Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008, 6:16 PM

My dear family, brothers and sisters, friends and leaders:

2 Nephi 27:31 For assuredly as the Lord liveth they shall see that the terrible one is brought to naught, and the scorner is consumed,and all that watch for iniquity are cut off;

In context, there are four things you should never do, and this scripture is at the heart of a warning.

• First, never aspire to preeminence,
• Second, never accuse or search for iniquity in order to accuse,
• Third, do not contend,
• Fourth, never coerce by force.

If it isn’t clear, the scripture refers to Satan and those who follow after him.  As another notes, both “the terrible one” and “the scorner” are epithets applied to Satan.

Consider the story from Clementine Recognitions. [see more at here and here] where Peter seeks peace and his opponent, Simon Magus derides the thought, for he asserts (as the agent of the anti-Christ) that those in the right should use force.  That debate is constantly played out all over the world, all over the internet and all over the Church with people accusing, looking for flaws and mistakes and valuing contention over peace.

In looking at that story and others, and in using them to seek the message of the Book of Mormon, the question that arises is: do we seek to force others, do we accuse others, do we scorn others? If so, to what are our hears aspiring?  To what should we aspire instead?

Of course, I find that I tend to be reflexively liberal too if discussing a topic I haven’t given much thought to.

Why is that? Why do we tend to gravitate to one party, or one ideology, or the other?

Most political philosophers begin their treatises exploring the state of nature – that is, the condition of mankind before the creation of the state. This natural state justifies the creation of the state – either to primarily ensure equity and fairness (see Rawls, for instance) in the liberal vision or to primarily protect property and rights from people who are by nature greedy and devious (see Nozick, for example) in the more conservative viewpoint.

Mormonism is not lacking for “state of nature” theories. The Apostle Paul made mention of man’s natural carnal state, an idea well-supported by latter day scripture .

However, latter day scripture also confirms that, while we are fallen beings, we are truly “children of the most high”, created in the image of God with the potential to become like God.

When you think of our natural state in a Gospel context, do you tend to think in terms that Paul would recognize, or terms that Joseph Smith emphasized? And does your fall-back idea of man’s natural state color your political view? That is, if you tend to think in Pauline terms, do you tend to agree that the state exists to primarily protect our property and persons and if you think of man in more Smithian terms, do you see the state as a means of assisting in achieving equality and potential-fulfillment?

(N.B. Students of philosophy: Please forgive my unschooled references to philosophical concepts. Feel free to clarify or add upon my interpretations in the comments.)

• Excommunicated: LDS Church boots creator of ‘Men on a Mission’ calendar
• Local gay Mormon faces excommunication
• LDS author facing excommunication

Note: The links are all active

Where do these headlines come from? The Church or the individuals themselves?

There was a time (and perhaps still is) when church discipline was a private matter, between the individual and Church Leaders. Church Discipline, for those who are unfamiliar is explained here in an article by Elder M. Russell Ballard. It is not my intention to debate Church Discipline in this post, though I suspect some comments will be directed toward that.

Let’s take the case of the recent church discipline against the “Shirtless Missionary Calendar” maker, Chad Hardy. It’s not likely that the Church made this public, but Hardy himself in an effort to gain publicity and drum up more business. His sales statistics and website address feature prominently as part of the articles written about him.

In other cases, the press was designed to tell the disciplined person’s “side of the story” even though the Church would not reveal its side in any case. Thus was the case of the so-called “September Six.” Maybe even in an attempt to pressure the church not to proceed with the action.

I found that in some past issues of the “Improvement Era” names and reasons for church action were recorded, but certainly that has not been Church practice for many, many years. On a rare occasion, it will be announced in Church, which I only remember happening once in my 26 years in the Church. The Ward Clerk was excommunicated for a second time for adultery and the Bishop announced it to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Most of the time, only those who need to know about a particular member’s status know unless he/she reveals it.

What I don’t understand from the Hardy case was a statement he made in the article.

”I really feel sorry for my family,” Hardy said. ”They are going to be so sad. But I feel empowered and free and I feel like I no longer have to apologize for anything.”

Excommunication is a step whereby a member is relieved of all responsibilities of Church membership including paying tithing, wearing of the garment (if endowed) and active participation in Church meetings. But much is lost as well. For example, a priesthood holder is no longer able to exercise his Priesthood and there is the loss of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion, as if never baptized.

The purpose of excommunication is to assist the member in repenting of their sin and feeling the “godly sorrow” necessary. The loss of church membership should be felt as a significant part of that sorrow associated with repentance process. It is to help focus them and is not meant to “free” someone from the things that they “know” and have become responsible for as a member of the Church.

From what I gathered in the article, Chad was no longer active in the Church and may have had “other issues.” But, in the end, I think he will be held accountable for what knowledge he did have and will not be “free” to do whatever he wants in this life. I hope he re-considers his statements and is someday welcomed back in full fellowship if he desires it.

There are people who feel terribly betrayed. Especially when a spouse leaves the gospel. Apostatizes.

There are other situations in the same realm, that create the same emotions:

• a mother whose only boy has died, and who can’t have any other children, and who feels betrayed that God has left her without sons;
• a father whose wife has become an alcoholic and whose children are losing their way;
• someone whose interaction with food has gone terribly wrong and who can’t stop gaining weight;
• people recovering from disasters who feel that calamity should not have befallen them;
• a kid who wants to serve a mission but who has developing mental illness issues that medication doesn’t quite resolve;
• the list goes on.

But some how the strain of a spouse abandoning the gospel seems to strike people just as deeply sometimes, it seems a permanent unfaithfulness and abandonment, endangering children, the love of a couple and having a core sense of failure. It is a serious form of affliction for many.

Affliction, especially affliction that seems permanent or life altering, causes a number of emotions. A sense of loss, pain, hopelessness, bereavement and others. Bitterness and betrayal seem to be two of the hardest to deal with. In some situations (such as a spouse who has an attack of the “middle aged crazy” or who has been unfaithful) the emotion seems unavoidable.

Many people who have read my blog know that I’ve been reading 12-step literature in the hope that it would apply to grief. It does, a little, sometimes. I’ve written about that too.

But, and this is a big but, there is one area where there is a 12-step group that has feelings of betrayal and resentment down cold. That group is Al Anon. Al Anon is a group for people who have an alcoholic in the family (one of the sub-groups is for kids who have to deal with an alcoholic parent). They have a lot of literature. But, a constant theme, over and over again, is dealing with feelings of betrayal, resentment and the need to control someone else.

Yes, I’d advocate anyone with those emotions to seek counseling. But, you can read things (e.g. here on the official site, and an excellent collection of essays on-line here). No matter what is causing the feelings (and alcoholics often are unfaithful, mentally ill, betrayers — that is all part of the disease), they have an excellent tool set to help you while a professional gives you additional support.

No question, I value The Anatomy of Peace. But if you need more, there are books like One Day at a Time in Al-Anon (available for 12 cents or so used on Amazon and probably in your local library) that can help with the emotional states, to give you encouragement and hope in dealing with the pain, confusion and anguish.

That can help you find peace.

Because it is peace and patience that you need. In patience keep men their souls is a modern reading of a scripture verse that we need to remember. Love is long suffering, patient, kind, not manipulative. The response to the feeling of betrayal is not revenge, control, or anger. Those do not heal or help.

The response is to seek the spirit of God, to embrace the power of the love of Christ and to let charity do its work, much like God does with us.

Which is what I’ve attempted to tell people who ask me for my advice, from what I’ve observed with those I’ve seen going through the process.

My thanks to C. L. Hanson as well, for the pointer to Faces East a forum for people in this exact situation.

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.

This is a uniquely Mormon issue, from what I’ve seen. I have sung in lots of other churches, been a choir director for another congregation for several years, and attended meetings at many churches of many denominations. At all of these churches, the members come to the meeting and quietly sit in the sanctuary. They do not talk with their friends. They do not high-five each other (yes, I’ve seen this in our ward). They do not run around the chapel doing last-minute preparation for lessons. They don’t slap each other on the backs or call to someone across the room. They don’t laugh loudly or walk up and down the aisle shaking hands. They just sit and listen to the prelude music. Though I can’t know what’s in their minds, I assume they’re feeling the spirit of the Sabbath, meditating or getting in the mood for worship.

Why don’t we do the same? Are we naturally a more gregarious and social bunch? Do we love each other so much we’re overjoyed to see our friends? Are we starved for socialization that we use the ten minutes before the meeting? Are we simply rude? Do we have lousy organists whose music isn’t worth listening to? Is it because we’re irreverent and disrespectful? What’s up with this awful habit?

Whatever the reason, it seems a losing battle. I’ve been in meetings where the stake president or bishop has stood up and asked people to be quiet. There’s a hush … for about 45 seconds. My son attended a fireside where Elder Bednar finally stood and asked the congregation to be quiet – after two admonitions by the other general authority in attendance. I’ve been in meetings where the organist has made the organ quieter, or louder, or stopped altogether, to demand the audience’s attention. No deal.

I feel bad for organists who practice every week, only to provide religious elevator music. Our behavior seems particularly rude towards them. One time my husband, who’s an organist, played the theme song of Mickey Mouse, just to see if anybody would notice. Nobody did.

I also feel sorry for anybody who’s trying to prepare themselves for meaningful worship. The hand-shakers, back-slappers, and greeters will come welcome them, often loudly. Neighbors will sit down and chat with them, often loudly. A Sunday School or priesthood teacher may come and ask them to prepare a scripture or story for the lesson an hour or two later. And all of these episodes will be accompanied by the ever-present din of laughter, chitchat … and the occasional high-five.

This is our most significant gathering of the week, the time for our holiest ordinance. Is it too much to ask to enjoy a few moments of peace at the beginning of the meeting?

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.

For the purpose of this post, I will set aside war-time or mass killings (sorry, but the arm cutting off incident is out) and only consider the individual killings in which God was specifically implicated in the text as an accomplice.

Back to Laban.  This Book of Mormon story is often cited as an example of Nephi’s obedience.  It is also pretty disgusting.  After Nephi hacks off his head with his own sword, he takes the clothes off the headless body and puts them on so he can pretend to be Laban.  Yech.  Nephi hesitates.  He doesn’t ask if Laban deserves to die in his sins, like when Hamlet vacillates about killing his uncle.  He hesitates because he doesn’t want to get his hands dirty.  He doesn’t want to commit a sin.

10 And it came to pass that I was ^aconstrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

  11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the ^aLord hath ^bdelivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had ^ctaken away our property.

  12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

  13 Behold the Lord ^aslayeth the ^bwicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is ^cbetter that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in ^dunbelief.

Does Laban deserve to die?  Not to blame the victim, but any decent defense attorney would point out that Laban was not a nice guy.  He wouldn’t give them the brass plates even for a very generous price; up to that point, he was merely being difficult.  After that, he lusted after their property and stole from them, and then he ordered his servants to kill them.  And he was a lush, lying drunken in the streets, so not even a polite, gentlemanly sort of person.  The Spirit’s rationale is basically “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” in this case, Laban.

Was the murder justifiable homicide?  Would Nephi have been convicted for this murder?  I’m no legal expert, but I have watched a lot of Law & Order, so I’m close.  Nephi could plead self-defense because Laban had ordered his servants to kill him and his brothers.  He could probably plead severe emotional disturbance after the beating he took from his brothers who didn’t want to go back and the difficulty of leaving their home to live in the desert.  He might even get that defense upgraded to PTSD (post-tramatic stress disorder).  Nephi would also have a solid case to plead insanity (he saw an angel in the cavity of the rock and heard a voice tell him to kill Laban).  And he was really just doing what God (or the Spirit) told him to do, so he could have rolled on God (or the Spirit) in a plea bargaining agreement.  And no jury is going to convict God (they might convict the Spirit, but just try putting Him in a holding cell), even on Law & Order.

So, Laban was on God’s hit list because he was wicked, and he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and got in the way of God’s plan.  So he had to go.  But, didn’t a nation dwindle and perish in unbelief anyway?  The Lamanites weren’t exactly church-going, law abiding citizens for the next few hundred years.  So shouldn’t Laman and Lemuel have been on God’s hit list to prevent their future generations from dwindling and perishing in unbelief due to their poor examples?

I see a few problems with killing off Laman & Lemuel:

• While many of their kids were bad, many were good.  In fact, they kind of came out on top at the end.  Although not all benefited from the plates of brass, some did.
• The spirit progeny of prematurely dead Laman & Lemuel would presumably still have to be born somewhere, some other time.
• Can you really totally blame the parents?  Don’t we believe that men will be punished for our own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression?
• God didn’t order the hit; therefore, it’s not okay to kill.  The rule is don’t kill.  Except when God says.  Then, go for it.

Contrast this with another group of people in the Book of Mormon who were on God’s hit list:  the faithful who were being martyred in the auto-da-fe after being converted to Christianity by Alma and Amulek.  Amulek wanted to stretch forth his hand to stop the killing

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in ^aglory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the ^bjudgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the ^cblood of the ^dinnocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

Admittedly, there are some differences to these two incidents:

• Nephi takes action, whereas Alma is constrained to non-interference.  He does not actively kill anyone.

• Laban was guilty of attempted murder and died in his sins.  The victims in Alma’s story were completely innocent and would theoretically have salvation.

• Laban was standing in the way of other people’s salvation (or so we are told).  The victims in Alma’s story were killed to provide damnation to their killers.  Weren’t they pretty much damned already?  Alma wanted to stop the killing, not prevent it from starting. 

So, who is safe from God’s hit list in the Book of Mormon?  Not the wicked, and not the innocent and righteous.  So, perhaps the real lessons here are:

1. When and how we die isn’t that important to God, just how we live our lives.  No one is totally safe from being killed in nasty ways.  Think of that as you are drifting off to sleep tonight.

2. God merely cares that His plan goes forward unchecked, so interfering with His plan could lead to an unfortunate incident involving one’s death.  I’m just sayin’.

 So, will God cut Laban some slack on judgment day for being killed at his peak of wickedness since the order came down from on high?  And would the world have been a better place without Laman and Lemuel making it to the promised land?

And how does this compare with God’s hit list in the OT?  (No one is on God’s hit list in NT or D&C–and in the D&C, a few are pretty darn lucky they are not!)  The weirdest individual killing in the OT, IMO, is Uzzah being killed for steadying the ark.  It would be hard to argue that Uzzah was in the way of God’s plan.  So, does that mean that individual killings in the OT (implicating God) are to make an example out of someone or to teach an object lesson (e.g. “don’t steady the ark”)?  Or is that just the best we can do with such weird material when confronted with teaching a Gospel Doctrine lesson?  Or, perhaps the ark had some sort of technological security system that made it fatal to steady vs. God actually having to intervene in real-time to strike Uzzah down (a la the Smoke Monster on LOST).

Obviously, there were actual Mormon colonies early in the pioneering days, which is how most of the West was settled. However, that is not the topic I want to explore. I have only had a few experiences with what I will call modern-day colonial Mormons.

1. When I was a teenager (1985), I met my first “colonial” Mormon in my home ward. A family moved into the ward from Utah. All the membership prior to that were from the local area. Immediately, the mother of the family started (subtly) pointing out things that were “wrong” about how our ward did things. We should have early morning seminary, not weekly (despite having six different high schools and a 25 mile commuting radius). The Young Women should do crafts and present group musical numbers. The bishop should do something about the crazy Pentacostal convert who kept shouting “hallelujah” and rapping her fan on the pew when a particularly good point was made in church.  And we suddenly had to have a Pioneer Day parade, even though it wasn’t a recognized holiday and hardly anyone had pioneer ancestry.  Little things like that.
2. My second experience was at the end of my mission (1990).  An older couple was assigned to one of the wards as ”leadership” missionaries.  The wife immediately began focusing on getting the local sisters interested in ”homemaking” projects (mostly crafts).  She expressed to me her disbelief that none of the sisters knew how to crochet or knit!  (Perhaps because it was a warm-climate island).  Previously, they had spent their homemaking meetings discussing how to have stronger marriages and how to help sisters in need.  I question whether this was an upgrade.

So, what happens in the cycle of colonialism?

• A colonizing group decides to expand to new territories, exporting their culture and traditions and imposing them on those colonized areas.   This is also characterized by:
  • A desire to preserve the cultural elements of the colonizing group and to impose those traditions, values, and practices on other cultures.
  • A condescending attitude toward local populace and customs.
  • A paternalistic approach to educate others on “the right way.”
• An initial fascination by the local group for the colonizing culture (e.g. Anglophiles); an (initial) agreement that the colonizing culture is in some way preferred or “better.”  (Some converts, especially in the early days, awaited for instruction from HQ as it were).
• Eventually, one of two things happens:
  • An eventual break at the local level with the colonizing group.  This could be a violent, intentional break (e.g. the American Revolution), a passive yet intentional break (e.g. Indian rights reform) or a more evolutionary break as a new culture emerges in the local area which supersedes the colonizing culture (e.g. Roman Catholic Church vs. Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church).
  • Guilt among the colonizing group about treatment of the local populace accompanied by awkward and problematic repatriation (e.g. French believe first and foremost in equality, yet do not like admitting the Muslim culture into their tightly-controlled society).  This can happen when the local populace’s issues cannot be satisfactorily resolved to create an equal status through independence.

But perhaps a third option, in the case of the church, is to become a truly world-wide church (the stone that fills the earth) in which diversity of culture is embraced while retaining centralized doctrine.  Is that really an achievable aim or is colonization a human tendency that is so ingrained it’s inevitable?  A lot has been written about the introduction of harmful plants and animals that changed the eco-systems of North America, such as the honeybee.  Are colonizing Mormons aware enough of the potentially harmful elements they may be introducing (e.g. funeral potatoes, green jello, prolific zucchini plants) into the native cultures to avoid it?  IMO, colonialism is harmful to both the local group and to the colonizing group if it 1) implies superiority of one culture over the other, 2) shifts the focus to cultural elements away from doctrinal, or 3) creates cultural rifts and inequities between different groups of the church.

As Elder Uchdorff mentioned in conference, we should embrace the “faith of our fathers” and most importantly of our “Heavenly Father.”  Jello optional.  Crafts not required.  Bring your own flan to the Pioneer Day parade that’s being held in someone’s backyard because none of the local members hail from pioneer stock; instead, they are all pioneers with their own tales of conversion and courage–they are among the first members of the church within their own family trees.

So, have any of you encountered cultural colonialism? Or has this largely been done away with over time (as you see, my examples are not recent)?  What is cultural colonialism?  Is it cultural colonialism that conference is in English, always held in Utah, even though there are more LDS outside the US now?

Here’s what these non-LDS visitors had to say about our missionaries:

They were pushy, rude, and ignorant whereas the woman with the Community of Christ was helpful, friendly, and knowledgeable.

Their post also describes an interesting discourse between the visitor and a missionary in which the missionary continually resorted to testifying rather than answering questions.  Now, I know that testifying is used to bring in the spirit, and to invite people to come to Christ.  But, is this the best approach with visitors to a historical landmark who are requesting historical information?  Isn’t this like the caution from October 2007 General Conference that “there is a difference between interest and mere curiosity” (Elder Ballard).

So, why do non-LDS people visit LDS sites? 

1. Because they are interested in history.
2. Because someone in their party dragged them along to this boring historical site or promised them ice cream afterwards.
3. Because they are curious about or interested in the church.
   • Maybe they know someone who is LDS or have family who are LDS.
   • Maybe they are investigating the church.
   • Maybe they are associated with a splinter group of the church (esp. in Kirtland).
   • Maybe they are antagonistic toward the church, although I can think of better ways to spend your vacation if so.
4. Because they took a wrong turn when they were trying to get to the world’s biggest ball of twine.  Boy, are these guys going to be disappointed!

Of those groups, I suppose it is possible that any of them might become interested if they feel the spirit.  Maybe.  However, it’s probably equally likely that most of the non-LDS visitors will want historical information as they often do at Temple Square.

All proselyting faiths have a certain schtick and it varies from denomination to denomination and over time within a faith. But are historical sites best manned with proselyting missionaries?

When I was in Kirtland about 5 years ago, the historical sites run by the church were newly re-opened, and I found the LDS guides to be very knowledgeable about the history.  They were all older married couples.  The contrast I encountered was that in the Kirtland temple, the tour guides de-emphasized the visitation of the Savior to the temple and the other spiritual manifestations that both our faiths believe took place there, although when asked, they did point those things out.  The CoC presentation seemed very politically correct to me, extremely non-confrontational, and very mainstream Christian.  The guides were scholarly and polite.  I asked the CoC tour guide what denominations the visitors were, and she said about 90% were LDS.

The LDS sites emphasized the spiritual aspects (what revelations were received, where the Savior was seen, etc.), but when I asked questions about the archeology and the layout of the village, they were still very knowledgeable.  They also spontaneously offered to lead hymns or prayers or have moments of silence, which frankly made me feel a little uncomfortable (did I look like I wanted to burst into song?), but there were no non-LDS in our group so I am not sure how that would have been perceived by others.

So, what do you think?  Are we hectoring unsuspecting tourists with our constant testifying and creating dissonance for future dialog?  Or are we on the right track and the CoC tour guides are just being too politically correct?  Discuss.