you will allow me to take McConkie’s teachings as a whole rather than forcing one talk to represent the man, consider the following McConkie quotes:

The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship. [Note the use of a single word here for both members of the Godhead]… No one can worship the Father without also worshiping the Son. … It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son. ‘Believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.’ (2 Ne 25:16, 29) (Mormon Doctrine, p. 848-849)

Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘one God’” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 319)

There are three Gods – the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – who, though separate in personality, are united as one in purpose, in plan, and in all the attributes of perfection. Thus anything, in these fields, which is revealed with reference to any of them is equally true of each of the others; and hence no attempt need be made in these fields to distinguish between them.

This understanding of McConkie’s beliefs helps us understand why McConkie believed in one very notable exception to praying to Jesus. He taught it was entirely appropriate if Jesus was bodily present. In his commentary of John 16:24 he said,

Perhaps as long as Jesus was personally with them [the disciples] many of their petitions were addressed directly to him rather than to the Father. Such was the course followed by the Nephites when the resurrected and glorified Lord ministered among them. They prayed directly to him and not to the Father.

He then quoted 3 Ne 19:17-18, 22: “…they pray unto me [Jesus]; and they pray unto me because I am with them…”

A Summary of McConkie’s Teachings About Worshiping Jesus

So what can we say for certain about McConkie’s teachings about worshiping Jesus?

1. McConkie taught that in one sense of the word “worship” we do not worship Jesus. This sense is specifically stated to be either a prayer addressed to Jesus when He isn’t bodily present or forming a special relationship with Jesus to the exclusion of the Father or the Godhead as a whole.
2. McConkie taught that in another sense we do worship Jesus. He gave many examples of different sense in which we do worship Jesus.
3. McConkie taught that we are to address all prayers to the Father in the name of the Son.
4. McConkie taught that we can and do worship Jesus, albeit indirectly, when we worship the Father.
5. McConkie taught that it was appropriate to pray to Jesus in one circumstance, when He’s physically present.

Based on my reading and understanding of every General Authority before and after McConkie, it seems to me that McConkie was really attempting to express exactly what the LDS Church has always taught and still teaches today about worship of Jesus. So I believe McConkie does in fact represent LDS beliefs on this subject even if we wish he had worded it differently.

Comparison to Other Christian Religions

What I find interesting is that the above teachings about worshiping Jesus seem quite similar to the teachings of many “orthodox Christian” religions on this very subject. [3]

I do not see this as a coincidence. I’ve learned to not overlook the ability of other religions to find truth from the Bible. On this very subject, it’s hard to miss -

• Jesus only taught people to pray to the Father, not to Him. For example: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsover ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.” (John 16:23. See also Matt 26:39, John 15:16, and many others).
• The Bible forces people to accept that there is more than one definition of the word “worship.” 1 Chr 29:20 is the best example of this, but there are others. [1]

Many non-Mormon Christians solely and exclusively address their prayers to the Father because of Jesus’ teachings on this subject. I am unaware of any non-Mormon Christian denomination that, at least officially, advocates having a special relationship with Jesus to the exclusion of or de-emphasizing the Father. [3]

The one area that we might have some disagreement between McConkie’s teachings and other Christian religions (and possibly even Mormonism) is in having an “intimate” relationship with Jesus. But here we again bump into word-offense. What does the word “intimate” really mean as McConkie uses it? As McConkie uses the term contextually, do other Christian religions really believe in having, as it were, an inappropriate relationship that doesn’t “maintain the required reserve between us” and God? [4]

Notes:

[1] Margaret Baker, an unfortunate favorite of Mormon apologists, actually does try to make the argument, based on this verse alone, that Jews believed King David was a god in the same way other polytheistic religions believed their king was a god. But at least Margaret Baker was tolerant enough to not claim that all modern Christians are really secretly polytheists because their scriptures teach king David is God. That would be word-offense.

[2] McConkie bore a misunderstanding the traditional view of the Trinity, as do many Mormons, as well as many non-Mormon Christians: “They say he is one-god-in-three, and three-gods-in-one who neither hears, nor sees, nor speaks.” He thought the Trinity was Modalism.

[3] Okay, I admit there are exceptions. On my mission there was a lady that would start out her prayers “O Holy Spirit of Jesus.” When asked why she did she’d say “well they are all the same person!” In other words she had misunderstood the Trinity doctrine to be Modalism. My real point here is that amongst non-Modalist Christians, which technically speaking is all of them if they understood their doctrines, there are few if any Christians that believe in worshiping Jesus in some special sense as McConkie is fighting against. (In my next article I’ll address how this means McConkie was himself taking word-offense against other Christians.)

[4] Remember, these are the very same Christians that feel our doctrine of deification is blasphemous because there needs to be a strong separation between creator and created. From their point of view it is we Mormons that believe in having an “intimate” relationship with Jesus and the Father that is inappropriate and without the required reserve appropriate for worshipful adoration.

Besides the obscurity arising from the complexity of objects, and the imperfection of the human faculties, the medium through which the conceptions of men are conveyed to each other adds a fresh embarrassment. The use of words is to express ideas. Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly and exclusively appropriate to them. But no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas. Hence it must happen that however accurately objects may be discriminated in themselves, and however accurately the discrimination may be considered, the definition of them may be rendered inaccurate by the inaccuracy of the terms in which it is delivered. And this unavoidable inaccuracy must be greater or less, according to the complexity and novelty of the objects defined. When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.

Here, then, are three sources of vague and incorrect definitions: indistinctness of the object, imperfection of the organ of conception, inadequateness of the vehicle of ideas. Any one of these must produce a certain degree of obscurity. (link)

James Madison

I love words – I love to read, write, talk – but I think words leave out almost everything. That [is] frustrat[ing]… feeling that what we can share with other people is so much more limited than what we actually experience… (link)– Jaron Lanier

Oh, Lord, deliver us in due time from the little, narrow prison, almost as it were, total darkness of paper, pen, and ink; – and a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language. — Joseph Smith (History of the Church 1:299)

I’ve thought a lot about the confines of language in the last several years. Having a thought and expressing that thought such that another person understands it perfectly are two very different things.

I have grown concerned over the years at what I see as intentional or unintentional “stumbling” or “getting stuck” on a word. Isaiah 29:21 speaks of being “offenders for a word” and I think this is a similar idea.

It’s hard to not be offenders for a word because we think with words, so thinking about words themselves is like thinking about thinking. It’s hard to do.

Worse yet, there are strong incentives to want to be “offenders for a word.” We often define our self and group identity by the very words we use. Mormons and non-Mormons alike are guilty of doing this. [1]

But for someone serious about understanding another group, there is no substitute for ridding oneself of “word-offense” or “wordism” as I sometimes call it. [2]

Consider this list of questions:

1. Do Mormons worship Jesus or do they not worship Jesus?
2. Was polygamy rescinded or suspended in the LDS Church?
3. Was polygamy a central doctrine or peripheral doctrine to the LDS Church?
4. Is polygamy “doctrinal” in the LDS Church today?
5. Do Mormons “practice polygamy in their temples” today?
6. Do Mormons believe in predestination?
7. Are Mormons monotheists, polytheists, tri-theists, or henotheists?
8. Do Mormons believe in an “Eternal” God?
9. Do Mormons believe in a finite or infinite God?
10. Do Mormons believe God is a man?
11. Do Mormons believe man can become God?
12. Do Mormons believe in an omnipresent God?
13. Do Mormons believe Jesus is God?
14. Do Mormons believe the “oneness” of the Godhead/Trinity is a “oneness of purpose?”
15. Do Mormons believe they are justified by grace and works or justified by grace and not works?
16. Do Mormons believe it’s possible to earn salvation?
17. Do Mormons believe baptism is required for salvation?
18. Is the LDS Church a cult?

I have thought a lot about questions like the above and I’ve come to the realization that I can honestly answer those questions any way I choose because it all depends on how one defines the terms being used.

Indeed, I believe that 80%+ of all anti-Mormon issues and a large percentage of disaffected Mormon issues are really simple word-offense: a refusal to try to understand the underlying thought the speaker was attempting to express through words.

Now call me crazy, but I suspect that the underlying thought the person is trying to express is probably more important than the specific words chosen to express it. How could anything but the underlying thought matter?

Case Study 1: The Meaning of the Word “God”

Let’s take a seemingly simply example. Is Jesus God? What’s the answer to this question? The problem is that I can’t answer this question without assuming or applying some sort of context to the words being used.

Mormons often use the word “God” as a name for the Father. So if I’m talking to another Mormons and I say “Jesus is not God” I probably simply mean “Jesus is not the Father” – a point no Christian of any denomination I know of would argue with me. [3] So at least in one sense of the word “God,” Jesus is not God.

But I know from sad personal experience that I have to be careful when saying something like that in front of a Born Again Christian for fear of setting them off into an attack about how Mormonism doesn’t teach Jesus is God. But Mormons do believe Jesus is God. 2 Ne 26:12 states “And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God” To borrow Catholic language to express myself more clearly, Mormons believe Jesus is not just “the Son of God” but He is “God the Son.”

So Mormons both believe Jesus is God and isn’t God. A contradiction? Hardly. I will prove it:

Do a little exercise with me. Grab a dictionary and pick a word at random. Nearly any word will work, though a few won’t. Here is the word I picked: Justice

Notice how there are little numbers under the word, each with a separate definition. It turns out the word “justice” has multiple meanings – just like almost every word has multiple meanings. [4] Recognizing that words have multiple meanings is the key to healing our word-offense ways.

In truth, the meaning of words can shift a little or a lot between groups/cultures, over time, and even for a single individual based on the context of the conversation. (See also link)  A failure to acknowledge this truth is at the heart of all word-offense.

Despite having thought about “word-offense” for years now, I still constantly find myself falling into it. I’ve found that it’s easy to get confused over use of a word in a different way that I am used to. And it’s easy to become offended over that “misuse” of a word because, of course, I assume my definition of a word is the “correct” one and so if someone else uses the word differently, they must be trying to deceive me.

Let’s use a related real life example: let’s suppose that Mormons were to define the word “God,” from their religious context, like this (in order of usage frequency): [5]

God

1. The Divine Nature or Godhead (Godhead means “divine nature”) as a single unit that is made up of three persons: the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost
2. The Father
3. Any other member of the Trinity or Godhead individually
4. The whole group of exalted beings that have become “one” with the Godhead.
5. Any individual exalted being that has reached “oneness” with the Godhead.

So are Mormons monotheists, polytheist, tri-theists, or henotheists?

If I concentrate on definition #1, Mormons are definitely monotheists. If I ignore definition #1 and concentrate on #2 and #3, now Mormons seem more like henotheists. If I concentrate on definition #3 alone Mormons are tri-theists. If I concentrate on definition #5 to the exclusion of all other definitions, Mormons might technically be called polytheists. In other words, Mormons are all of the above, depending on which definition of “God” you are referring to. (Their protests aside, this is also true of all Trinitarian Christians as well. [6])

Using John 1:1 as an example. A Mormon would likely read this verse as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (definition #2), and the Word was God. (definition #3)” To have any chance of understanding what a Mormon, or anyone of any religion, – or for that matter scripture itself – means when they say “God” one must first make an attempt to understand how the writer used the word. [7]

Joseph Smith put it this way:

“I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire [sic], what was the question which drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable? … To ascertain its meaning, we must dig up the root and ascertain what it was that drew the saying out of Jesus.” (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 276 – 277)

But the Words Get In the Way

So now that I’ve openly admitted that Mormons (and all Christians) are, in some sense, polytheists, you might wonder why I so strongly deny this and actively argue against referring to Mormons (or other Christians) as polytheists.

The reason is that while Mormons might truthfully be termed polytheists (or henotheist, or tritheist) in a limited sense, these words do not express the truth about Mormon beliefs in equal weight and understanding.

For example, when most people think of “polytheism” they think of classic Greek polytheism where there are multiple gods with separate wills that are at cross purposes. These polytheistic gods fight with each other over dominion and attempt to assert their will on each other. Mormon theology is night and day from classic polytheism and has much more in common with Trinitarian beliefs. So calling a Mormon a “polytheist” will inevitably cause serious a misunderstanding about Mormon beliefs unless a lot of care is taken to explain the full nuanced belief.

By comparison, calling Mormons “monotheists” gives a pretty good approximation of exactly what Mormons believe. So I assert that it’s appropriate to call Mormons monotheists but inappropriate to call them polytheists except with the greatest of care to clarify your meaning.

Self Definition Vs. Labeling or Defining Others

And then I believe there is a moral issue here too.  The moral demands of self definition are very different than the moral demands of how we define others.

To explain myself better I will use the example of Muslims referring to Catholics and Protestant Christians as polytheists. Are Muslims correct to refer to Christians as polytheists? Based on my arguments above, clearly in a sense Christians are polytheists and in another sense they are monotheists. But when Muslims make such an assertion, do they bother to explain that very important nuance? To me, that’s the important point. Since Muslims do not typically take the time to explain in what sense a Christian might be called a polytheist or in what sense they might be called monotheists — and more over they do not explain that Christians are primarily monotheists and self define as monotheists! — I am forced to assume the real intent is to mislead, not clarify, and as such is an act of intolerance. Is it the Muslims who don’t believe as the Christians do who gets to decide which words best convey an undestanding of the Christian religion? [8]

In part 2, we’ll tackle if Mormons worship Jesus or not.

Notes:

[1] I tried a real life experiment that I think is worth repeating for yourself, if you are curious. See if you get the same results I did.

Try asking a group of “orthodox” Christians if they believe they have to have good works to be saved. The answer will be likely be an overwhelming “no way!” Now ask the same group if they have to “be bringing forth good works to be in the state of being saved.” Now you may find that you get an overwhelming “absolutely!” And yet that’s actually the same question worded in two ways. The real difference is that the first question used the catch phrase “good works to be saved” which orthodox Christians have been trained to deny as part of their group identity.

You can play the same trick on Mormons. Ask a Mormon if they are saved by the “grace (or graciousness) of God alone.” “Not on your life!” you’ll likely be told, because “we have to have works to be saved!” Now ask that same group of Mormons if God owes them salvation if they do good works. “God doesn’t own me anything!” you’ll probably be told. It would seem that denying the catch phrase “grace alone” is part of Mormon group identity.

[2] I invented the word “wordism” to describe someone that gets caught up in a word or phrase to the point of denying others with it. I also called such a person a “wordist” because they often based their intolerance of others on what words another person uses. But it turns out that these terms were actually coined before by Bob Whitaker, though he used the terms a differently than I do. Specifically he saw “wordism” as uniting around a certain set of words in the same way nationalism is uniting around everyone being from one nation. I’m not sure I want to be associated with Whitaker and besides my using the same terms differently then he will only lead to further wordism – so I’m going to use the term “word-offense” to replace “wordism.”

[3] After all, Paul often uses “God” to refer to specifically the person of the Father. (1 Cor 1:30; Rom 15:6; Rom 5:1; Rom 7:25; Rom 10:9; etc.) And of course Jesus spoke the same way without the slightest blush. (John 8:42; Matt 19:17; etc.)

[4] I once mentioned to a friend in my carpool that it’s hard to get through a Sunday school lesson about how “God is just” because no matter how much effort you put into defining your terms upfront, some people in the class will assume you mean “God is good” (as per definitions 1 to 4) while others in the class will assume you mean God metes out punishments equally” (as per definition 5-6) while others will assume you actually meant that God will handle people appropriately according to their circumstances (the correct word here is “equity” but people often use “justice” for this. See also definition 11.)

My friends eyes suddenly went wide. He told me that the day before, in his Sunday school class, there was a gentleman who kept insisting that “God is just.” But when people in the class agreed that God did indeed mete out punishment according to law, the gentleman would get confused and again insist “No, God is just!”

[5] I ultimately take full responsibility for this definition. I am a believing Mormon and this is how I define the word “God.” Other Mormons might have a slightly different definition or might feel the order of usage is different. In particular, I think many Mormons might feel they’d like to see the order of definition #1 and #2 inverted.

[6] All Trinitarian Christians could be considered polytheists through equally selective use of their definitions of the word “God.” In fact, this is the very reason why Muslims call Christians polytheists

The Athanasius creed bans referring to the members of the Trinity separately and numerically as “God” because Christians don’t want to be polytheists in any sense of the word. (The end result is a provable logical contradiction.) Muslims don’t buy this argument and call Christians “polytheists” anyhow, which is what Christians are in a very limited sense. But in a more correct sense, Christians are monotheists too. However, I’m uncomfortable with Muslims calling Christians polytheists, for reasons I’ll explain later in my article.

[7] Now a creedal Christian might be tempted to say “well I have only one definition of ‘God’.” But that isn’t true. Look carefully at Matt 19:17: “And [Jesus] said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God…” It is not possible to make sense of the Bible without a clear understanding that the word “God” has more than one meaning depending on context. This is just a true for a Catholic as for a Protestant as for a Mormon. As a Mormon I ask only for the same courtesy all Christians give themselves.

Another exercise for the reader: given the flexibility of the Mormon definitions of the word “God,” try to find any scripture in the Bible that disproves the Mormon believe in a plurality of gods. It can’t be done. All such attempted arguments are actually a form of word-offense. They are merely a refusal to admit to all possible understandings of the Biblical text.

Some verses even unexpectedly assist Mormon theology once we look at the original language. Consider Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God (definition #1, #2, or #3?) is one Lord:” It turns out that the word translated “one” is the Hebrew word “echad” which literally means “one unity” (though as with most words, it can carry more than one possible meaning.) Thus this verse, in the original Hebrew might be literally rendered “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God (definition #1) is one unity.”

[8] Of course orthodox Christians will argue that the difference between themselves and Mormons is substance theology, and that since they  believe in substance theology they believe in “one God” in some sense more so than Mormons believe in “one God.” As I’ve explained elsewhere, I don’t buy this argument at all. Bottom line for me: Mormons, Catholics, and Protestants all define “God” as being multiple persons. There is no logical basis for claiming that substance theology somehow enhances that “oneness” in a meaningful and scriptural way.

So in the end, this is the very same moral issue as with Muslims defining Christians. Our Protestant and Catholic neighbors are often guilty of intolerance towards us in this manner just as Muslims are often intolerant to Christians in this manner. No group has a right to define another group differently then how they define themselves unless they take great care to clarify the nuances of meaning. Simply refering to Mormons as “polytheists” with no explanation (or without a sincere attempt to understand) is immoral behavior.

Of course, to be fair, Mormons are often guilty of intolerance to other Christians by mispresenting Trinitarian beliefs, so I’m claiming no special righteousness for Mormons here.

On one of our visits he showed us a book called Who Needs God by Harold Kushner, a Jewish Rabbi. He lent me the book to peruse. Mission life does not leave a lot of time for reading books, but for the sake of having discussions with him I read through parts of the book, picking out topics that sounded interesting. To this day I still haven’t read the whole book, but enjoyed the parts I did read very much. Kushner is a very insightful man. 

One passage that I read blew me away because it gave such a comprehensive definition of monotheism:

The affirmation of monotheism – that there is only one God – is a moral statement, not a mathematical deduction. If there is only one God and He demands moral behavior, then there can be such a thing as good and evil. (Technically speaking, right and wrong are matters of fact: Who stole the money? Good and bad are matters of morality: Should I take the money?) When there are many gods, as in pagan legends, the issue is not: What is good? The issue is: Which God shall I serve? Which one has the power to protect and reward me? Think, for example, of the conflicts of Homer’s Illiad, where the gods take sides. What pleases one displease another. A person offends one of the gods but is under the protection of another, stronger one. The issue is not what is right but who has the might.

The assertion that there is only one God is the assertion that issues of moral behavior are not matters of personal taste. We cannot decide by majority vote that it is all right to steal and lie, any more than we can decide that winters should be mild or cookies more nourishing than vegetables.

I paused in my reading. With a sudden flood of understanding, I comprehended that I and all Mormons are monotheists and always have been. Our doctrines of the plurality of gods and of the exaltation and deification of humankind do not change our monotheistic status, as defined by Rabbi Kushner, any more than the Trinity doctrine changes other Christian’s monotheistic status.

Based on this moral definition of monotheism, we Mormons do indeed believe there is exactly one God and that there was no God formed before God and there shall be no God formed after God. (Isaiah 43:10)

Once there was a young teenaged boy that was inexperienced at driving and made the mistake of driving home at night without his headlights on. He had turned on his parking lights but had failed to pull the switch just a bit further for the headlights. The roads were well lit, so it was not obvious to such an inexperienced driver that something was wrong.

When a cop pulled him over, he was shocked to find that he had driven the whole way without his lights on. When he was required to go before a judge he immediately admitted his guilt and expressed gladness he had not hurt anyone.

The judge, sensing that this teen would not benefit from having to pay the ticket nor the additional insurance costs, threw the ticket out. The judge added “I’ve made the same mistake before myself. Just be careful in the future.”

Did the teen deserve the ticket? Of course, he was guilty. Would it be justice to have made the teen pay the ticket? Yes, of course.

Was this judge a “bad” judge? I think most of us would agree that he was not a bad judge, nor was he shirking his duties to society.

Did the repentant teen “deserve” the mercy the judge showed him? Of course not. Mercy is never deserved by very definition. This teen was pronounced “not guilty” by a judge due to no merit on his part.

Now pretend, just for a moment, that the same story had taken place, but instead the teen had shouted at the judge “I meant to drive with my headlights off and I’m going to do it again first chance I get!”

Suppose the judge was still in a merciful mood and still decided to throw the ticket out while still adding, “I’ve made the same mistake before myself. Just be careful in the future.”

Do you still believe this judge is a good judge?

What is the difference? In both cases we have the same judge performing the same act of mercy. Isn’t mercy a “good thing?”

It seems to me that we innately understand that for mercy to be “good,” it must only be extended to a person that has repented. The teen was not a threat to society so he could be shown mercy without harming either him or society. On the other hand, our non-repentant teen could be shown no mercy without harming both himself and society.

This example proves that what we do, specifically repentance, can indeed influence the outcome of a judgment. But that “influence” should not be mistaken for “merit.”