I recently read a biography of Muhammad “Muhammad, A Prophet For Our Time” by Karen Armstrong. It was a fascinating read and I learned a great deal about this ancient prophet.

I must admit that most of my thoughts while reading the book revolved around the parallels to Joseph Smith and the early saints. Frankly, I find the similarities startling in one sense, and yet unsurprising in another. On the one hand, the similarities feel so extraordinary to me that I cannot understand how I could possibly believe in Joseph Smith’s story and reject Muhammad’s (or truthfully that I never even gave it a chance). On the other hand, this is the story of the mystics and visionaries of the world. Their methods, works, books, and revelations are very similar and the truths they bring forth have striking similarities.

Here is a list of similarities that I found while reading this biography.

1. Muhammad, like Joseph Smith did not seem to necessarily ask for the role he eventually took on. Their journeys initiated with simple questions, desires, and events that seem ordinary, but resulted in the extraordinary. In both scenarios, these men seemed to be rather surprised by their visions and revelations.
2. Both men brought forth inspired books given to them by an angel. Many claim that the Qur’an could be nothing if not divine based entirely on the language alone. This does not sound too unlike Joseph’s claim of The Book of Mormon being “the most correct book on earth.” One difference, however, is that Muhammad did seem to recognize more fully the importance of the Qur’an. In other words, the Qur’an was what defined Islam, as it was a compilation of the revelations Muhammad had received (not unlike the Doctrine and Covenants). Joseph, on the other hand, didn’t seem to put quite as much emphasis on The Book of Mormon, almost to the point where one has to wonder whether Joseph really understood what was in The Book of Mormon and the impact it would have. On the other hand, Joseph, like Muhammad, did seem to put a large emphasis on his revelations.
3. Both Joseph and Muhammad seemed to slowly grow into their calling. In Mormonism, I find there are many people who ostensibly think that Joseph knew what he was doing from the get-go. In fact, revelations to both men came at spontaneous times and left the men wondering how to enact, or implement the revelation. They had to learn and grow in wisdom and understanding as pieces of their theology came to them. In short, both prophets learned and authored the concepts of “line upon line” within their culture.
4. Both men tell a similar tale of receiving revelation. Note the similarities between Armstrong’s characterization of Muhammad and some of the descriptions of Joseph Smith receiving revelation. Here are Armstrong’s words:
   

   Under the inspiration of Allah, Muhammad was feeling his way towards an entirely new solution, convinced that he was not speaking in his own name, but was simply repeating the revealed words of God. It was a painful, difficult process. He once said: ‘Never once did I receive a revelation without thinking that my soul had been torn away from me.’ Sometimes the message was clear. He could almost see and hear Gabriel distinctly. The words seemed to ‘come down’ to him, like a shower of life-giving rain. But often the divine voice was muffled and obscure: ‘Sometimes it comes unto me like the reverberations of a bell, and that is the hardest upon me; the reverberations abate when I am aware of their message.’ He had to listen to the undercurrent of events, trying to discover what was really going on. He would grow pale with the effort and cover himself with his cloak, as if to shield himself from the divine impact. He would perspire heavily, even on a cold day, as he turned inwards, searching his soul for a solution to a problem, in rather the same way as a poet has to open himself to the words that he must haul from the depths of himself to the conscious level of his mind. In the Qur’an, God instructed Muhammad to listen intently to each revelation as it emerged; he must be careful not to impose a meaning on a verse prematurely, before its full significance had become entirely clear.” – pp. 56 – 57

5. Both Joseph and Muhammad became generals (basically). While Muhammad was certainly more violent in achieving his goals, both men resorted to militias and violence to retain their rights of freedom to worship. Additionally, I think that Muhammad’s increased use of violence was primarily a product of his time and culture. It was not uncommon to raid camps, caravans, and cities merely to prove a point and gain favor with a certain tribe. In all fairness, Joseph’s violence was most often in self-defense, whereas Muhammad was clearly on the offensive at times.
6. Both men worked fervently against their culture to bring to pass their ideals. In other words, both men seemed to be ahead of their time socially, and culturally, and dreamed of a society that many resisted. In fact, these utopian societies had similarities. Both dreamed of a society in which divisions between classes were blurred, or removed, where universal human rights were respected. Both wanted all things to be equal, and for there to be peace and harmony amongst all people. In fact, the commonalities of their desired societies seem to exist among religious leaders of many times and places, including Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama.
7. Both pushed against cultural norms for women and instituted polygamy as part of their respective theologies. Ironically, (depending on your point of view) both men also instituted polygamy which had a tremendous effect on the cultural norms for women. In the case of Muhammad, his treatment of his many wives set a new precedent of respect that men ought to have for their wives. And Muhammad’s primary reason for polygamy was to provide care for the numerous widows created during war. Furthermore, in the Qur’an women are revered and held up as important figures in society. Clearly Joseph instituted polygamy as well although his reasons are much less clear (depending on your point of view). Whether or not this had the same uplifting effect upon women is certainly debatable and a matter of opinion, but Joseph certainly attempted to influence the culture for women by his creation of the Relief Society with a number of powers and privileges.
8. The followers of both men were fiercely loyal, perhaps to a fault in the eyes of many. On the other hand, that seems to be what is needed in order for such religions to grow and become large movements. Both religions seemed to divide families and create intense hatred among their opponents. It seems to be a direct product of the brilliance of their respective leaders in combatting that hatred that allowed their ideas to progress to later stages of development and continue to the present day.
9. Both men led their followers away from their original location due to persecution (“No prophet is accepted in his own country.” Luke 4:24).
10. Both men got involved in politics and were successful. For Muhammad the politics were mostly inter-tribal, and Muhammad initially used violence (although later he used peaceful methods) to coerce the politics in Mecca and Medina to his liking. Joseph was mayor of Nauvoo, and eventually even tried his hand at the presidential elections. I wonder if this similarity is caused by being the leader of a growing religious faction, or whether the two men were just so charismatic that the “shoe fit” as it were.
11. Needless to say, both men had many many attempts on their lives, as they both a large number of enemies, both politically, and within their own group. One significant difference is that Joseph’s enemies eventually did succeed in their attempts. Muhammad, in contrast, lived until an old age and died in the arms of his favorite wife.

Although theologically Islam and Mormonism are very different, the characteristics of their founders, and nature of the initial followers have striking similarities.

So what think ye readers? Why do you lend your beliefs/souls/trust/etc. to Joseph Smith’s claims and reject Muhammad’s? Or do you? Or do you believe that Muhammad only had partial light and knowledge (despite the fact that Islam and Mormonism are radically different)?

For me, I’ve found that if, for some reason, I discovered that if the Church isn’t true, I probably would join another faith.  Why?

Though it’s not very chic these days to say so, I love religion AND organized religion.  I believe that there is a power in organization that simply can’t be found in a loosely-knit group of believers, and this is due to a recent visit to another faith that I will describe below.  I think organized religion brings people together and makes it easier to send relief when an emergency happens.  I don’t think I can believe in a “do-it-yourself” religion where you just completely pick and choose what beliefs to have.  That’s why I feel that if I found out the Church isn’t true, I’d definitely go SOMEWHERE.  I’ve also spent a great deal of my life studying other religions and faiths because I love to know how other people think and feel.  This has led me to compile a list of possible places to go if I were to discover that the LDS faith were not the true faith.

Feel free to make your own list here!  My favorite religions, in no particular order, that I would consider joining if I left Mormonism.

1. Islam

My parents have always been very supportive of my learning about other faiths, and my mom encouraged me to learn about Islam.  I love the simplicity and beauty of Islam.  I like the idea of Islam because they don’t claim to know who God is or what he looks like or what our purpose is here.  The idea is that we just obey Allah, we will be blessed and have peace.  In fact, the word Islam means “submission,” and the root of the word (SLM) in the language family has ties to the concept of “peace” (think “salem” in Hebrew).  I like the mandatory prayers.  Though repetitive, I love how they are required to take time out of their days and offer a peaceful tribute to Allah.  These prayers give the faithful the time to focus their thoughts on God.  It’s like a Sabbath moment, three times or more a day.  Fasting during Ramadan seems like it would be a great way to be thankful for the food God has given us.

If I found out the LDS Church isn’t true, I would be tempted to try Islam.  It would be my way of letting go and just trying to do what God asks me to do.  I admit, I do not like the organization of Islam.  The lack of any centralized authority means there are fundamentalists and extremists that put a violent spin on the Qur’an, and have become terrorists and murderers.  I would have a hard time dealing with these members of my own faith, as I consider myself to be peaceful and pacifistic.  Would I join the Sunni or Shi’ite sect?  Actually, I would probably join the Alevi.  I love the peaceful and accepting attitude of the Alevi in Turkey.  Though not “mainstream” Islam, they are a peaceful group of 10 million and as part of their beliefs, they believe that we should not judge others on their beliefs.  I love their ideas of trying to “perfect” yourself.  There is no Original Sin and our consciousness is perfect, therefore we search through our lives to understand and embrace this perfect consciousness.

2. Eastern Orthodoxy

I have often said that if the Book of Mormon weren’t true, I’d have a hard time believing in Jesus of Nazareth.  It was the Book of Mormon that led me to believe in the Bible.  I wish we had books written by Jesus, or at least copies of the books about him from the original authors.  The idea that we only have copies of copies leaves me a bit queasy as far as evidence goes.  That having been said, if I wanted to stick with Christianity, I’d go for Eastern Orthodoxy.

I remember on my mission I got in quite a few “bashes.”  This wasn’t because I sought them out, of course, but because I was in West Texas, and there were many preachers and pastors out there who were attracted to us, just so they could argue.  Most of the time I feel like I did a great job of holding my own (thank you very much) but the only time I got floored, schooled, and beaten up in a bash was with a priest from an Orthodox Church.  His knowledge of early Christianity amazed me.  At the end of our “discussion,” I could have easily found myself saying, “Almost thou persuadest me to be an Eastern Orthodoxian.”  Or whatever they’re called.

I loved the idea of authority coming from the Apostles themselves.  The Orthodox Church seemed to be everything I loved in the Catholic Church without a couple of the annoying things that bother me about Catholicism (a more open canon, no pope, all Bishops are equal, less of the Church leadership is celibate, a “different” or more fluid idea of the Trinity).  To me, Orthodoxy seems like a purer, more mystical form of Christianity.  To find out more about Orthodoxy, read this excellent recent MormonMatters post.

3. Baha’i

Russell and I recently visited the service of a local Baha’i congregation.  It was small and it was in a local “Commonality House” that can be rented by whatever groups wish to attend.  I loved Baha’i because, while I was there, I truly felt loved and appreciated.  The whole idea of Baha’i is the unity and brotherhood of man.  They accept the teachings of Christ, Moses, Mohammed, and most other holy men.  However, they also accept the teachings of Bahá’u'lláh, a prophet of the 19th Century in Persia.  I love this religion because of how included I felt.  There was no dogma to speak of, just love for one another.  If any group truly demonstrates Christlike love for one another, I found it here at the Baha’i church.  The amazing thing I found is that when my Baha’i friends came to visit me at the LDS church, they were amazingly good at interfaith discourse.  They participated in lessons, they understood what was taught, and they were well-liked and loved by the people they met.  They’re truly an amazing group of people to say the least.

However, the advantages of this Church, I believe are also the disadvantages.  Russ and I have been putting off a full write-up of the Baha’i faith, but the thing I noticed overwhelmingly is that the faith had no teeth.  There were few rules, the congregation was encouraged to be themselves, attend other churches, and find what’s right for them, and search for truths everywhere.  I almost got the feeling I could be Baha’i and Mormon at the same time.  The few “rules” that they DID have seemed to only be suggestions.  A faith that doesn’t require any sacrifices and didn’t really teach a “way to live” seems impotent, at least to me.  If there were a natural disaster in town, I’d much rather trust the Catholic Charities than the Baha’i, unfortunately.  I loved all my friends from the Baha’i church, though, and would love to visit them all again sometime.

4. The Community of Christ

Ah, good old familiarity.  If I wanted to join a church and still have Nephi and Moroni and Joseph and Emma, I’d join the Community of Christ.  If somehow (I’m not sure how, but if somehow) the LDS Church were proven untrue in a way that still left the possibility open for Joseph Smith to be a prophet, I’d definitely visit the Community of Christ.  I love the Community of Christ because I’d still have Nephi the First (one of my personal faves), and I’d still be able to believe in Priesthood and Prophets.  The Community of Christ would give me a chance, not only to believe in these things, but explore them in new and interesting ways, because they are much more free-wheeling than the LDS Church.  They tend to place much of the search for truth in the hands of the believers.  This is easy to like, for me.  However, for the purposes of this discussion, I think choosing the Community of Christ might be cheating a little.

There are many other faiths I like to read about, but I’ll leave the rest of the discussion to you.

If the LDS Church weren’t true, and you DID have to join another Church, where would YOU go?

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.