Most Improbable Dialogue

Christianity Today, a magazine of evangelical conviction, has just published an article written by Richard N. Ostling (co-author of Mormon America) titled “Most Improbable Dialogue.” The article covers the efforts of Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to engage in a series of dialogues and conferences over the years.

Ostling informs readers of the November 14, 2004 “Evening of Friendship” event at the Mormon Tabernacle where renowned Christian theologian Ravi Zacharias addressed a group of Mormons and Evangelicals.  It was also at this event that Fuller Theological Seminary president Richard Mouw shocked the Evangelical world by publicly apologizing to Mormons for the Evangelical distortion of Mormon beliefs.

Ostling covers Robert Millet and Greg Johnson of Standing Together’s 58 public conversations as well as the latest event, described as a “revival meeting,” held September 13, 2009 at the Mormon Tabernacle.  There, Australian-born evangelist Nick Vujicic, spoke to roughly over 3700 people.

The article describes the scholarly dialogues that include evangelicals like Craig Hazen of Biola University and Craig Blomberg, co-author of How Wide the Divide, and professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary.

Ostling ends his article with a reference to Evangelical and Mormon political co-operation and references Mitt Romney and Evangelicals for Mitt, and how the negative reaction by Evangelicals during Romney’s campaign was a wake-up call of the latent animosity toward Latter-day Saints held by Evangelicals.

Ostling paints pictures of “closed-door” and “hush-hush” dialogues with high ranking LDS authorities and prominent Evangelicals.  While such depictions give sensational notions of some sort of back-dealing going on behind locked-doors, we can chalk this up to journalistic story-telling.  Dates and events and telling the number of times that Mormons and Evangelicals have met, are relatively straightforward issues.  Where Ostling has difficulty is where he seeks to give his readers an introduction to LDS teachings and history.

Let’s begin.  ST will refer to my commentary.

Ostling: “Difficulties with acceptance date to Mormonism’s origins in the 1820s. According to the LDS scriptures, God the Father directly commanded the prophet Joseph Smith Jr. to shun existing Christian churches because “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” and their “professors were all corrupt.” God subsequently commissioned Smith to re-establish “the only true and living church.”

ST: Technically, the LDS scriptures (Joseph Smith History) have God the Father instructing Joseph Smith to listen to his Beloved Son (“This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” Joseph Smith—History 1:17).  It is God the Son, who informs Joseph Smith “not to join” any of the churches.

Does it really matter that it was God the Son and not God the Father?  Does “shunning” mean the same thing as “not joining”?  The reader can decide.  In my view, I would hope those writing on Mormon history would appreciate the finer details like the fact that in the published history that Latter-day Saints would be familiar with, it is Christ who told Joseph Smith to “join none” of the churches, rather than God the Father telling Joseph Smith to “shun” them.

Ostling: “Smith not only claimed unique God-given authority for his “latter-day” institution but also added the Book of Mormon and other texts to the Bible and issued increasingly heterodox doctrines. For example, the LDS God is married and has “a body of flesh and bones,” one reason the Vatican ruled in 2001 that converts from Mormonism must be re-baptized.”

ST: So, according to Ostling, Joseph Smith added the doctrine that God is married.  I’ve been digging into Joseph’s sermons and teachings to find where Joseph Smith taught that God was married.  The bloggernacle is full of debates where Mormons concede that its very difficult to find any statements by Joseph Smith that there is even a “heavenly mother.”  [1] The best evidence so far are second-hand statements and allusions in poetry.  Therefore, to claim that Joseph Smith issued the doctrine that God was married, and to place this doctrine in the same category as an embodied God is simply wrong.  Now, critics may say “Oh come now, what’s the big deal?  Clearly Mormons today believe God is married, ask any Mormon on the street ‘Do you think it is possible that God is married?’ and I bet they say yes.”  But this isn’t what Ostling wrote.  He wrote that Joseph Smith “added the Book of Mormon and other texts to the Bible and issued increasingly heterodox doctrines” including “the LDS God is married.”

I think most people familiar with Mormonism know that such a doctrine can’t be found in the Book of Mormon.  Again, I’m pointing this out as an example that for some very strange reason, journalists and other commentators simply have a difficult time accurately writing on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.  How hard is it to verify a simple fact like “Does the Book of Mormon teach God is married?”   Not to mention that readers are left wondering whether the Vatican ruled that Mormon converts to Catholicism must be re-baptized because LDS teach that God has a “body of flesh and bone” or that the LDS teach God is married.  If Joseph Smith taught that God is married, I think I would have heard this by now, and I’m sure all the proponents of a heavenly mother would be quoting this source.

That God [the Father] has a body of flesh and bone can be easily traced to D&C 130:22 which states “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also.”  (That the Son has a body of flesh and bone is not controversial given Luke 24:39).   We can cite no text in the LDS canon of scripture that teaches God is married.  So, placing a doctrine that is directly found in LDS scriptures, with an idea that is not found in LDS scriptures or in any sermon by Joseph Smith is misleading.  Let’s raise the bar for accuracy.

Ostling: “The LDS Christ is the Old Testament’s divine Jehovah, but not God the Son within the eternal Trinity.”

ST: Yes, LDS believe Christ is Jehovah of the Old Testament, but while Latter-day Saints typically do not employ the term Trinity, Latter-day Saints affirm that Christ is God the Son.  This seems to confuse more than enlighten and I would have phrased it differently, because the reader probably thinks Latter-day Saints reject that Christ is the Son of God. [2]

Ostling: “The LDS scriptures teach a plurality of gods (in the Book of Abraham, though Mormons reject the label polytheistic) and the millennial prospect that human saints will be “made equal with” God.”

ST: Perhaps this one can’t be helped and perhaps this is a natural limitation with describing theology in a few words.  Traditional Christians count to three by using the term person.  God is three persons in one being.  Joseph Smith felt free to say there are three personages and three Gods.  Therefore, the plurality of gods for Joseph Smith was the plurality of persons within the Godhead, namely three.   Joseph Smith never spoke of more than three Gods in the Godhead [3].

An Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages according to Abraham’s record are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator.” emphasis added, Extracts from William Clayton’s Private Book, 10-11, Nuttall collection, BYU Library, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 190 (undated).

in all congregats. when I have preached it has been the plurality of Gods it has been preached 15 years–I have always decld. God to be a distinct personage—J. C. a sep. & distinct pers from God the Far. the H. G. was a distinct personage & or Sp & these 3 constit. 3 distinct personages & 3 Gods—if this is in accordance with the New Testament–lo & behold we have 3 Gods anyhow & they are plural anyhow.  Thomas Bullock, sermon given by Joseph Smith on June 16, 1844.

There is another sense in which there was a plurality of gods for Joseph Smith. On March 20, 1839 in the revelation written from Liberty Jail in Missouri, Joseph spoke of “the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was.” (D&C 121:32).  Five years later, Joseph sought to explain this notion from the Bible.  “I shall go to the first Hebrew word in the Bible,” Joseph stated in the King Follett Discourse, and explained that according to the original Hebrew, it should read “The Head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods” in a Grand Council.  (Bullock Report).  William Clayton recorded Joseph as teaching “The grand councilors set in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds.”  Two months later Joseph again sought to defend his translation from the Hebrew, and was well aware of the opposition. Thomas Bullock recorded:

the head God—organized the heavens & the Earth–I defy all the learning in the world to refute me– In the begin the heads of the Gods organized the heaven & the Earth- now the learned Priest–the people rage–& the heathen imagine a vain thing–if we pursue the Heb further–it reads The Head one of the Gods said let us make man in our image I once asked a learned Jew once– if the Heb. language compels us to render all words ending in heam in the plural–why not render the first plural—he replied it would ruin the Bible–he acknowledged I was right.  Thomas Bullock, June 16, 1844.  For additional comments see Words of Joseph Smith, edited by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, p. 409. Ehat and Cook believe the editor of the sermon mistakenly merged Genesis 1:1 with Genesis 1:27

However, in some respects, this wasn’t a radical departure for Joseph Smith.  Consider the chronology.  In the fall of 1830, over 14 years earlier, he had interpreted Genesis 1:27 to read “And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.” (Moses 2:26) Therefore, God the Father speaks to God the Son “Let us make man in our image.”  In March 20, 1839 Joseph refers to the “the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was.” (D&C 121:32).  In 1842, 13 years later, Joseph would publish his translation of the Abraham papyri to read “And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”  Two years later on June 16, 1844 when Joseph explains that “The Head one of the Gods said let us make man in our image” it is clear he is elaborating on his translation in Moses 2:26 and the Head God is God the Father.  While Joseph never provided a complete roster as to who and how many were on the Grand Council, he never once hinted that he was substituting the Godhead with the Grand Council.  Conflating the Godhead with the Grand Council is a common mistake among students of Mormonism. [4]

As to the “made equal with” God statement, this is a legitimate teaching, found in D&C 88:107 and also D&C 76:95.  In fact, the first anti-Mormon publications latched on to this equality language like a pitbull.  See for example, LaRoy Sunderland, Mormonism Exposed and Refuted (New York: Piercy & Reed, Feb 10, 1838) and J. B. Turner, Mormonism in All Ages (New York: Platt & Peters, 1842), pp. 240–43.  But what I don’t find Sunderland or Turner exposing is that Mormonism teaches that God is married.  Wouldn’t it make sense that we would find early critics writing on this if Joseph Smith taught anything even remotely close to this?  By the way, if you want to know how early Latter-day Saints responded to Sunderland, read Parley P. Pratt, Truth Vindicated (New York: Parley P. Pratt, 1838), p. 27.

Ostling: Smith asserted other radical beliefs in an 1844 discourse shortly before he was assassinated while running for U.S. President. He revealed “the great secret” that God the Father “was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man,” and that humans will progress to “become Gods … the same as all Gods have done before you.” His discourse was transcribed by four aides, published by the church, later included in its compilation of his teachings, and officially reaffirmed thereafter.

ST: Ostling is referring to the famous King Follett Discourse, a funeral sermon given by Joseph Smith on April 7, 1844 at a general conference in Nauvoo.  It has not been canonized and was not published in the History of the Church for years.  It was only recently added in volume 6 of the 7 volume History of the Church in 1948, over 100 years later due to the efforts of B.H. Roberts.  [5] Even the recent Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith manual published in 2007 does not contain the full sermon, but only portions.  One of the reasons for this is probably due to the fact that the King Follett Discourse is one of the most controversial and contested sermons of Joseph Smith with commentators interpreting the sermon to imply one thing, and some to imply another. [6]

Conclusion

I have more areas where I disagree with descriptions by Ostling but they more or less fall within the domain of differences of opinion and perspective, rather than outright inaccuracies.  Overall, I’m pleased that Ostling provides important information to his readers regarding the history of various conversational and scholarly dialogues between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals.  I’m disappointed that the readers of Christianity Today won’t be getting the clear and accurate description of LDS history and theology that they should.  Improbable, I suppose.  But even with these inaccuracies, it’s a rather favorable article and I thank Christianity Today for publishing it.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  For just a few examples see New Cool Thang:
A few theories about the Divine Feminine in Mormonism October 7, 2009
A Review of LDS teachings regarding a Heavenly Mother September 29, 2009
Questions about the Nature of God August 21, 2009.

[2] For a more nuanced and articulate discussion of the topic of the Trinity see the October 2008 issue of FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life and the essay “Is Mormonism Christian?” by Bruce D. Porter, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Gerald R. McDermott, Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College. See also “Reno & Porter Interview: Is Mormonism Christian?” October 7, 2008.

[3] I’m reminded of a line from the Book of Armaments 2:9-21. “Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out.”

[4] To equate the Godhead with the Grand Council would destroy Joseph Smith’s theology and LDS liturgy where baptism is performed in name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  According to accounts given by George Laub, Joseph explained that Lucifer “himself being one of the councilors” “accused his brethren and was hurled from the counsel . . . There was a warfare with Satan and the gods and they hurled Satan out of his place.”  See George Laub Journal (1845); “George Laub’s Nauvoo Journal.” Edited by Eugene England. BYU Studies Volume 18, no. 2 (1978): 151–78.  To say that the Council and the Godhead are the same would be to place Lucifer within the Godhead, a position at odds with Joseph Smith’s statements on the Godhead.

[5] For a good overview of this history see A Textual History of the KFD, Part I: Sources to the “History of Joseph Smith” and A Textual History of the KFD, Part II by J. Stapley at Splendid Sun on June 3-5, 2008.  You can read a parallel version of the King Follett Discourse with all scribes writings and compilations side by side.

[6] The best example I can give is a dialogue between Van Hale and Blake Ostler on Mormon Miscellaneous on August 27, 2007.  “Theology With Blake Ostler.” Mormon Miscellaneous.  Hale and Ostler both persuasively advocate for their views and raise the main arguments.  Both are articulate and long-time students of Joseph Smith.

National Student Dialogue Conference 2009

This year’s National Student Dialogue Conference (III), hosted by Standing Together, will be held Friday & Saturday on November 13-14th, 2009 at Biola University.  The two-day conference will involve key religious leaders and thinkers who will speak from both Latter-day Saint and Evangelical perspectives.

For more information on the conference visit Standing Together.  Also visit the National Student Conference Facebook page.

Speakers

Dr. Robert Millet, Brigham Young University
Rev. Gregory Johnson, President of Standing Together
Dr. Jerry Root, Wheaton College
Dr. Spencer Fluhman, Brigham Young University
Dr. Dennis Okholm, Azusa Pacific University
Dr. Richard Bennett, Brigham Young University
Dr. Travis Kerns, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dr. Richard Bushman, Claremont Graduate University
David Golding, Claremont Graduate University Masters Program
Cory Wilson, Fuller Theological Seminary PhD Candidate

For reactions and reflections by both Evangelical and Latter-day Saint participants at the National Student Dialogue Conference in 2007 please see the following posts:

http://summatheologica.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/national-student-dialogue-conference-2007/

http://jakeandjo.blogspot.com/2007/10/national-student-dialogue-conference.html

http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com/2007/10/summary-reflections-on-national-student.html

http://mkrabill.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/10/mormon-and-evan.html

http://mkrabill.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/07/ldsevangelical.html

How Should Evangelicals Approach Mormon Missionaries?

A triad of posts appeared this week: “How to Witness to Mormon Missionaries. Or, what to do when you have Mormon missionaries at your door” by Bridget Jack Meyers of ClobberBlog, “Witnessing to Mormon Missionaries” by Tim of LDS & Evangelical Conversations, and “Three Evangelical Perspectives on Witnessing to Mormon Missionaries” by Aaron Shafovaloff at Mormon Coffee. While these three authors do not represent a unified school of thought as to how to approach Mormon Missionaries as Evangelicals, each is a self-identified Evangelical Christian and offer his or her perspective in the matter.

Perhaps you are wondering what I think about these distinct posts from my perspective of interfaith dialogue and interreligious communication. If you are, you’ve come to the right place.  What follows are my observations, critiques and commentary.

Mormonism and the Cross: Looking at the History

Last year during a discussion about why Mormons do not wear the cross I made the following statement:

I think it is very important to look for historical explanations, rather than contemporary or popular explanations for why Mormons do not wear crosses or have crosses on their meeting houses. For that matter, it is important to draw a distinction between the cross as a doctrinal symbol, an architectural symbol and for personal adornment.

In regards to meetinghouses, Bushman observes that “During the course of his life, [Joseph] never built a standard meetinghouse, even in Nauvoo, where the Mormon population exceeded 10,000.” Rather, Joseph’s “architectural imagination focused on temples.” Bushman explains, “However culturally anomalous, the City of Zion occupied a central place in Joseph Smith’s design for world renewal. He conceived the world as a vast funnel with the city at the vortex and the temple at the center of the city.” I haven’t found any historical evidence that Joseph taught using crosses in architecture was somehow unfavorable or improper, but rather he was looking towards the tradition of ancient Israel for his inspiration and sought to create “a church of cities rather than a church of congregations.” (RSR, 216-222).

In regards to wearing crosses, Robert L. Millet offers this food for thought. “Inasmuch as many of our early converts came from a Puritan background, they, like the Puritans, were essentially anti-ceremonial, which included not using crosses. For that matter; Baptists did not have crosses on their churches for a long time, at least until they began to move into mainstream Protestantism.” (Claiming Christ, 100). This corresponds to Bushman’s response that “The cross was used by very few Protestant churches in 1830 . . . Thus it required no decision on Joseph’s part. No one around him used the cross.”  I haven’t found any historical evidence that somehow the early saints are were encouraged not to wear crosses.

In regards to popular explanations, the unfortunate notion that the cross on a necklace represents merely an instrument of death and that many people were crucified and not just Jesus of Nazareth may be partly correct as far as the naked facts are concerned, but I find it utterly lacking in sympathy and in understanding of the beliefs of others. Not only is it uncharitable it is entirely unpersuasive. It would be good to retire this indefinitely. All religions choose symbols to imbue with religious significance. For many Christians, the cross is an intimate symbol expressing their faith, love and devotion. One convert from Mormonism to Catholicism quipped that if Christ was executed in a gas chamber, he would find the biggest gas chamber he could find and wear it.

Furthermore, I think there is a lack of understanding about the two symbols: the cross and the crucifix. For many Protestants the cross is notable because it is an empty cross in contrast to the crucifix. In this context, the empty cross represents the resurrection of Christ, an empty tomb, He is not here, he is risen! There is a deep irony that for one person this symbol points to the resurrection, another chooses to see this as merely a means of torture. Also, while one can find Protestant polemics against the Catholic crucifix as a means of religious symbol we would do well to have religious sensitivity and tolerance for both symbols.

Lastly, in regards to doctrinal symbolism, my perspective is that the cross is definitely a symbol for Christ and his redeeming atonement even in the Mormon tradition. For the Nephite prophets, the cross was highly important and Nephi, Jacob and King Benjamin preach and prophecy of Christ and the cross. There is absolutely nothing incompatible with the cross and Nephite orthodoxy. Millet quotes Joseph F. Smith’s words that “having been born anew, which is the putting away of the old man sin, and putting on the man Christ Jesus, we have become soldiers of the Cross, having enlisted under the banner of Jehovah for time and for eternity.” (Ibid; quoting JD 18:273, Joseph F. Smith, April 8, 1876.)

What all of this tells me is that there is often a very unfortunate result when we feel compelled to make up some sort of explanation for why we are different from someone else that has no basis in history. To point out that Latter-day Saints do not use a particular symbol in the same way as other religions is not an explanation but merely an observation. In addition, a Latter-day Saint may explain why he or she personally does not use wear crosses, but this is a completely different question from why the Latter-day Saint church and tradition historically did not adopt the cross in its architecture or in personal adornment. If we are seeking to explain the latter, then we must use historical sources. If we are seeking to explain the former, I simply suggest we proceed with caution because the results can be disastrous. (Comment made July 15, 2008, briefly edited from original).

Recently, Michael G. Reed (MA California State University, Sacramento) presented findings at Sunstone based on his master’s thesis on the history of Latter-day Saint attitudes and the cross.  Michael De Groote of MormonTimes covered the presentation (Sunstone speaker attempts to explain LDS ‘aversion’ to cross) and included interesting photographs of early saints, including a 1895 photograph of Amelia Folsom Young, a wife of Brigham Young, wearing a cross.   Other photographs include a floral arrangement in the shape of a cross during the time of Joseph F. Smith and a request by the LDS Church in 1916 for a monument in the shape of a cross to be erected to honor the Mormon pioneers.

I’m pleased to see more historical research done on this point.  As I’ve tried to explain in my discussions with others on this topic, there is no theological reason in Mormonism against using the cross as a symbol either from Joseph Smith or from the Book of Mormon.  Therefore, it is a mistake to try to construct a theological reason post hoc for why LDS do not use the cross.  I’m not against someone actually discovering a theological reason in the historical record, but to my knowledge no one has done this and I doubt anyone could ever find something like this.

Reed also seeks to explain what happened in the history that lead to Latter-day Saints not using the cross.  According to De Groote, Reed’s hypothesis is that David O. McKay held the view that the cross was a “purely Catholic”  symbol, and at one time in his life David O. McKay harbored private criticism of the Catholic Church.  This view was later abandoned through McKay’s personal friendship with Catholic Bishop Duane Hunt.  See Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (University of Utah Press, 2005) pp. 113-123.  Unfortunately, after years of President McKay and Bishop Hunt building a cordial and respectful relationship, a book titled “Mormon Doctrine” penned by Bruce R. McConkie arrived on the scene that added to anti-Catholic sentiment and, according to Prince and Wright, “infuriated” President McKay. (p. 122).  While the aftermath is something beyond the scope of this post, suffice it to say, the lesson I draw from these events is that we need 1) more historical understanding and less theological conjecturing, 2) more personal relationships with those of other faiths, and 3) more caution when trying to explain attitudes and practices in the Church.

I look forward to reading Reed’s full master’s thesis and I hope doing so will answer questions about the nexus between private feelings of McKay and the creation of an “institutional” aversion to the wearing of a cross in Mormonism.  At any rate, I would like to stress that we should respect the feelings that those of other faiths have to either the cross or the crucifix and also understand that early Latter-day Saints apparently felt no hesitation to adorning themselves with the cross.

Exploiting Self-Criticism in Interfaith Dialogue

Individuals of faith care passionately about their religious community. Evangelicals, Catholics, and Latter-day Saints care about the nature and role of teaching (what is taught and how it should be taught), the relationship between faith and society (the nature and extent of political involvement), and the way of the Church (policy and administration).

Engaging in self-criticism or self-critique is part of life in any religious community. Do we practice what we preach? Do we live what we believe? Do we engage in hypocrisy? Are we faithfully teaching the next generation? Does our beliefs make a difference in our community?

Every community has developed standards of appropriate and inappropriate critique.  Indeed, there can be a fine line between disrespectful dissent or constructive criticism.  Anyone who has been involved in the ‘Bloggernacle’ for any period of time know that Latter-day Saints have strong opinions about what it means to be a Latter-day Saint, what should be taught and how it should be taught, and how history should be understood.  While individuals participate with various degrees of engagement—some more tactful and diplomatic, some more blunt and to the point—one can see that the impetus for this self-critique comes from a sincere place of caring deeply about the health and future of one’s faith community. The aim is not to tear down the faith, but to build it up.

A Latter-day Saint Example

One example of this from the Latter-day Saint context is Hugh Nibley. While deeply recognized for his contribution to Mormon studies, Nibley was a passionate social critic. His writings reveal a deep concern for improving the religious education in Zion.  His BYU commencement ceremony address  “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift” given August  19, 1983 was a pointed critique on things at the BYU:

Most of you are here today only because you believe that this charade will help you get ahead in the world. But in the last few years things have got out of hand. The economy, once the most important thing in our materialistic lives, has become the only thing. [1]

Two years later, Truman G. Madsen would say of Nibley:

There have been some things said of Brigham Young University by others, none of them are as painfully critical as what Nibley occasionally says, and the same goes for some aspects of the Church, institutionally speaking, he really is its gadfly critic. [2]

Yet Neal A. Maxwell felt that “because his commitment is so visible and has been so pronounced and so repetitively stated, that that’s not even the issue, so then we get on to ‘what is Hugh saying?’” [3]

Nibley explained his posture at the BYU:

I have criticized as freely as anybody else. Should I tell you about this? Yes. When I first came to Provo I went up and asked Brother J. Reuben Clark, “Should I ‘keep my nose clean’? I’m sassy, shoot off my mouth, and become very critical down at BYU. Shouldn’t I shut up?”  He said, “That would be the worst thing you could possibly do. We have to have an adversary relationship if we are going to get at the truth in these things.” (He was a lawyer, of course.) So you have to have some forum for expression here, and nobody was freer in that than President Oaks when he was here. [4]

An Evangelical Example

One example from the Evangelical side happened in 2007 with J.P. Moreland’s paper to the Evangelical Theological Society with the title: “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It.” [5]

I believe most people could recognize that Moreland was not offering criticism of the Bible, but rather towards the appropriation of the Bible by Evangelicals. Moreland argues that the criticism of bibliolatry among Evangelicals is difficult to refute, but maintains his belief in biblical inerrancy. One of Moreland’s main concerns was that holding the Bible as the only source of knowledge effectively rules out other sources of knowledge and he gave three areas: “(1) natural theology and moral law; (2) the realm of spirits/souls; (3) divine guidance, prophetic revelation, words of knowledge and wisdom.” Each of these areas could effectively appeal to many of those outside the Evangelical tradition. Catholic thinkers could greatly affirm Moreland’s observation regarding natural law and Latter-day Saints can feel that Moreland is speaking their language in regards to “prophetic revelation.”

Unfortunately, this self-critique can be manipulated by those outside the tradition.

In the context of dialogue between those of different faiths, there is a temptation to exploit this genuine drive to offer constructive criticism. In the case of Moreland, there could be a temptation to make the argument that Moreland agrees and concedes the Latter-day Saint argument that Evangelical theology effectively cuts off revelation and therefore Evangelicals should convert to Mormonism. The effect of this kind of strategy can often lead Evangelicals to completely reject what Moreland is proposing simply because it can be too easily appropriated by those on the outside, when in fact, his critique is extremely valuable and aimed to strengthen Evangelical discourse.

In the case of those manipulating Latter-day Saint self-criticism the temptation should be easy to recognize. Get Latter-day Saints to complain about all the problems, all the issues, all of the things that need to be improved and then use that to suggest Latter-day Saints would be better off leaving the Church. It isn’t difficult to get Latter-day Saints to voice their concerns.  The Bloggernacle is full of individuals with strong opinions. I believe, however, that most individuals are coming from a place of passion and care for their faith.  It is because of love that they desire to improve the quality of teaching in the Church, to improve the quality of fellowship, to increase love and tolerance for others, to put down intolerance and self-righteousness, to seek to nourish the weak and vulnerable.  Yet, these genuine and sincere concerns can be manipulated by the opportunistic critics of the Church.

What Can be Done?

First, I suggest that we need to seriously consider our approach and appropriation of self-criticism by the “religious other.”  Second, we need to be aware of our goal for why we are appealing to the self-criticism of others.  Are we doing it to strengthen their faith community of others or to tear it down?  Third, we need to realize that self-critique should not be considered evidence of a desire for disaffiliation.  People can tell whether self-critique is being exploited for purposes other than to build up and strengthen the faith community.

Done correctly, discussion of self-critique may have the potential to be a point for advancing interfaith dialogue.  However, when poorly done, it only ends up further alienating the other side and losing trust.  We should therefore use caution when appealing to self-critique in the faith traditions of others.

Footnotes

[1] Nibley, Hugh. “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift,” Dialogue 16/4 (Winter 1983): 12-21.

[2] Faith of an Observer: Conversations with Hugh Nibley, Film Transcript 1985.  Transcript published in “Eloquent Witness Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple.” The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Volume 17, Maxwell Institute, 2008.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon-Semester 1: Transcripts of Lectures Presented to an Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University, 1988–1990 Provo: FARMS, p.429.

[5] J.P. Moreland “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It.” Presented to the Evangelical Theological Society on November 14, 2007. Accessed from http://www.kingdomtriangle.com/discussion/moreland_EvangOverCommBible.pdf

Google Reader as Urim and Thummim

Yes, of course, who has time? Who has time? But then if we do not ever take time, how can we ever have time? – The Merovingian

One of the best ways I’ve found to improve my connectivity to the amazing content created by the community of bloggers is through using a Reader.

There are other “Readers” out there, but I will be focusing on Google Reader.  If you don’t know what Google Reader is, how to use it, or why you would even want to use it, I suggest watching “RSS in Plain English” by Common Craft (I’ve had a link to this video on my blog since I began back in August 2007).  This short video is only about 3 minutes and well worth the time.  Time.  Isn’t this the problem? We don’t have a lot of time to waste trying to find new content or tracking down that one post that was so good but we have forgotten where we stumbled upon it.  We need a way to save time.

Content: Post and Comment Feeds

Google Reader (hereafter “Reader”) is a great way to increase connectivity to the blogging community.  As your favorite blogs produce content, it all comes to you, rather than you having to check what’s new on the blogs by going to each site.  In addition, by subscribing to comments feeds, you can automatically receive any new comments made on your favorite blogs.  These are very important.  This is where the discussion takes place.  Some bloggers make it very difficult by not placing their comments feed in a prominent area.  Feeds for posts are great, but feeds for comments is where it is at.  (Some blogs may not even have a comment feed!).  Especially if you have made a comment, you want to know what others think of it or how they will react.  A Reader will tell you as soon as anyone has made a comment.  Also, please provide more than five Recent Comments, provide ten or so (like this  –>).

Sharing Items and Sideblogs

The great thing about Reader is that you can “star” posts that you particularly enjoyed or want to respond to later when you have more time.  This makes it easy to find your favorite content.  You can search your starred items.  Not only that, but you can “share” posts or comments that others may find interesting.

Each account can have a Shared Items Page.  Shared Items says “I found this interesting even though I’m not creating a whole post to discuss it.”  Shared Items allows you to share an item with comments.  It’s not a post, but it is still content that you are communicating to others.  People can subscribe to your shared items page or follow it.  Where I make a comment online, typically I will share that in my Reader.  This helps to direct those who share similar interests to discussions taking place online that they may not know about.  I’ve converted my shared items into a side blog.

Where are discussions taking place?

We all have our favorite blogs and our own blogging communities where we regularly participate.  However, there could be (okay, there definitely are) other places than our usual hangouts.  I’ve found really interesting discussions at sites that have no connection to the usual sites I’ve frequented.  We can learn of new blogs through word of mouth, from someone’s shared items or blog posting.  Also, an old fashioned Google Search can pull up new blogs.  But that’s the problem right?  It takes time to search for new content regularly.  That is where Bloglines and Google Blog Search come in.  You can subscribe to a search feed once and then any new items will come to your Reader that match your search terms.  Of course, you may want to change your search terms from time to time.

Do you know who you’re talking to?

Have you ever began an exchange with someone for the first time on a blog?  Or has someone responded to your comment or post and you aren’t exactly sure what perspective they are writing from?  Often you can find this out by taking some time to read a handful of comments they have made elsewhere.  Reader makes that possible.  If they have a blog, subscribe to their feed and read a handful of posts and comments that they have made over the years.  If they don’t have a blog, but you’ve seen them around, search their name or handle in Reader and see what kinds of comments they typically make.

With some preparation, you can avoid a lot of mistakes and you won’t have to discuss things that have already been discussed.  I’ve done this to get a sense of people before I converse with them.  I want to know what sort of reasoning they use, what they discuss, what topics they gravitate toward and whether they have taken positions on various points of doctrine, or whether they have a tendency to avoid or repeat certain topics, or simply whether engaging them in dialogue would be an exercise in futility or whether it may bear fruit.  Making this preparation increases the quality of the discussion and allows us to build upon past efforts rather than reinvent the wheel or worse, to simply rehash the same discussion on a different blog.  (You may even decide it’s not worth to engage them at all, but that’s isn’t always a bad thing as we don’t have unlimited time).  However, this isn’t so that you can approach others with the attitude “I’ve read your book, I know all your moves!”  That would be the wrong approach and antithetical to true and open dialogue.  Even with preparation, sometimes the only way to know whether dialogue will bear fruit is to do it.

What discussions have taken place?

This is the probably the most important question.  Chances are someone somewhere has said something about what you are trying to say.  For example, if I search all my feeds (I have about 141 so far) for the phrase “Google Reader” I discovered that there have been a few posts on using Reader mostly by Dave’s Mormon Inquiry and notice a few people commenting about getting something in their Google Reader.  But I also note that no one has made the comparison between Google Reader and the Urim and Thummim.

A few weeks ago someone made a comment about something that Joseph Smith had said and I wondered whether there had been any discussion among my 141 feeds about this particular sentence in the last four years, many go back to 2005.  I couldn’t find the phrase at all and realized this might be an fruitful topic to explore.  I’ve also been researching a new source of early LDS writings and again I wondered if anyone had used this source before.  By searching all the comments and feeds, I discovered Juvenile Instructor had utilized this source (not too surprising for this great history focused blog, but there it is).  And on and on…

Looking in the Right Places

Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not suggesting that the blogs are the first place to go for any and all questions (I know some prefer the Godfather Trilogy for that).  If you have access to university libraries or academic journals or primary sources, then these are key for doing scholarly research without question.  Sources on DVD such as LDS Library 2009 are very important as well.

However, if the question is whether something has been discussed on the blogs, or how Mormons have understood particular bible passages or Book of Mormon passages on the blog, then Google Reader can help you find that out quickly and effectively.  And let’s face it, there is an abundance of quality content on the blogs that can’t be found in any book or journal.  Drafts of books not yet written float around on the blogs.  Some authors may even test out their ideas on the blogs before writing them in an academic venues.  Other authors may also be willing to engage readers who have questions about their work.  People discuss books, conferences, interviews, and by doing so extend and continue the dialogue.

The problem is we forget or don’t know about it, and often lack a good archive of this material that is easily accessible and searchable.  Reader isn’t perfect, but it’s an excellent tool for improving our access to quality content and taking the content to the next level.  So, here is what you should do.  First, get a Reader, either Google Reader or some other reader, if you don’t have it already.  Second, subscribe to your favorite blogs, post and comments.  If you run a blog, make your comments feed subscriber-friendly.  Three, share your favorite items with others.  Fourth, take advantage of searching quality content.

Will this save time?  Absolutely.  It won’t solve all problems of course.  As I’ve been swamped with life outside of the blogs, I sometimes open my reader to find 300 or 600 new items (Reader stops counting at 1000).  I simply don’t have time to read them all, but Reader makes it easy for me to quickly skim material in one place, star items to save for later, share items I think others might enjoy, and become aware of viral topics.  Then later, perhaps when I need some diversion or have a free moment, I know exactly where I can make better use of my time.

A Theology of God’s Openness: Clark Pinnock

On January 13, 2005, Believing Minds, a radio journal exploring the academic disciplines in pursuit of informed discipleship, interviewed Clark H. Pinnock, Professor of Christian Interpretation at McMaster Divinity College in Ontario, Canada, about Openness Theology.  Dr. Pinnock was interviewed by John S. Tanner, professor of English and Academic Vice President at Brigham Young University and host of Believing Minds.  Professor Tanner specializes in the work of John Milton and is the author of “Anxiety in Eden: A Kierkegaardian Reading of Paradise Lost” published by Oxford University Press (1992). As a result, Professor Tanner is well suited to discussing the intersection between religion and literature.

Listen to the program (audio). (Total run time: 00:28:22).  If you are new to Openness Theology this is a concise introduction to the basic ideas.  Tanner does a great job inquiring into Pinnock’s thought.  Even if you are familiar with Openness thinking, it’s great to hear Dr. Pinnock elucidate his views.

When asked to explain the term Openness, Dr. Pinnock stated:

We picked up the term openness because it wasn’t in use in theology, and also because it expressed for us God’s openness to his creation, that God has a dynamic creation which he interacts with and God hears our prayers and responds to our needs.  So, it was a theology of God’s interactivity with human beings. So it’s not unique to us, but it seems to be something that people are really wanting to know about and are finding to be true in their own experience of life.

The Most Moved Mover

Clark Pinnock is perhaps most well-known for his contribution to the book “The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God” (Intervarsity Press, 1994) co-authored with Richard Rice, William Hasker and John Sanders.

Pinnock more recently authored “Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness” (Baker Academic, 2001).  Those familiar with philosophy recognize that Pinnock’s title is a play on Aristotle’s description of God as the “Unmoved Mover.”  Pinnock believes that the God of the bible is not the God of Aristotle.

Most Moved Mover was reviewed by David Paulsen and Matthew G. Fisher.  See Paulsen and Fisher, “A New Evangelical Vision of God: Openness and Mormon Thought” FARMS Review of Books 15, no. 2 (2003): 415-42.  According to Paulsen, Pinnock

offers an “open” view of God that emphasizes his profound passibility and his genuine interpersonal relationships with other moral agents. The “open” God enters into authentic give-and-take relationships with human beings and leaves the future partly undetermined, allowing human beings to have an active role as agents within the unfolding of his purposes. (416).

Paulsen, writing in a Latter-day Saint publication, notes:

Pinnock’s work should warrant the attention of a Latter-day Saint audience for at least three reasons. First, many aspects of openness theology resonate with Latter-day Saint understandings of God. . . . Latter-day Saints may find that careful contemplation of Pinnock’s theological and philosophical reflections may reinforce some of their own convictions. . . . Second, Pinnock has opened the door for Latter-day Saints and openness thinkers to engage in cooperative work. . . .Third, the openness movement is gaining significant attention throughout the contemporary religious landscape. (416-417).

For more information, Dr. Pinnock’s interview with Homelitics Online is available here, titled “Does Prayer Change Things?  Yes, if you’re an Open Theist.”  Indeed, one of the attractive features of openness theology, according to Pinnock, is that it reflects how people actually understand God in their daily worship.

Believing Minds as Model for Interreligious Dialogue

As an aside, I want to highlight the mission of Believing Minds as I find it a great example of interfaith dialogue. The following is a brief portion from Believing Minds Statement of Purpose:

The First Commandment sanctions the mind as a means of worship.  It implies that devotion is incomplete unless the mind is integrated with heart, might, and strength.  At the same time, it obligates believers to engage the disciplines as disciples.  Love of God claims precedence as the first and highest love.  As such, it orders and subordinates all other loves.

The Second Commandment calls believers to love their neighbors as themselves.  This implies an obligation to understand neighbors-their culture, history, language, science, and so forth.  It also implies a responsibility to care about neighborhoods, for these shape the soul for good and ill.  Neighbor-love thus requires thoughtful engagement with the world, including serious reflection on the academic disciplines, which serve as the repository of worldly wisdom.

Many of our guests are drawn from distinguished campus visitors.  Most are not Latter-day Saints; few address uniquely LDS topics.  Rather, we seek guests who can help our listeners seek wisdom “out of the best books“; guests whose own work illuminates timely and timeless topics, which we explore in light of LDS conviction.

This is a statement of purpose I can heartily affirm.  Listen to more interviews at Believing Minds.

Explaining a Calvinist Worldview to a Latter-day Saint

The idea that human beings have free will plays a critical role in Latter-day Saint thought.  The importance of free will pervades the Grand Council narrative and Latter-day Saint beliefs concerning grace and salvation. Free will, or Agency, typically informs LDS philosopher’s views on God’s omniscience and foreknowledge. In my experience, the counter-cult movement tends to be heavily populated with Calvinists, and one puzzling irony is that Calvinists who interact with Mormons on a regular basis hold a radically different understanding of human free will.

While some Latter-day Saints reject such a notion on moral grounds, I’ve been frustrated with the notion because I’ve experienced it as a barrier to interreligious dialogue.  I address this issue in What is Bad Apologetics?, an actual exchange rendered into a Socratic dialogue.  In this dialogue, the Socratic inquiry into the nature of apologetics is terminated because the interlocutor holds the view that whether a person employs “good” apologetics or “bad” apologetics is ultimately determined by divine fiat and therefore an apologist is not responsible for his or her actions.

Seeing as how one’s view of human free will greatly influences the calibration of one’s theology, I believe it is important for Evangelicals to attempt to discuss this view with Mormons.  I’ve passionately advocated such a position in the past, but I suspect it has had little effect.

It is with this background that I’ve eagerly followed the recent exchange between Geoff Johnston and Aaron Shafovaloff.  This is not the first time Geoff and Aaron have explored the topic of free will.  On July 18, 2007, Geoff authored “The advantages of bad theology” and discussion between Geoff and Aaron culminated in an three part podcast (audio) (July 20, 2007, running time 2.5 hours).  This discussion covered a larger range of topics other than Calvinism.  (Personally, I found the 2007 podcast a better exchange and recommend this one as having more explanatory value).

Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy Announces Mormon Chapter

The Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy (FID) is pleased to announce the formation of its Mormon Chapter, with Utah Valley University professor Brian D. Birch as the chapter director. Birch is director of UVU’s Religious Studies program and is an associate professor of philosophy who specializes in religious pluralism, comparative theology, and the ethical dimensions of interreligious dialogue. He also has strong credentials in Mormon studies, serving as editor of the Society of Mormon Philosophy and Theology’s journal, Element, as well as being on the board of directors for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and the steering committee of the Mormon Studies Consultation in the American Academy of Religion. He is also currently completing a book, Mormonism and Christian Thought, which is slated for publication by Oxford University Press in 2010.

“Brian Birch knows how to respect those who disagree with him,” says Randall Paul, president of the Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy. “His interest in other religions makes him a great listener. He is a natural interreligious diplomat, a believing Latter-day Saint interested in finding and clarifying truth from all sources.”

Birch adds: “I’m delighted to be part of the Foundation and to contribute to constructive interreligious dialogue. Latter-day Saints have been the object of increasing interest and scrutiny of late. This chapter will create opportunities for candid and engaging discussions and the opportunity for both sides to learn from the other.”

Birch will work to attract religiously bi-lingual members of the Mormon Chapter of FID to develop dialogue programs with particular religious groups that want to engage more deeply with Mormonism.

Read More from April 2009 Press Release at Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy

Peter Kreeft on Christianity in the Lord of the Rings

Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College and King’s College, presented “Christianity in the Lord of the Rings: Apologetics in Tolkien’s Classic” at the 2004 National Conference on Apologetics held November 3, 2004.  Listen to the mp3 here (total run time 1:04:11).  Dr. Kreeft has published several books including “The Philosophy of Tolkien: The Worldview Behind The Lord of the Rings,” “Summa of the Summa” and “Socrates Meets Jesus.”

Using Tokein’s personal writings and correspondance with readers, Dr. Kreeft provides great illumination and insight into Tokien’s Middle Earth.  For more audio lectures see Dr. Kreeft’s website.