Mormon Coffee

Christianity Today’s current online Books & Culture (January/February 2006) features an article written by Gerald R. McDermott, Saints Rising. Dr. McDermott takes a look at The Rise of Mormonism, a new book by sociologist Rodney Stark and addresses the question, “Is Mormonism the first new world religion since the birth of Islam?”

One of the many segments in the article that I find interesting is a comparison of the LDS Church with The Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses). Dr. McDermott’s purpose in making the comparison is to see if the LDS Church is indeed the newest world religion—or, taking it down a notch, the newest “new religious tradition.”

Using the number of adherents as the primary measure of what is or is not a world religion, as Dr. Stark suggests; and using doctrinal departure from historic Christianity as a measure of a new religious tradition, as historian Jan Shipps suggests; Dr. McDermott writes:

[Jan Shipps] proposes that every other [non-Mormon] new American religion was sectarian, which means that none of them changed the mainstream Christian story in fundamental ways. Since Mormonism changed the story fundamentally by opening the canon with a new prophet and new revelation (and recapitulating key events in both Hebrew and early Christian histories in such singular ways that its history itself became a new text), it is a new religious tradition.

But what about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Did they not change the dominant religious story in fundamental ways? The Mormons added new incarnations to the story, but the Witnesses denied the concept of incarnation entirely! The Mormons rejected traditional understandings of the origins of God the Son, but the Witnesses denied the existence of God the Son! Mormons disavow the Trinity but retain three “personages” of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each fully divine. Witnesses, on the other hand, don’t even come close: Jesus is ontologically inferior to the Father, and the Spirit is an impersonal force.

If Mormons qualify as a new tradition because of their changes to the dominant religious story, Jehovah’s Witnesses also deserve the label. In terms of numbers, Witnesses are doing even better. Despite starting later (1879 vs. 1830), they have more adherents and are in more countries. [David B.] Barrett reports that in 2000, there were 11 million Mormons in 116 countries, but 13 million Witnesses in 219 countries.

I’m glad that Dr. McDermott has provided some perspective to the oft-repeated myth that Mormonism is the fastest-growing religion around. But I suspect that Mormons will keep the myth alive as the news media quotes—unchallenged—statements like this:

“We are now the fastest growing church in the United States with 12.5 million members and we are growing faster outside the U.S.”
— Gainesville Georgia’s LDS Mayor George Wangemann, Gainesville Times, December 17, 2005

I just received my December 31st issue of Church News. This issue is pretty much dedicated to “Remembering Joseph Smith.” The first article (which is all I’ve read so far) is titled Prophets Testify of Joseph Smith. It consists of short excerpts from the sermons and talks of Latter-day prophets. Each of the 14 prophets since Joseph Smith are represented, and each one had something to say about Joseph.

The first quote in the article is from Journal of Discourses, volume 5, page 332, “Observations by President Brigham Young, made in the Bowery, Wednesday Afternoon, October 7, 1857.” I thought it might be interesting to see Brigham’s comment about Joseph’s mission in its context, so I looked it up.

I found that Brigham made some rather interesting remarks in that sermon. On the two pages surrounding the portion quoted in Church News (pages 331 and 332) Brigham noted the following:

Brigham desired to do the work of the kingdom so it would be “right and acceptable” to Joseph when Joseph comes again

The terms “United States” and “united hell” were synonymous as the government was then conducted

The God the Methodists worshiped was the “Mormon’s Devil”

After passing Joseph Smith, Peter, the Apostles, and Abraham on the way to the Celestial kingdom people will be “very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam.” Brigham then quoted John 17:3, “This is eternal life, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

Brigham was an Apostle of Joseph Smith

All the priests contemporary to Joseph’s day were “as blind as Egyptian darkness” and knew nothing correct about heaven, hell, God, angels, or devils

Faithful Mormons, though 60 or 70 years old, look young and handsome; but if they apostatize, “they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil.”

Any comments?

Lee Davidson, journalist for the Deseret Morning News, wrote an interesting article which appeared in that paper on January 5th, 2006. Missionary slayings very rare in LDS Church was written in response to the January 2nd shooting death of LDS missionary Morgan Young. Mr. Davidson wrote that Morgan made “the ultimate sacrifice for his beliefs.”

Morgan’s death was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He and his missionary companion were in the area as an apparent drug deal went wrong and people started getting shot. Morgan’s companion, Joshua, was also shot; thankfully he survived.

The only way I can make sense of Mr. Davidson’s implication that Morgan is a martyr is the fact that Morgan would not have been in the line of fire if he hadn’t been sent to Virginia on a mission for the LDS Church. In that context, Morgan made the ultimate sacrifice for his beliefs; but he was not killed because he was LDS, or because someone didn’t like what he was doing or what he was teaching. Morgan’s death was tragic, as is the death of any person whose life is cut short. It was senseless. But Morgan is not a martyr any more than are the 2 LDS missionaries who died 4 days later in a car crash.

Mr. Davidson’s article did draw a distinction between accidental missionary deaths and missionaries who have been murdered. He included some very interesting statistics on LDS missionary deaths as well as non-LDS Christian missionary deaths. He noted that only 3 of the 17 LDS missionaries who have died since January 1, 1999 did not die accidentally, while 155 out of 160 Christian missionary deaths during that same time span were murders. (Mr. Davidson provided new updated numbers on January 7th.)

Of all the missionary murders (LDS included) Mr. Davidson wrote, “Reasons behind the deaths are many, but the lion’s share of those killed — 106 of 177, or 60 percent — appear to have been murdered because of unpopular religious or political beliefs.” None of those who were killed for what they believe were LDS.

I am appreciative to Mr. Davidson for his article. I recall speaking with an emotional LDS missionary some years ago who, in his effort to prove his church true, cried, “I know of no other church that has martyrs!” Mr. Davidson has done a great service in educating the people of Salt Lake City (and beyond) to the fact that Christian missionaries are often persecuted and killed for the sake of the Gospel; many indeed make the ultimate sacrifice for their beliefs.

It is with sadness that I note the deaths of 3 LDS missionaries in 5 days. On Monday (1/2/2006) Morgan W. Young was shot and killed in Virginia, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was reportedly killed by a man fleeing the scene of a drug deal gone bad. On Friday (1/6/2006) Bradley J. Isle and Jonathan R. Talmadge were killed in a head-on collision in New Zealand.

My prayers go out to the grieving families of these young men. May they be comforted by the God of all comfort.

I was surprised the other day while reading the January 2006 issue of the Ensign. There’s an article beginning on page 20 about the fourth LDS prophet, Wilford Woodruff, titled Contending for the Faith. The tag line to this article is, “While contending for the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, President Woodruff taught principles relevant for our lives today.”

My surprise comes from the idea promoted within the article that “contending” is a good thing. Of course, as a Christian I support Jude’s exhortation to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). But Mormonism typically shuns contention as being from the devil himself. The Book of Mormon says, “He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me [saith the Lord], but is of the devil, who is the father of contention…” (3 Nephi 11:29).

Some people might say that contention is argument accompanied by anger. However, LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson wrote an article for the Ensign titled The Canker of Contention (May 1989) in which he made the claim that conflicting ideas are “the beginning of contention.” This really sums up the usual Mormon-on-the-street understanding of the issue.

An online letter at Contender Ministries illustrates this point. On November 16th 2005 a Mormon wrote, “Argument, no matter what kind, is a form of contention.” Contender Ministries provided a good response to this Latter-day Saint. You might want to take a look.

It’s been my experience that this is how most Mormons understand their Church’s injunction against contention. Typically, when I have a friendly encounter with a Mormon, if we reach a point where he feels at a disadvantage in the discussion he does one of two things. He either drops the topic and proclaims his testimony of the truth of the Church; or he says, “I feel a spirit of contention,” and refuses to continue the conversation. I once asked a Mormon “host” at the Orlando Temple Open House how he determined when a discussion became contentious. His answer: A conversation became contentious whenever someone disagreed with him.

And truly, this is a good definition of contention. My dictionary says “contend” is when someone “asserts something as a position in an argument.” Therefore, any disagreement–no matter how friendly or easy-going–would be contentious and, according to Mormonism, would be “of the devil.” Thus my surprise to read of the LDS praise for Mr. Woodruff ’s public contention for the LDS faith.