Last week, from September 10th to 14th, Probe Ministries (Richardson, Texas) broadcasted a series titled “Understanding our Mormon Neighbors” (total time 13:12 mp3 here, transcript here). This is a short but fascinating series by Don Closson which seeks to explain to an Evangelical audience what some see as a trend within Mormonism moving closer to orthodox Christianity. The broadcast begins by tracing Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg’s discussion in How Wide the Divide, and then discusses Richard Mouw’s statements when he introduced Ravi Zacharias at the Mormon Tabernacle in 2004, and the Barna Survey in which approximately one third of Mormons surveyed were categorized as ‘Born Again’ based on their responses. For those who have not yet had a chance to read How Wide the Divide, this broadcast discusses various issues raised in this work.
Closson begins,
Have you noticed that Mormons are sounding more and more like evangelical Christians? In the last few decades individuals inside the Mormon Church, and many outside, have noticed a shift in the content and presentation of the Mormon faith. Certain aspects of Mormon theology, like the physical, limited nature of God, are either downplayed or left unsaid. Other aspects, like salvation by faith in the justifying work of Jesus Christ, are highlighted. Is something significant happening within Mormonism? Although Mormon theology has been somewhat fluid over the decades, some feel that a new band of Mormon scholars are indeed moving the religion in a new direction and that Christians need to be aware of these changes if we are to have effective dialogue with our Mormon neighbors.
Note: I did find a mistake (audio marker 08:30) in which Closson states that Robinson holds that God has a body of “flesh and blood.” Closson meant to say “body of flesh and bone” (see How Wide the Divide, p. 78). Also Closson confuses the temple and the tabernacle. The 2004 event was held in the tabernacle, not the temple.
This broadcast encourages a continued dialogue between Evangelicals and Mormons and is a nice 13 minute summary of trends resulting from that dialogue. Even though it was directed at an Evangelical audience, I felt Closson did an excellent job at describing the issues in a non-polemical manner, although LDS would not agree with everything Closson says LDS hold to be true. I also feel it would also help to explain to LDS much of the confusion which Evangelicals legitimately experience regarding LDS theology.
Part of the problem is that the current prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, is emphasizing an approach to other religions best summarized as “outreach based on common beliefs.” His quote “bring what you have and let us add to it” is one example.
If you are reaching out to other faiths based on commonalities, it is inevitable that contentious and divisive doctrines will be soft-pedaled. Some non-members see this approach as sneaky and dishonest, faithful Mormons see it as avoiding useless contention.
I see it as a bit of both. And I am one of those Mormons who is highly worried that we are de-emphasizing many of our unique core doctrines. I have no desire to join the American Protestant tradition, and I’m actually quite committed to stuff like the corporeal God, our divine parentage, and most of what Joseph Smith himself held.
Seth, I’m assuming you are reacting to the quote above that ‘Mormons are sounding more and more like Evangelical Christians’ and not to the overall content of the broadcast, which I do feel has other interesting aspects to it. But I would like to comment on some concerns you have raised, and I hope you respond.
First, you might be interested in the post on Helen Whitney’s the Mormons. There was a panel discussion on Utah NOW where this tension was raised. Millet said this in the panel discussion:
This paradox was raised in the BYUTV episode “Mormons and the Media.” Unfortunately there isn’t a transcript, but from what I remember the discussion was that LDS want to be a “strange and peculiar people” but they also want to be so on their own terms, and not on the terms of the counter-cultists. LDS reject the weird and bizarre counter-cultist depictions of them, but on the other hand, something would be lost if the LDS are just like everyone else and are not “strange and peculiar.” This is an interesting topic which perhaps goes beyond interfaith dialogue in some ways.
Secondly, I will say that in everything I have listened to and read, I personally haven’t seen this de-emphasis of distinctive LDS beliefs that you are concerned about. I think Pastore completely ignored the fact that Millet never hides away from distinctive LDS beliefs, and Gerald McDermott debunked this myth in a recent interview by John W. Morehead. McDermott explains:
The strategy of many counter-cultists is to over-inflate certain ideas and notions in LDS thought, drawing largely from 19th century Mormonism. Many Evangelicals recognize that this is not the Mormonism they encounter today (for an example of this experience see Douglas Cowan’s article Apologia and Academia: Prospects for a Rapprochement?) What I do see Robinson and Millet do is to try to explain the emphasis that these notions are given currently in the LDS Church. In this way, I think some are restoring a balance to otherwise distorted emphasis as a result of the counter-cult movement. Part of the Evangelical perception of Mormons sounding more like Evangelicals is that for the first time, many are hearing Mormon beliefs unfiltered through the counter-cult movement.
I disagree with the position that it is inevitable that a person downplay certain doctrines when they engage in interfaith dialogue. I think Millet is an very good example of someone who is highly successful at “maintaining distinctives while not hiding from similarities.” Part of the challenge of interfaith dialogue is trying to persuade those with your concerns that it doesn’t need to be this way. I don’t know if I have, but I hope we can continue discussing this matter.
Lastly, I’m not sure why you feel Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley’s approach is a problem. I think his approach is best understood in the full context of his words.
While I am trying to understand your point of view Seth, I fail to see how you can view this approach as a problem or contributing to a problem. Perhaps you can help me out here.
aquinas,
I think your comment here is very perceptive. I thought this point was particularly insightful:
The counter-cult movement, as you call it, often operates under the guise of getting the truth out about Mormons so everyone can know of our heresies. That is somewhat funny to me, because if you talk to Mormons about theology you know that it doesn’t take much work to get us to start talking about our many heresies. Our distinctive views on the nature of God, for example, are some of our favorite things to talk about with people of other faiths. So, it never seemed to me like there was a great need for a counter-cult movement to get the spotlight on our heresies. However, your suggestion above makes a lot of sense. Perhaps part of the purpose is to make sure people don’t hear about Mormonism from Mormons because it will not sound weird enough. The result being that people who have known us only through counter-cult rhetoric finally hear us speak for ourselves we sound like we are becoming more like Evangelicals.
I don’t think it is the only factor at work here, but it seems to me there is some truth to it.
I think another important factor at work here is that through interfaith dialogue we come to terms with each other in the literal sense of the word. As we learn about and try to truly understand the beliefs of others we define terms and learn what the other person means by their beliefs, and thus we are in a better position to communicate to the other person what we believe using a language that they can understand. Consequently, Evangelicals may have the perception that Mormonism is being made to sound more like Evangelical Christianity when in fact they are simply hearing what Mormons have believed all along using a terminology that accurately conveys the real meaning and makes sense to them.
Another benefit of the interfaith dialogue, I think, is that by discussing and explaining our beliefs to others we tend to dig deeper into our own beliefs in order to explain why we believe what we believe. This may cause us to rediscover and reevaluate beliefs that we have always had, but perhaps we had never given much thought to them or articulated those beliefs to those outside our faith before.
Dialogue also causes us to interact with the beliefs of others, and so it is only natural that beliefs that we have in common would be explored more deeply in order to find where there may be similarities and differences. This may also give the impression that we are emphasizing something new when we’re really just defining things that we have in common.
In any case I think the end result of interfaith dialogue is a good thing, and we need more of it.
It seems to me that one of goals of the traditional approach, for lack of a better word, is to show how Mormonism is not anything like Christianity, so it is all about highlighting differences. I think it is only natural that through a more dialogical approach one is going to find or discover areas of agreement and similarity. It isn’t that these areas of agreement and similarity never existed before, they obviously did, but it wasn’t pointed out at all.
Jacob J, you bring out an excellent point and that is that there are obviously things that make Mormonism very unique, and one doesn’t have to search very hard to find them. I think the key is to be accurate. Many times in the face of opposition, LDS give an answer which goes too far and often they claim too much (overstate LDS beliefs) or reject too much of the other side’s views (reject views which can easily be accommodated within Mormonism). I think that is a real disservice and a failing of approaching things from a defensive point of view.
Incognitus, I agree. Mormonism has tended to be quite insular, given its history of being heavily ousted from society at large. There is clearly much to be gained from comparison and contrast. This is one of the things I enjoy about current trends in Mormon Studies which places Mormonism and Joseph Smith is a broader American context or religious context.
“Part of the Evangelical perception of Mormons sounding more like Evangelicals is that for the first time, many are hearing Mormon beliefs unfiltered through the counter-cult movement.”
I also found this to be very insightful.