Shortly before the Second World War, the United States instituted the draft system. With the deemphasis on the doctrine of gathering to Utah, and the advent of World War II, the Church had to face some tough issues. For the first time we were confronted with the problem of having significant numbers of faithful Latter-day Saints on both sides of a military conflict. In the April Conference of 1942, an official statement was made by the First Presidency that although the gospel of Christ is a gospel of love, every citizen has an obligation to come to the defense of their country when a call to arms is made.

“The state is responsible for the civil control of its citizens or subjects, for their political welfare, and for the carrying forward of political policies, domestic and foreign, of the body politic. For these policies, their success or failure, the state is alone responsible, and it must carry their burdens. All these matters involve and directly affect Church members because they are part of the body politic, and members must give allegiance to their sovereign and render it loyal service when called thereto. But the Church itself, as such, has no responsibility for these policies, as to which it has no means of doing more than urging its members fully to render that loyalty to their country and to free institutions which the loftiest patriotism calls for.” (First Presidency Message, Conference Report, April 1942, pp. 88-97)

This statement is included in full on the Church’s website as representative of our public policy. Perhaps the preeminence in the Book of Mormon on war in the defense of one’s freedom influenced the decision to support government in waging war.  Other Christian religions, notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses, encountered the same quandary and formulated quite different policies. At the time of World War I, it was recommended that Witnesses serve in the army only if compelled, and then to request positions in a non-combative role such as medical service.  However, by the time of the Second World War, they refused to assist the war effort in any way, to salute the flag, and even to vote.

Since the 1942 CR statement was made, there has been a general reluctance to speak against any military action taken by countries wherein dwell large numbers of Latter-day Saints, especially the United States.  During the Vietnam War, Mormons were urged not to be conscientious objectors, but to enter the military and serve their country.  Church statements at the time emphasized the propriety of war in defense of our families, religion and country.  In the several wars which have ensued, LDS members in the military are urged to see themselves as defending not just their own nation but also the freedom of religion that it ensures for the Church.  I don’t know if it is just my personal experience, but I rarely hear talks or prayers in the Church urging peaceful solutions to national conflict.  Instead I hear prayers from the ward level to temple prayer circles where the Lord is asked to bless our members who are serving in the military.  There is a subtle acceptance of military action inherent in these types of prayers which grates on me.

I think it will be very interesting if Mormon rhetoric concerning participation in military efforts will begin to soften now that the President of the United States is more committed to exploring greater options toward pacifism than past administrations have done.  Lately President Obama has been involved in a global nonproliferation regime concerning nuclear weaponry.  As part of his vision for a world without nuclear weapons, he drafted a proposal which was unanimously accepted at a U.N. Security Council meeting on September 24.

This is a complicated issue, which may involve even more conflict, given that Iran may resist the resolution.  However, I have great hopes for the way this is heading.  I also see many younger Latter-day Saints who are committed to the issue of pacifism.  Since military service is currently voluntary, young men and women do not feel undue pressure from the Church to serve their country in this manner, as they have in the past.  Thus, an LDS generation is growing up with more of an opportunity to formulate their own responses to a call to military service amid a political climate which is more conducive to pacifism than ever before.

Will we soon see the cessation of hawkish patriotism in Sunday School lessons and Church talks and prayers?  Will more LDS leaders arise in the traditon of J. Reuben Clark, who affirmed: “Moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations. I believe that America should again turn to the promotion of peaceful adjustment of international disputes?”  Or will civil and religious duties continue to be cited as justification for participation in military conflict?

The ICM poll of 10,000 people in the USA, UK, Israel, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Mexico and Lebanon was carried out for the BBC

It reveals that only 46% of respondents in the UK said they have always believed in God – 27% less than the average. Only Russia (42%) and South Korea (28%) were lower. Furthermore just 52% of UK respondents believed God (or a Higher Power) created the universe, compared to 85% in the USA, 83% in Mexico, 99% in Indonesia and 96% in Lebanon.The highest levels of belief are found in the poorer nations of Nigeria (98%), India (92%) and Indonesia (97%).However, the USA – the richest nation polled – has a very high level of belief. Only 13% of those polled in America said they found it hard to believe in God (a Higher power) when there was so much suffering in the world.Yet this compares to more than half (52%) of those polled in the UK – the highest of all the countries – and more than twice the average. The figures for Lebanon were 2% and Nigeria 12%.

The survey found that Only 19% of those in the UK said they would die for their God/beliefs. This compares to 37% in Israel, 90% of those polled in Indonesia and Nigeria, and 71% in the USA and Lebanon.

A staggering 78% of those polled in the USA claimed to have studied religious texts, by far the largest figure, followed by 51% in Nigeria and 42% in the UK. This    compares to an average of 33%.

The poll also looked at the place of religion in the world. Almost a third (29%) of people in the UK believe that the world would be a more peaceful place without beliefs in God but very few people in other countries agreed. Just 6% of those polled in America agreed with this view, 11% in Israel and 9% in India. The average across all ten countries was 10%.Only 15% of those polled in America blamed people of other religions for much of the trouble in the world compared with more than a third (37%) in the UK and 33% in Israel.This figure fell to 8% of those polled in Indonesia, 24% in Lebanon and 17% in India.

The poll also looked at levels of attendance at organised religious services in the UK compared to the rest of the world. Across the ten countries, an average of 46% regularly attend a religious service but the figure was 21% in the UK, the second lowest behind Russia (7%). The highest figure was 91% for Nigerians, with 54% in the USA.

Furthermore just 29% of UK respondents said they had been encouraged to believe in God by someone outside their family, compared with 57% in the USA.

With regards to prayer, a total of 95% of Nigerians polled said they prayed regularly as did 67% of those polled in the USA with further numbers praying occasionally at times of crisis. 28% in the UK said they prayed regularly and 41% in Israel. However 25% of people in the UK and 29% of people in Israel said they never prayed.

The poll did reveal however that nearly 30% of all atheists polled admitted they prayed sometimes.

Asked whether a belief in a God/higher power makes for a better human being, well over 80% of people in most countries agreed, but by far the lowest figure was in the UK with just 56%.

Furthermore, just 42% of UK respondents believed God (or a higher power) judges their actions and the way they lived their lives compared to 76% in America, 72% in Israel, 81% in Nigeria and an average of 70%.

Exploring the issue of tolerance of different religions the poll found that more than 90% of all respondents in Nigeria, Indonesia and Lebanon believed their God was the only true God.This compares to 70% in Israel and just 31% in the UK.

The majority of those polled when asked if they believed death was the end disagreed. This was the case for more than half of the UK respondents (51%), 79% of those polled in Nigeria, 75% in Lebanon and 74% in the USA.

Looking at how attitudes change across different religions, the poll found that while 85% of Hindus and 83% of Muslims said they prayed regularly, only 65% of Christians did and barely a third (38%) of Jews.

When asked if their God was the only true God, 95% of Muslims said yes, compared with 68% of Christians and 66% of Jews.

But when asked if other religions were to blame for the troubles in the world, 34% of Jews agreed, while only 24% of Christians, 18% of Hindus and 14% of Muslims agreed.

What do you think?

This got me thinking about something I’ve never been quite sure about. How do we Mormons really feel about the cross? It’s one of those things that we don’t really discuss very often, but over the years I’ve heard everything from respect to disdain from Mormons for the symbol of Christianity. Some reasons that I’ve heard the cross being absent from Mormon life is that:

a) It’s more of a Catholic or Protestant symbol and we are neither
b) The cross represents some terrible crimes that have been committed in the name of Christianity, such as the Crusades, and we don’t want to be associated with that
c) The cross has become nothing but a fashion statement for most
d) We want to focus on the Resurrection and not so much the Crucifixion

Non-LDS Christians are often quick to notice the lack of crosses in LDS chapels and materials. When they’ve asked me about it, I usually give them the speech citing reason d), about how we don’t use the cross because we prefer to focus on Christ’s resurrection and the fact that we believe that He lives, instead of focusing on his death. I don’t feel like I’m lying when I give them the speech, but I have wondered about other possible reasons. I will summarize a story that I remember reading once, which illustrated how some Mormons feel about the cross. A non-LDS Christian woman entered the home of an LDS family. The non-LDS woman was wearing a cross, and somehow the subject came up. When asked why they did not use the cross, the LDS woman said that she could explain it this way: “If one of your loved ones was killed in a car accident, would you wear a car around your neck to remember them?”

• Have you or would you wear a cross or crucifix to meetings in the LDS Church?
• Would you display a cross, crucifix, or a traditional Christian work of art where the cross is prominent, in your home?
• Do you think that we should be more open to using and displaying the cross (at least outside of official LDS Church capacities), or will we lose our unique Christian-Mormon identity by doing so?

Jeff Lindsay [The Word of Wisdom] outlines principles of healthy living that go far beyond the scientific knowledge of the 1800s and much of this century…The 1833 dietary guidelines sound much like the recommended “food pyramid” produced by federally-funded research in the past decade.

For me and perhaps many of you it has been one of those solid concepts that when you feel rickety about some of the doctrine you can always count on the solid foundations of the word of wisdom.

What I never was taught though that before the word of wisdom there was the Temperance Movement.

Temperance Movement

In 1826 Marcus Morton had founded the American Temperance Society June, 1830, the Millenial Harbinger quoted in full, and with the hearty personal endorsement of Alexander Campbell, an article from the Philadelphia “Journal of Health,” The above in turn was quoting a widely circulated book, “The Simplicity of Health,” which article most strongly condemned the use of alcohol, tobacco, the eating intemperately of meats.

Fascinating Facts on the Word of Wisdom/ Temperance Movement (The last one being the most fascinating of them all)

The church today interprets hot drinks to mean tea and coffee, although there is evidence that in the early history of the church all hot drinks were forbidden.

Word of Wisdom is by Lester Bush (physician). He shows how, contrary to recent assertions, the Word of Wisdom was actually what “medical science” in the 1820s and 1830s preached. Bush claims that the Word of Wisdom would have been far more useful (and prophetic) to the 19th Century Mormons had it included instructions to use only clean water and to adequately dispose of waste. In fact, “hot drinks” and some alcoholic beverages may have saved the lives of many 19th Century Mormons had they drank them instead of the unsanitary water in Nauvoo, along the plains, and in Utah.

Although church leaders stress some portions of Joseph Smith’s Word of Wisdom, other portions are almost completely ignored. Mormon writer John J. Stewart observed: “The admonition to eat little meat is largely ignored, as are some other points of the revelation”

Temperance Societies were organized in great numbers during the early thirties, six thousand being formed in one year

The Temperance Society succeeded in eliminating a distillery in Kirtland on February 1, 1833, just twenty-seven days before the Latter-day Saint revelation counseling abstinence was announced, and that the distillery at Mentor, near Kirtland, was also closed at the same time (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1959, pp.39-40).

On October 6, 1830, the Kirtland Temperance Society was organized with two hundred thirty nine members. Among its members were listed a George Smith, several Morleys, a Wells, a Coe, and a Lyman. names all associated with the history of Mormonism

A few years before the Word of Wisdom, Robert Owen had abolished the use of ardent spirits in his community at New Harmony.

Whitney R. Cross points out that “the temperance movement … began much earlier… During the 1830′s it attained national scope. … Further, if alcohol was evil because it frustrated the Lord’s design for the human body, other drugs like tea, coffee, and tobacco must be equally wrong … Josiah Bissell…. had even before the 1831 revival ‘got beyond Temperance to the Cold Water Society—no tea, coffee or any other slops.’ ”

Joseph tested the saints to make sure their testimonies were of his religion and not of him as a personable leader. Amasa Lyman of the first Presidency related Joseph Smith trying the faith of the saints many times by his peculiarities. At one time he had preached a powerful sermon on the word of wisdom and immediately thereafter he rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.phpCISOROOT=/MTGM&CISOPTR=3327&CISOSHOW=3264

Questions

Do you have a problem with the temperance movement being, so to speak, the forefather to the word of wisdom?

If the Word of Wisdom was derived from the Temperance movement does that make it feel a little less inspired to you?

If the Word of Wisdom was derived from the Temperance Movement why don’t we show it in the manuals?

Can you still count on the solid foundations of the word of wisdom or does the Temperance Movement make it feel rickety?

Does it really matter where the word of wisdom came from – it’s a net positive if you live it?

http://ldslivingmagazine.com/articles/show/934

She is Hindu.

She wears the clothes of her religion.

I’ve learned something about Hinduism.

I remember a girl I had a crush on whose birthday was soon. I offered her a gift. She said she couldn’t accept it because she was Jehovah’s Witness. I added that to my memory:

Jehovah’s Witness’ do not celebrate Birthdays.

It is against the Jehovah’s Witness teachings.

I’ve learned something about Jehovah’s Witnesses.

A boy in my class and told us about Hanukkah and how for eight nights they celebrated. Memories added.

Jewish people don’t celebrate Christmas.

Jewish people celebrate Hanukkah.

I’ve learned something about Judaism.

I was taking yoga classes here in town. The teacher was a Sikh. She explained the reason why she wore a turban was because she was a Sikh.

My Yoga teacher is a Sikh.

Sikhs wear turbans.

I’ve learned something about Sikhism.

I had been baptized LDS Mormon for almost a year. I had my ears pierced for over 20 years. One day the Elders quorum President came to me and said:

As you are progressing toward becoming and Elder in our church you should take out your earrings. None of the other Elders or High Priests have their ears pierced. I don’t think you will have a problem with that because I see, you wear the White Shirt.

And then he quoted President Hinckley on women being restricted in their ear jewelry. Did he just assume I would follow leaders’ instructions because I wear The White Shirt? After 11 years of missionary discussions and about a year into the church I realized:

Mormon men dress in White Shirts.

It is a part of their Religion.

I am now a Mormon Man.

I’ve learned something about Mormonism.

The first Priesthood session I went to I was the only one in the seats of the Church who had on jeans, casual shirt, and sandals. When I was a member of other churches the functions that were outside of the traditional Sunday service was casual dress. How could this slip my field of radar? I missed this one what else am I missing. One thought went through my head . . . .

“I wonder what I’ll need to change next . . . . my skin color?”

And then I found out that yes that is next. There are hopes that one day the Lamanite people would have the curse of dark skin lifted from them and they would become lighter and lighter and lighter.

And it all started with a the comment about my White Shirt. I guarantee you that if I converted to Sikhism I would have been given the Turban talk a lot sooner than a year after my conversion.

So. I pose a question to all the lifelong Mormon members out there. What else is there to conform to? I don’t want to be taken by surprise any more than I have to be. I ask of the web community to mount up and put the issues on the table for all the converts out there like myself.

Jamie Trwth

The methodology of my experiment was simple:  I did a Google search of 22 different religions.  I then did a search for “anti [religion]” for each of those faiths.  Some of what I found may surprise you.  Some will not.

A few quick caveats:

• There is a big difference in internet presence between religions.
• Google searches render a different number of hits on different days; these numbers are constantly in flux.  My searches were done on March 28, 2008.
• I only searched in English.
• My selection of churches was not comprehensive.
• Some churches (like Mormon/LDS/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) have multiple names that can be searched.  For Mormonism, I have two separate search results based on the nickname Mormonism and the formal name Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
• Site hits with just religious name returned both supportive and non-supportive sites; I did not differentiate.
• Site hits with “anti” will also include supportive sites discussing discrimination, not just sites that are opposed to the religion in question; again, I did not differentiate.

Internet presence.  Based on sheer number of hits for the religion name, I grouped the religions into how much internet presence they have.  For consistency sake, all numbers of hits are expressed in millions.

• High presence:  Islam (123.0 million), Christianity (51.9), Baptist (39.9)
• Moderately high presence:  Buddhism (18.0), Judaism (15.5), Evangelical (13.2), Mormonism (12.2)
• Medium presence:  Scientology (10.8), Anglican (9.3), Amish (8.6), Hinduism (8.5), Catholicism (7.9), Atheism (7.6), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (5.8)
• Low presence:  Jehovah’s Witness (2.8), Mennonite (2.8), Seventh-day Adventist (2.7),
• Very low presence:  Episcopalian (1.0), Universal Unitarian (0.8), Methodism (0.7), Lutheranism (0.5), Presbyterianism (0.4)

First Blush, I noticed that only the following religions had an “anti” site (a site opposing the religion) on their first page of hits:

• Scientology & Atheism – 5th site listed was anti
• Mormon & Seventh-day Adventist – 6th site listed was anti
• Jehovah’s Witness – 7th site listed was anti
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – 8th site listed was anti

Interestingly, these religions (with the possible exception of atheism) are all newer religious movements (I chose not to use the pejorative NRM which is often used synonymously with “cult”), and all but atheism and Scientology are Restorationist Christian movements from the Second Great Awakening (1800-1830).  I also noticed that on the Evangelical search (no first page anti sites returned), the 7th site specifically warned “unsaved not welcome.”

“Anti” Site Hits.  I next googled the “anti” of each of these religions and found:

• High anti yield.  Presbyterianism (1.83), Islam (1.74), Episcopalian, Methodism (0.8), Baptist, Jehovah’s Witness (0.7)
• Medium anti yield.  Atheism, Evangelical, Lutheranism, Buddhism (0.6), Mennonite, Anglican (0.5)
• Low anti yield.  Judaism (0.4, although 5.18 for anti-Semitism), Hinduism, Catholicism, Amish, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Scientology (0.4), Mormonism (0.3, although 2.19 for just “anti-Mormon“), Universal Unitarian (0.3), Seventh-day Adventist (0.2)

Anti Ratio.  Then I determined the ratio between anti hits and regular hits to estimate which churches may be getting the most proportionately negative internet press.  (Again, this is a flawed assumption and not very scientific, but the results were interesting nonetheless).

• Excessive anti ratio.  Some of these religions actually had more “anti” hits than regular hits:  Presbyterianism (4.82 ratio), Lutheranism (2.92 ratio), Methodism (1.08 ratio), Episcopalian (0.84 ratio).  Many of the “anti” hits were historical in nature, explaining protestant schisms and the “heresies” of these religious movements.
• High anti ratio.  Universal Unitarian (0.36 ratio), Jehovah’s Witness (0.25 ratio), Mennonite (0.20 ratio)
• Moderate anti ratio.  Atheism (0.08 ratio), Seventh-day Adventist, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (0.07 ratio), Anglican (0.06 ratio), Hinduism, Catholicism, Evangelical, Amish (0.05 ratio)
• Low anti ratio.  Scientology, Buddhism, Judaism, Mormonism (0.03 ratio), Baptist (0.02 ratio), Islam, Christianity (0.01 ratio)

To address the problem of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints having multiple names, I ran an additional search using each of the following names:  Mormon, Mormonism, LDS, and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The composite anti ratio was still in the same range at 0.06.  However, both “Mormonism” (0.20 ratio) and “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (0.33 ratio) had a higher anti ratio on par with the Universal Unitarian, Jehovah’s Witness and Mennonite group above.  The “Mormonism” search, however, had a significantly lower “regular” hit return which created the higher ratio (2.2 million hits vs. 12.2 for “Mormon”).  The same was true for “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (1.5 million hits vs. 12.8 for LDS; however, several “LDS” hits were unrelated to the church).

This exercise does not address the quality of the sites (or level of antagonism of “anti” sites) returned by a Google search, only the quantity.  A few possible conclusions:

1. All religions (including atheism) are openly opposed by someone on the internet.
2. The lower the internet presence, the higher the negative ratio.
3. Established protestant religions receive proportionately more “anti” hits due to how they were formed and tend to have lower internet presence.
4. Newer religious movements (Scientology, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, Seventh-day Adventist) have more active, open and targeted opposition on the internet.

So, are Mormons more persecuted than other faiths?  I, for one, found some comfort that in this regard we’re not as special as we like to think we are.  Discuss.

I had an interesting experience recently. I was engaged in an ongoing discussion with a Protestant friend on the internet. I described my beliefs about God and “the Trinity” and she described hers. I went to great lengths to explain exactly what I believed. At the end of it all, she said “I think it’s only fair to mention though that your belief in the Trinity and my belief in the Trinity are a close as you can get without them being the same.” My Mormon instincts wanted to shout “No they aren’t!” But after time to think about it, I’m now convinced that she’s right. [2]

It helps to understand that the actual doctrine of Trinity can be summarized as “one God in three persons.” This might shock some Mormons that think the Trinity doctrine is “one God that takes three forms.” No, sorry, that doctrine is actually called “Modalism.”

“But wait!” someone might cry, I’ve been told by an orthodox Christian while on my mission that God is like water: He can take the form of a liquid, solid, or ice! Well, it would seem that the doctrine of Trinity, as taught by Catholic and Protestant Churches, is difficult to understand and so many Christians finally just settle into Modalism in an attempt to wrap their heads around it. But orthodox Christians aren’t supposed to be describing God in this way because it’s a misunderstanding of what their Churches teach. [3]

So armed with a more correct understanding of what the doctrine of Trinity is, I want to pose a question: Why do we Mormons run from the term “Trinity,” even going so far as to use a replacement word: “Godhead.” [4] Don’t Mormons believe in one God? Don’t Mormons believe in three persons in this God? Of course we do.

I assume the reason we dislike the word “Trinity” is because it carries with it connotations of the Athanasius Creed and substance theology (i.e. the Nicean Creed). Of course we should reject these Creedal extensions to the doctrine of Trinity, but I think it’s wrong for us to assume that “the Trinity” itself equates to them.

What is it we reject about the Athanasius Creed and substance theology? The biggest issue is that they have been elevated to being the same as or above scripture. But Mormons have issues with some of their content as well.

In the case of the Athanasius creed, the offending point seems to be “And yet they are not three Gods: but one God” complete with anathema curse if you ever claim otherwise, in any sense. [5] Our issue here is that this is a verifiably logical contradiction. [6] The Athanasius creed is more or less Mormon doctrine up until it insists that there is a damning ban on referring to the Trinity as numerically three Gods, even in a sense. [7]

In the case of the Nicene creed our rejection seems over the idea that the Trinity is “one of substance.” I sometimes feel this is like requiring everyone to believe “God is Abracadabra” or they are damned. I have no idea what it means, nor does the person damning me for not believing it. I can’t realistically claim that I do or don’t believe in it, but I feel that a loving God would never require such a profession of me.

But does Mormon rejection of the Athanasius formula and the Nicene Creed equate to a rejection of “the doctrine of Trinity?” Consider this Wikipedia article on “Social Trinity.” Do you see anything in Social Trinitarianism, at least a Wikipedia defines it, that Mormons object to? If Mormons were Social Trinitarians, wouldn’t we still be Trinitarians?

Now let’s do a quick exercise. I think many Mormons believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses are closer to Mormon theology on the nature of God than orthodox-Christians. But look over this list and compare:

Orthodox-Christians:

1. Believe in one God
2. Believe in three persons that make up that one God
3. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons
4. Believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one
5. Believe Jesus is fully Divine and fully God.
6. Believe Jesus was also fully a man.
7. Affirm to creedal formulas that reject as damning any wording that involves there being numerically three Gods.
8. Affirm to creedal formulas that claim the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are “one in substance” though they don’t define what that means.

Jehovah’s Witnesses:

1. Believe in a greater God, Jehovah (the Father), and a sub god, Michael the Archangel or Jesus.
2. Jesus is not fully divine. That is to say, Jesus is not God.
3. When they say Jesus “is divine” they mean it more in the sense that a being created by God to be holy, like an angel, might be said to be “divine.”
4. Jesus and the Father are separate persons
5. The Holy Ghost is not a person at all, just the power of God

Looking over this list, I see a lot more in common between Mormon theology and orthodox Christianity than I do with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Should we, as Mormons, avoid the word “Trinity” or “Trinitarian” when describing our beliefs? Or do we have as much right to it because of our belief in a Tri-Unity God? Perhaps we should claim these terms as our own but with our own unique twist whereby we reject the Athanasius creed and substance theology as a way as understanding that Tri-unity better? Or should we just avoid the term all together?

Similar thoughts on the Bloggernacle:

http://millennialstar.org/2008/02/27/trinitarian-mormons-orson-pratt/

http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/2008/03/07/problems-with-mormons-and-the-trinity/

Notes: 

[1] I exaggerate

[2] Lest some of you think I didn’t really fully explain the Mormon view of the Trinity, our discuss included: 1) An argument over the meaning of every “Trinity” verse in the Bible, 2) a discussion about how Mormons believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not only three separate persons, but they are physically separate and the Father is even embodied just like Jesus is, 3) an explanation that Mormons are comfortable with calling the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost “one God” in a certain sense and “three Gods” in a different sense, 4) a thorough review of what the Apostolic/Early Christian Fathers taught about the doctrine of Trinity, 5) a discussion about divine investiture, though I didn’t call it by that name.

Interestingly, our main point of disagreement was over whether or not Jesus could, in some sense (a lesser sense), be considered as the same person as the Father. In other words our main disagreement was over a slightly modalistic and non-Trinitarian twist that she personally held, not with the actual doctrine of Trinity.

[3] In fact, Modalism is a condemned heresy by every major Christian denomination. Just as some Mormons don’t understand all Mormon doctrine, we need to cut other Christians some slack over not understanding all of their doctrines. However, I find irony in the fact that such modalistic Christians often condemned my views of the Trinity as making me a non-Christian when in reality my views are closer to what their Churches teach than what they believe.

[4] “Godhead” is really just a word that means “divine nature.” “The Divine Nature” to a Mormon is the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, thus the connection.

[5] There are other points we could quibble over, such as “The Father incomprehensible” or “three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.” But I would argue that if understood in a certain way, Mormons could agree with such statements.

[6] If God is made up of three persons, each divine, than in a logical sense they are each a God and thus numerically we have three Gods, even if you choose not to normally speak of it that way. As was shown in this post, this is provable logic. If there is some other way to think of these words such that it’s not a contradiction, the burden is on the orthodox-Christian to explain himself better prior to using such a statement as a way of defining others as non-Christians or as anathema.

[7] Owen and Mosser, two Evangelical Christian scholars, argue about the orthodox view of the doctrine of Trinity: “We agree that a number of the church fathers developed theories to explain the oneness and threeness of the members of the Godhead that were unorthodox. However, these various theories were insufficient for very good reasons, the main one being that they simply did not incorporate all the relevant biblical data, just as we do not think the Latter-day Saint view does.” (link) But of course there would always be an infinite number of contradictory ways to incorporate a set of data. What they miss is that there could never be a compelling case to emphasize one contradictory explanation over another. So how could they possibly know substance theology or the contradictory Athanasius formula better represent the truth than the Mormon view that they feel contradicts the Biblical data? At worst, Mormons are as bad off as they already are.

That article was actually a heavily modified letter I had written to an Evangelical in defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses, not Mormons. In retrospect it was a mistake for me to change it to be a defense of Mormons because it brought the subject matter too close to home and, I suspect, caused people to miss my point. This new article is also a letter to a Protestant friend in defense of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This time I’m going to learn from my mistakes and just leave it as a defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It should be obvious how this topic relates to Mormonism.

What I am really exploring here is the morality of representing or misrepresenting another religion and the value of taking religions on their own terms rather than your terms. I have changed the names in this letter and modified any words of the person I was writing to so that I am not giving out private communications

Jill,

You said the following about the Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs: “I have a concern with Jehovah’s Witnesses saying that they believe Jesus is Divine. As you know, they believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel, not God. They do call him “a god” but they distinctly see him as lesser than God in his divinity. To a Christian that believes in the Trinity doctrine, it is very truthful to say JWs deny the divinity of Christ. We believe in One Triune God. Saying Jesus is not part of that Triune God is, to us, the same as saying Jesus is not Divine at all. To a Trinitarian, the Jehovah’s Witnesses view of Jesus is not only not divine, it’s just a myth. It’s false. False is fiction. The opposite of True is False. That’s why we say they deny His Divinity.

Now it seems to me you make several very good logic points that any honest and logical Jehovah’s Witness should really have to consider and respond to. It seems to me that you are correct that JWs do not see Jesus as part of “God” in the same sense that either you or I believe. (And we don’t believe in it in the same way either, though there seems to be more similarities between us than between us and them since both Protestants and Mormons accept that Jesus is fully divine.) Thus I can see why, from your point of view, the JW belief could be rightly said to be “the same” as denying the divinity of Christ.

And yet, this isn’t the truth because in fact Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm the divinity of Christ. For you to tell people they deny the Divinity of Christ leaves a false impression about their beliefs. For instance, it seems likely people that heard you say that would think it meant Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is just a normal human prophet. But we both know their beliefs about Jesus go far beyond this.

But how can they affirm the Divinity of Christ at all considering what they actually believe about Jesus? Well, I don’t want to speak for the JWs, but it seems possible that they are either using a different sense of the word “divine” than you are, or it’s possible they might believe a contradiction.

Now let’s take the worst possible case here and assume they believe a contradiction. The fact that they believe a contradiction does not really give us the right to sum up their beliefs as “Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ.” In truth, we could only say that their beliefs are a contradiction and explain how.

I’m guessing you’ll ask “But Bruce, what’s the difference?”

It seems to me that it’s the entire difference between true and lying. Let me explain with an example.

We just had a discussion about the doctrine of Trinity and the difference between yours and my interpretations of this. I called it a “seeming contradiction from a human point of view” or something like that. When I said the Trinity doctrine was a contradiction I actually had the Athanasius Creed in mind, not the Nicean Creed. We haven’t talked about the Athanasius Creed so I don’t know if you accept it or not.

Regardless of how you feel about the Athanasius Creed, let’s pretend that you accept it as true for the sake of this example. Here is the version of the text I am using.

Now let’s say you made friends with a Muslim, named Dan, who asks you what you believe about God. And let’s say you whip out the Athanasius Creed and you say “Dan, here is what I believe about God.”

So Dan reads it over and says “Jill! You’re a polytheist!”

You would naturally respond “No, I’m not! I’m no polytheist! See right here in the Athanasius Creed is says: ’16. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.’”

So Dan looks at the Athanasius Creed and says “Yeah, but it says right here: ’5. For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost.’ so you see, Jill, this says that you actually do believe in three Gods, logically speaking. Because this contradicts the other statement.”

So you and Dan go back and forth and Dan creates what he feels is a logical proof for you.

Quoting from William F. Vallicella, PhD, who happens to believe in the doctrine of Trinity by the way -

The problem, to put it schematically, is to prove the consistency of the following set of propositions:

a) P1 is numerically distinct from P2.
b) P2 is numerically distinct from P3.
c) P1 is numerically distinct from P3.
d) P1 is G.
e) P2 is G.
f) P3 is G.

[Bruce's Note: G = God P1 = Person 1, etc.]

If the ‘is’ in the last three propositions is the ‘is’ of identity, then a contradiction is easily derivable. (Verify this for yourself.)

This suggests that the solution must lie in the direction of reinterpreting the ‘is’ as it occurs in the last three propositions. Say what you want about Bill Clinton, he rendered a great service to philosophical logic by insisting that much depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. And he saved his hide to boot!

Reading the ‘is’ as the ‘is’ of predication won’t cut it. Suppose you take ‘The Father is God’ to mean ‘The Father is divine’ where the ‘is’ expresses predication and ‘divine’ picks out the property of divinity. Then what you are saying in effect is that the Father exemplifies or instantiates divinity. And similarly in the cases of the Son and the Holy Ghost. But if each exemplifies divinity, then each is a god, and the result is tritheism.

The trick is to maintain monotheism while also maintaining the distinctness of Persons.

Okay, back to our example. Dan, now convinced that he’s proven the Athanasius Creed is a contradiction, goes around telling everyone that will listen, “Hey, did you know Jill is a polytheist!” or “Can you believe Jill believes in polytheism?” or “Christians are Polytheists!”

If later someone approaches Dan and says “Hey, I talked to Jill, and she believes in only one God, please stop lying about Jill!” Dan might counter and say “Hey, Jill believes a contradiction, thus to me she’s a polytheist! Besides, to us Muslims, this is the same as polytheism, since we believe in a single person in God. The opposite of True is False. That’s why I say she denies the one True monotheistic God.”

Would this be a valid argument? Let’s be honest here: this hypothetical Muslim, who knows full well what you really believe, is lying. There is simply no truth in what he’s saying. If indeed you believe a contradiction, this is not the same as you believing in polytheism. Now why is that true?

Couldn’t it be said that in a sense he isn’t lying because to him you are a polytheist? But what gives him the right to choose which side of the contradiction, from his point of view, represents your beliefs the best? And for that matter, can we really say he’s representing you in truth if he’s leaving out the other side of the contradiction all together? And clearly for the sake of being able to persecute you, nonetheless.

Dan might counter that according to his definition of polytheism, Jill qualifies. But isn’t he really misrepresenting your beliefs since most people listening to him would mistakenly think you were a polytheist in the sense that the Greeks or Romans were? (And aren’t you clearly not the same as Greeks and Roman polytheists?) He’s not really attempting to be careful that his audience understands how he defines his terms, so this counter would ultimately still be a lie.

And this begs a much more important question: why in the world do I or anyone else care how Dan chooses to translate your beliefs and theological views into his terminology and theological view? All he’s really doing is grabbing one concept from your religion while ignoring all the other related ones, and translating only that one concept. This strikes me as disingenuous at best and a lie at worst. Now surely I can understand why he might say “I can’t accept this Trinitarian belief of yours personally, for I see it as a contradiction.” But what right does he have to unilaterally interpret your beliefs as polytheistic?

While you may personally see Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs as contradicting the idea of the divinity of Jesus (I do too, by the way) I do not believe it’s appropriate for us to boil this down to “Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus” for exactly the same reasons it’s wrong for “Dan” to call you a polytheist.

–End of letter to Jill.–

Afterwards, Jill and I discussed morally appropriate ways to accomplish her purpose without misrepresenting the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The following possibilities come to mind:

1. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Trinitarians
2. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is less Divine than God
3. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus only atoned for the sins, directly, for the 144,000. (Though all that live on the paradisaical earth benefited from it.) Thus they do not believe Jesus is our savior in the same sense Protestants believe it.
4. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus isn’t the Great Jehovah, he’s Michael the Archangel.
5. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is “a god” but he is not “the God.”
6. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the Divinity of Jesus in the same sense Protestants believe in the Divinity of Jesus.

None of the above list would be rejected by Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, I was told each of these by a knowledgeable Jehovah’s Witness who still insisted they believe Jesus is divine in some sense. And yet any of the above accomplished Jill’s purpose of explaining to others that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus is divine in the same sense she believes He is.

1) The Catholic Church (67.5 million)

2) The Southern Baptist Convention (16.3 million)

3) The United Methodist Church (7.9 million)

4) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (5.7 million)

5) The Church of God in Christ (5.5 million)

6) National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. (5 million)

7) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (4.7 million)

8 ) National Baptist Convention of America (3.5 million)

9) Presbyterian Church (USA) (3 million)

10) Assemblies of God (2.8 million)

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are the fastest growing church with an increase of 2.25% whilst the LDS church had an increase of 1.56%. The Catholic Church had an increase of 0.87% whilst the episcopal church had a decrease of 4.15%.

What are your views on our growth? How does the LDS church compare with other churches over the last year in terms of growth/decline rates? Could our church seek more growth by mirroring JW member missionary involvement? Would this be a good thing? Are Baptists focusing such efforts on Mormons because of our increasing numbers and fairly large US population? Is our growth sustainable or will it plateau do to limited family sizes? Please compare, discuss and give your views.

Where do we go from here?

• Member Missionaries
  This is probably the most clear parallel. Most people who know nothing about either group can identify with an image of either the guys in suits on bikes, or the families knocking doors on Saturday mornings with a handful of Watchtower magazines. Some people think they are from the same church. Being a faithful and active Jehovah’s Witness is similar to being Mormon, in that there is an implied call to missionary work. You are called to step out of your fears of alienating yourself socially and proselyte to your own community and friends.
• Defining Praxis
  If Mormons are defined to the unfamiliar by the missionaries, we are most likely defined to the familiar by the commitment to “clean living” as punctuated by abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine. Likewise, the peculiarity of Jehovah’s Witnesses is expressed to the familiar in their rejection of holidays and customs and refusing blood transfusions. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that holidays essentially consist of giving praise or glory to someone or something other than God, which is unacceptable. Also, most holidays originate from rituals and religions very different from the people who observe them today. For JW’s, if its not approved in the Bible its a no go. Blood transfusions are equated to consuming blood, which is prohibited in the Bible.
• Millennialism
  For the average mainstream Mormon, the millennium is not really a major focus on their mind, but it is still considered an event or stage that is extremely important and most likely coming soon. I’ve heard many conversations speculating on when the Second Coming might occur. With the Jehovah’s Witness friends I had, it was an obsession. Their life was hard in high school. Constantly mocked by the cool crowd, chronically outcast from even the outcasts. The Second Coming represented a turning of the tables, at least to my friends. They would tell me about dreams they would have wherein they would be riding horses alongside the horsemen of the apocalypse slashing down the wicked, including the jerks from school. They really did glory in scriptures describing how the wicked would be burned as stubble during Armageddon.
• Community Isolation
  On the ugly side, we have a term for our own religious, separatist elitism. “Utah Mormon”. To me this term represents behavior like parents not allowing their kids to play with non-Mormons, or the kids choosing to be exclusive on their own. This problem exists for Jehovah’s Witnesses, too. I initially met my friends at school because of our shared interest in punk rock, illustration, and skateboarding. I wanted to come over to their house to play on their skate ramp, and they told me their mom would not permit it unless I began the equivalent of “taking the discussions” with them.
• Other churches as abominations
  Recent LDS rhetoric has been much more ecumenical, but our Mormon past has been clearly marked by a belief that our church is God’s only official and authorized church on the Earth. The party line for Jehovah’s Witnesses as I knew them was pretty much equivalent to the harshest McKonkie-esque expressions. All other churches are collectively the Church of the Devil. This attitude greatly contributes to the whole reveling in the destruction of the wicked and the separatism mentioned earlier.
• Jehovah is Jesus
  In JW theology, Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament. The name emphasis is common between us, as well as Jews, but JW’s also believe in a more trinitarian view that Jehovah became Jesus as He left His heavenly throne to become mortal and redeem us. Of course, in Mormon theology, we technically believe the same thing. Jehovah was the God of the OT and left that position to come to Earth as Jesus. We only differ in that we believe there is another god (Heavenly Father or Elohim) ranking higher and kind of behind the scenes. Incidentally, JW prayers are said directly addressing Jehovah, not seeing a need for Jesus to mediate prayers.
  Edit: My memory was totally off on this one. See the comments below for corrections.
• The influence of Satan
  The war in heaven mentioned in the book of Revelation that Mormons interpret to have occurred before the mortal stage, JW’s believe was a prophecy of 1914. They believe that World War 1 was the signal that Satan had been cast down to Earth. While we differ wildly in that view, we do share in common a heavy sense of the influence of Satan all around us, and often use similar terminology in church meetings with imagery of war and battle with the forces of evil.
• Calling and Election Made Sure
  While the Mormon view of this is that some people (Moses, Elijah, City of Enoch, Joseph Smith) can be guaranteed exaltation before their death, and there is a controversial rumor of a special temple ceremony that seals this on the lucky recipient as well, its not really a core principle doctrine for us. For Jehovah’s Witnesses, their view of the afterlife is different and similar at the same time. Like looking at Mormon doctrine with a kaleidoscope. There is an equivalent of a Celestial kingdom. 144,000 persons who were worthy of exaltation to live with Jehovah, and the rest of humanity who is good will live in a paradise on Earth (millennium, anyone?). Interestingly, the 144,000 are believed to mostly have been born before 1935 (when the WatchTower Society supposedly declared the gates of heaven to be shut). This is a stark contrast to the popular Mormon belief that the best have been saved for last.

I’m sure there are other distinctions and parallels, but its been a while and this is already a fairly long article so I’ll stop there. You may find it interesting to note that in a recent beliefnet article, Jehovah’s Witnesses were identified as the fastest-growing religion in North America with over 1 million members and a growth rate of 2.25%. We were #4 with 5.7 million US members and a growth rate of 1.56%. Here’s the official site of the Jehovah’s Witnesses for those curious among you.