Every now and then there is a claim or even a passing observation that Mormonism is changing. In many cases these claims are made without understanding the broader environment in which they are made, and not fully appreciating the implications of the statement. I hope to outline the cause of this perception and explain the different reactions to this perception both among Mormons and Evangelicals and the relationship between these reactions.
The Counter-Cult Movement and Evangelical Apologetics
First, let’s begin with the counter-cult movement. This movement wants to paint the picture of Mormonism as completely “other” than “traditional Christian Orthodoxy.” This has been its modus operandi for as long as Mormonism has existed. This is the reason why the counter-cult movement resists Evangelicals scholars like Gerald McDermott, for example, who co-wrote an article with the statement: “Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think.” [1] When this article was published, McDermott was quickly called to explain himself by on-line Evangelical apologists. [2] The reason it is so taboo in the eyes of the counter-cult movement to make a statement implying that Mormonism is actually closer to Christian Orthodoxy than people believe is that this would mean it is in actuality more legitimate. When Craig Hazen, who heads the Christian Apologetics program at Biola University, told Frank Pastore that the Mormon understanding of Christ is getting “closer” to the Christian orthodox view, it sent chills down the spine of every hardcore Evangelical apologist. [3] From the counter-cult perspective, this is an intolerable state of affairs, and must always be responded with by trying to dig up every distinct, bizarre and “unique” Mormon viewpoint in the historical record.
The Mormon Response and Interfaith Dialogue
Now, for decades many Mormons really could care less how people outside the Church thought of them. [4] “The world will never really accept us anyway, so what is the use worrying about it?” was the mentality. It is a fact of life that Christian disciples will always be mocked; a fact imprinted in the minds of anyone who reads the Book of Mormon account of the “great and spacious building.” [5]
However, in recent years many Latter-day Saints have begun to realize that they are short changing themselves by remaining silent. [6] It is one thing for the world to reject Mormonism, it is quite another for it to reject a caricature of Mormonism. Increasingly, the general population is being exposed to Mormon teachings unfiltered through the voice of the counter-cult movement. This often causes people to think or believe somehow the Church is changing. However, part of this, I believe, is simply that there are others sources to get information about Mormonism that are more objective and honest than those which typically are produced by the counter-cult movement or come out of Christian apologetic circles. Through the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue there are more scholars like Craig Blomberg, Gerald McDermott and Paul Owen who are able to offer a balanced perspective to the depictions of Mormonism that are concerned solely with maintaining the boundaries of orthodoxy. As a shining example of this, Blomberg and Owen both responded to Rob Bowman’s post informing readers that Christinity Today rejected his review of Robert Millet and Gerald McDermott’s book ”Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate” (Brazo Press, 2007). [7] Another example is Owen’s several remarks during an on-line discussion of the Latter-day Saint response to Fox News 21 questions as well as a related post on the King Follet Sermon. [8]
Some Mormon thinkers point out that Mormonism is drawing closer to its own foundational doctrines, and not necessarily getting its ideas from outside the Mormon tradition. [9] Why is that assertion often unconvincing to the ears of Evangelicals? Many Evangelicals can’t fathom that Mormonism had any of these doctrines to begin with, because for years the counter-cult writers have had a monopoly on presenting Mormonism to the Evangelical community. However, this is changing.
Mormons Reactions to the Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue
I’ve discussed the reaction to this changing perception among Evangelicals, but there is an odd counter-reaction among some Mormons. I say “odd” because I believe this reaction is counter-intuitive. One would think that all Mormons would be welcoming of the less extreme and radical depictions of Mormonism as painted by old school anti-Mormons. However, some actually like the old-school polemics because it makes them feel more special and more unique. As I hope many readers of my blog realize, there are several Mormon teachings such as a corporeal God the Father, pre-mortal life, eternality of element and spirit, rejection of creatio ex nihilo, proxy baptism on behalf of those who have died, the role of the temple, and the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. These aren’t simply fringe doctrines, personal opinion or individual speculations. They are wholly supported by Mormon canons of scriptures and are also ideas which reinforce the Mormon World View in its totality. Surprisingly, however, I have discovered that there are many online Mormons who don’t think that list makes them distinct or unique enough! They, perhaps unknowingly, actually accept the bizarre depictions of themselves as painted by the counter-cult movement, but for completely different reasons. They like to be weird, bizarre and different from Christian Orthodoxy. For them, it is like a badge of honor, not just to be unique, but to be somehow uniquely unique from the Christians who persecuted them and continually mock them, etc. They don’t feel unique enough with living prophets, modern revelation, new canon of scriptures, etc., so they cleave to older interpretations and articulations of Mormon doctrine. Such individuals will naturally lament that Mormon doctrine is changing, or being assimilated, but this is merely one perspective and it’s important to know the source of this lament; it is a issue of preserving personal identity rather than preserving pure doctrine.
Proclivity towards Speculation
Mormons often remark that Mormonism does not have a speculative tradition as found in other religions. This is true to a point. However, anyone who has spent time perusing Mormon blogs can watch many online Mormons speculate on doctrine and create interesting ideas, implications, and narratives to justify or explain doctrine or anything else. Libraries and bookstores are full of personal explanations for why doctrine is the way it is. I would like to stress that this speculative activity occurs in any faith tradition. It’s human nature to try to explain things or likewise to “fill in the theological gaps.” This was a battle in the early Christian church, a battle in the early Latter-day Saint church, and this battle continues today. One side always wanting to fill in the gaps with analogies and arguing “but what else would make sense? Look at all these analogies which support this view.” After all, every Latter-day Saint is entitled to personal revelation and thus it is often accepted that one can reason out doctrines and come up with truths. For many of these individuals there is less of a gap between speculation and revelation.
Keeping the Doctrine Pure
Unfortunately, this often adds unnecessary elaborations and interpolations to the Gospel “delivered once for all.” [10] Many Mormons have seen the dangers of doctrinal speculation (i.e. attempts to justify the priesthood ban by going beyond the scriptural account of the pre-mortal narrative). For them, many of the things that people label Mormon “distinctives” they see as speculation or personal interpolations masquerading as “Mormon doctrine.” For many Mormons, the challenge isn’t to invent new Mormon doctrine to solve problems, but rather the challenge is to “keep the doctrine pure” to avoid the excesses of innovation. [11] Therefore, Latter-day Saints are trying to separate speculation from revelation, to sift from the vestiges of personal opinion and polemics of the past. [12]
It is important to realize that this isn’t a harsh ‘movement’ to eradicate notions of the past. McDermott, for example, wants to see a kind of official Church repudiation of certain former doctrines. This simply isn’t likely to happen because also within the Mormon tradition is a tolerance for various ideas and Joseph Smith stated, “I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” [13]
One of the best questions to come out of the Mormon-Evangelical dialogues has come from Paul Owen who draws a distinction between what a Mormon must believe, and what a Mormon can believe. [14] This isn’t a question which the counter-cult movement is concerned with in the least. However, I believe this is a fruitful area of discussion which is likely to occur with those Mormons who draw a distinction between speculation and revelation, rather than those Mormons who hold that speculation and revelation are one and the same.
Mormon and Evangelical Reactions to Keeping the Doctrine Pure
Ironically, we get the same kinds of reactions as a result of the move to keep the doctrine pure as we do with the statements above by McDermott and Hazen. Counter-cult writers reject this as a ploy because it makes their target “smaller” (i.e. no that really isn’t binding doctrine) and a minority of Mormons enamored by the unique speculation they apparently grew up with and were taught by individuals who stepped beyond the bounds of orthodoxy feel that somehow their identity is being lost. A few Evangelicals are happy to learn this isn’t official doctrine (good, I’m relieved! Let’s keep talking!), but I dare say that most Evangelicals are upset to learn this isn’t official doctrine (this doesn’t make you legitimate! and you are lying too!).
In other words, when certain dubious ‘doctrines’ are regulated the category of uncertain, speculative, or un-official, at least four things could happen: 1) some people perceive that Mormonism is changing; 2) a minority of Mormons perceive they are losing their unique identity and cry out that they are being ‘assimilated’; 3) many Mormons rejoice that the doctrine is not being corrupted by a) the unfortunate speculation on behalf of innovative Mormons and b) the distortions of Mormonism by the counter-cult movement; and 4) counter-cult apologists cry foul because this a) legitimizes Mormonism and b) takes away precious ammunition.
In conclusion, I encourage people to keep in mind these dynamics when people (Latter-day Saints and others) say “Mormonism is changing” and when they make predictions on why this is changing and how it will change.
Footnotes
[1] Robert Millet and Gerald McDermott, Mitt’s Mormonism and the ‘Evangelical Vote’, Christianity Today, May 31, 2007. “Besides, Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think. Unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For Latter-Day Saints, Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son.”
[2] See for example John Divito, “Christianity Today, Mormonism, and Compromise.” The Reformed Baptist Thinker, June 4, 2007. See also “Gerald McDermott Responds.”The Reformed Baptist Thinker, June 26, 2007. “This is Gerald McDermott, the evangelical theologian some of you think has embraced heresy by suggesting that the Mormon Jesus and the classical Christian Jesus are one and the same…”
[3] Cited from “Frank Pastore on the Mormon & Evangelical Dialogue.”Summa Theologica [blog] Aug. 23, 2007. “Pastore: What then what is the point of advancing your Christology, if they don’t have the right person? Hazen: Well, they are getting closer.”
[4] See generally “Robert L. Millet, “Outreach: Opening the Door or Giving Away the Store?” The Religious Educator 4/1 (2003).
[5] 1 Nephi 8:27
[6] For example see M. Russell Ballard, “Faith, Family, Facts, and Fruits,” Ensign, Nov 2007, 25–27. “Those who are curious in this general way deserve clear and accurate information that comes directly from those of us who are members so that they do not have to rely on the incomplete answers, half-truths, or false statements that may come from the media or other outside voices. The many misunderstandings and false information about the Church are somewhat our own fault for not clearly explaining who we are and what we believe” (emphasis added).
[7] Rob Bowman, “Do Mormon’s Believe that Jesus was fully God?” Parchment and Pen: a theology blog. Nov. 26, 2007.
See Blomberg’s comments #8, #46, #47. “The reason the review was rejected, no doubt, is because, like all the criticism of my efforts with Robinson ten years ago, it gives only a token nod to the strengths of the book and the real progress that has been made. Yes, there are weaknesses; yes, there are things to warn against, but that should not be the primary focus of any review.” (c.f. comment 8).
See Owen’s comments #14, #17, #26, #30, #31, #35, #42. ”Any open-minded observation of Mormon worship practices, as seen in their hymns, their scriptures (especially the Book of Mormon), and their speech patterns in prayer and praise, make it clear that they ascribe to Jesus Christ the very sort of reverence which the Bible calls for with respect to adoration of the one true God.” (c.f. comment 14). My personal observation is that in all these comments Owen displays a profoundly accurate grasp of Mormon thought.
[8] Rob Bowman, “Straight Answers to Fox’s 21 Questions about the Mormon Church.” Parchment and Pen: a theology blog. Dec. 18, 2007; Rob Bowman, “Who’s Afraid of the King Follett Discourse?” Parchment and Pen: a theology blog. Dec. 1, 2007.
[9] Robert L. Millet, “Joseph Smith’s Christology: After Two Hundred Years” BYU Studies 44:4 (2005). Also available here: http://w2.byuh.edu/academics/religion/Millet-Joseph%20Smith%20Christology.pdf Millet quoting his previous work: “Kendall White is correct in detecting a movement afloat in Mormonism in the latter part of the twentieth century. It is a movement toward a more thoroughly redemptive base to our theology, but a movement that is in harmony with the teachings of the Book of Mormon and one that may be long overdue.”
[10] Jude 1:3. Some may recognize this as a proof-text often used to argue that the Gospel was delivered once and thus there is no need for the Restoration. I am borrowing this argument and placing it in the context of “adding” speculation to the Restoration.
[11] For example: “I have spoken before about the importance of keeping the doctrine of the Church pure, and seeing that it is taught in all of our meetings. I worry about this. Small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods” (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 620). See also “11: Keeping the Doctrine Pure,” Teaching, No Greater Call: A Resource Guide for Gospel Teaching, 52.
[12] J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” speech given at BYU, July 7, 1954, published in the Church News, July 31, 1954; reprinted in Dialogue, 12:2, p. 68–69. Available online here. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/entitled.html; See also, Robert L. Millet, “What Is Our Doctrine?” The Religious Educator 4/3 (2003): 15–33.
[13] History of the Church,6:477; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on June 16, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Thomas Bullock.
[14] Rob Bowman, “Who’s Afraid of the King Follett Discourse?”Parchment and Pen: a theology blog. Dec. 1, 2007. Owen states: “The contents of such teaching materials are illustrative of what Mormons CAN believe, not what they MUST believe to be faithful to their theological distinctives.” (c.f. comment 3). Notice that Owen draws a distinction between binding and non-binding doctrine whereas the counter-cult apologist does not.
The idea of some that Christians should limit criticism of Mormonism to what is “binding, official doctrine” is in my opinion naive. Mormonism has very, very little “binding” doctrine (and keep in mind, there are many ways one can speak of something as ‘binding’; heck, you can confess to a bishop that you don’t believe in the historicity of the BofM and still be a member in good standing with a leadership position). If you put the dozen brightest minds in Mormonism together with a dozen average laymen you will get some serious disagreement over what constitutes “doctrine”. Blake Ostler has notably argued that Mormonism doesn’t have official doctrine. It simply has “interpretative traditions”. Considering how Mormonism has pushed itself as such a vital top-down institutional source of authority, doctrine, and religious power, this is of course ironic (and no, this can’t be reversed by offering up a few obscure quotes from Joseph Smith).
My suggestion is that Christians stop playing the game of arguing over what constitutes “official Mormon doctrine” and start making sound generalizations over what Mormons believe, as well as consider what the Mormon leadership is still promoting through institutional channels. There are multiple reasons for this: Mormonism should be represented as accurately as possible for the sake of informing outsiders and for the sake of preparing Christians for evangelistic interaction. Also, Mormonism as an institution should be boldly confronted for not having the integrity to take institutional responsibility for the many beliefs that are perpetuated among its members (even the ones it doesn’t explicitly and unequivocally affirm).
The concept of “official doctrine” has been too warped into an apologetic weasel tool. And besides, when I’m in a one-on-one conversation with a Mormon, he or she often has very little knowledge about the more robust definitions of “official doctrine” offered up by Millet and the LDS Newsroom. Discussions should usually center around what that person is 1) consciously believing and 2) willing to possibly believe and 3) willing to renounce (especially in relation to what LDS leaders have said). All that and much more should be taken into account, for the real issue is the heart. A good dialog will include questions that probe the heart, ask sincere questions, establish points for the sake of biblical argumentation, and bring cause for reflection.
I’d write more about this but I’m working on a larger article on the topic that I will just link to later. For now, I recommend the links here and the approach taken here.
Aaron, thanks for your comments. I must stress at the outset that this post isn’t a critique on the merits or the effectiveness of the different strategies taken by Evangelicals who interact with the Mormon challenge. That lies outside the scope of this particular post. It is clear that there is a developing internal dialogue amongst Evangelicals about how to effectively interact with the Latter-day Saints. This ‘discussion’ for lack of a better word, is ongoing and will definitely continue as long as Evangelicals and Mormons exist. I might point out to readers that you also set forth these concerns and offered your justifications in depth on the Pen and Parchment threads with Paul Owen. It is very clear that you disagree with Blomberg, McDermott, Greg Johnson and others and disagree with their goals. It is unclear exactly how the Evangelical community will ultimately resolve this disagreement on methodology when it comes to Mormonism, or whether it will be resolved at all. Although I have seen some indications from persons like Greg Koukl, for example, who has hinted on one of his shows that he feels both methods should be used. There is a clear advantage of solidarity in not allowing this issue to create a division among Evangelicals, if unity is valuable, however given the various personalities involved and prior histories it is hard to say whether that holds any weight. In my observations, I don’t think advocates of the “less traditional” apologetic approach are particularly interested in fighting with other Evangelicals over who’s method is ultimately superior.
It largely comes down to one’s goals, which I notice are simply different. Methods fit goals. If your goal is to 1) inoculate the un-churched American population so that they do not join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and 2) to enable lay Evangelicals in the US to be able to do the same and refute Mormonism where they find it and never confer upon Mormons the status of “Christian” then it probably isn’t in your best interest to draw distinctions between what is binding and what is not binding. That is one of the points I raise in my post. It makes logical sense given your goals to take the stance that you take. On its face, it doesn’t advance your particular goals. Which is why I predict you will contine to keep your method and why you can do nothing else but resist any attempt by either Mormons or Evangelicals to do so. That is exactly what I am saying as your comments demonstrate.
I appreciate your comments as they might inform those readers who may not be exposed to these issues. As for me, and others familiar with Mormon-Evangelical apologetics “scene,” I’m quite familiar with your position and those who hold similar stances. It isn’t my position here to articulate Blomberg, McDermott, Owen, Greg Johnson, Hazen or Mouw’s position, noting that these individuals do not constitute a unified school of thought. They are all different concerns and have different backgrounds, and even differ in certain theological respects, but they all share one thing in common: They are looking for something else in their relations with Mormons, something that hasn’t been done before. Again, how Evangelicals ultimately sort this out, is anyone guess. I certainly don’t pretend to be an oracle in this matter.
As a caveat, and as a result of a close reading of the post, one could infer that were one to do a kind of Mormon-Evangelical matchmaking service, it wouldn’t make sense to match certain kinds of Evangelicals with certain kinds of Mormons. There are Mormons, surprisingly, who do not draw a hard distinction between binding and non-binding, and want to be bizarre and weird. An alliance with those Mormons would probably advance your cause. In addition, it wouldn’t make sense to match someone like a Paul Owen with a Mormon who has no sense of canon or who thinks speculation is just as good as revelation, or who holds on to any idea out of a sense of identity rather than theological concerns. (Although such ‘dates’ would no doubt produce lively discussion). That’s one of the things I’m driving at here. We have several dialogues going on, both inter-faith and intra-faith and they are sloppy and messy but inter-related and influence each other in sometimes unpredictable ways. I offer a framework by which to make sense of why groups advance their particular stance and why some groups react in ways we don’t expect. This is game theory meets religious market theory meets identity politics and cross-cultural communication and religious discourse.
Aquinas, you’re starting to sound like a disciple of Moreheadian rhetoric
This just sounds like marketing speech. Evangelism to and dialog with Mormons has been going on for quite some time, particularly at the lay level.
When I speak of Mormons who don’t share Millet’s more robust notion of what constitutes “official doctrine”, I’m not mere speaking of fringe Mormons “want to be bizarre and weird”. I’m talking about the rank-and-file Mormon who, on Sunday Mormon while hearing a lesson taught from the manual on Joseph Smith’s life and teachings, receive a teaching simply because their church’s curriculum promotes it as true and it fits within their larger Mormon worldview. The concept of whether it is “binding” often doesn’t even cross the mind for such people.
Given what I know about my Mormon friends and neighbors here in Utah, as well as what kind of correlated curriculum the LDS institution keeps churning out, it seems out of touch with reality to treat Mormons out-of-the-know with Millet’s brand of Mormonism as fringe Mormons who want to be “want to be bizarre and weird”. This is one of my big complaints about people who view Mormonism through the lense of BYU neo-orthodoxy: they end up getting a narrow view which doesn’t take into account the broader landscape of Mormonism, nor the institutional checks and balances that keep neo-orthodoxy (particularly on the topic of soteriological) from having larger effect.
It sounds like countercultists are being caricatured and stereotyped as merely concerned with inoculation, but in reality we are also deeply concerned with and involved in active, intentional evangelism. If you’d ever like to have a live-recorded Skype audio conversation, please join me.
Grace and peace in Christ, who only justifies the ungodly who stop trying to prove their worthiness and merit eternal life,
Aaron
I definitely take that as a compliment. As for statements which sound like PR, I don’t know if I can satisfy you. I’m simply making an observation of what I perceive to be going on.
It all depends on your point of view. When Frank Pastore brought Craig Hazen on his radio show to explain why he was allowing these dialogues to occur he asked Hazen, “Why this new methodology?” To which Hazen replied, “That’s, that’s the key, it’s not new!” In that context, Hazen was defending his approach as not being anything new (since Pastore was equating new with unnecessary), but Pastore really didn’t seem to buy it and asked why Hazen was using this “whole new methodology.” So from Pastore’s perspective, it was a new approach. New and old are relative to be sure.
Blomberg bid the thread at Pen and Parchment with these remarks:
Again, my statements are based on these and other observations. When I read his statements it seems to me that at least he perceives these forms of communication not to be happening, and surely How Wide The Divide was a project which was novel. And I get that sense from others too. You are fine to believe this is run of the mill communication which happens all the time. I’m just relating my observations. And I would rather leave it to these individuals to advocate their own views; they do a much better job of it than I.
Is there such a thing as “rank and file members”? I tend to think not. In addition, I am not in Utah and I do not know what Mormons are like in Utah. It is very possible that there are regional differences in these kinds of subcultures. So, I don’t deny your experience, but I can only say it hasn’t been my experience that there is “rank and file” in the Church or even in any organization. In addition, Millet didn’t invent this notion of “official doctrine” although his formulation has been influential in recent times. As I point out in my footnotes, J. Reuben Clark made some of these statements back in 1954. Of course, these things will always be chicken and the egg problems. Is Millet shaping Mormon views or is he simply stating what many Mormons already believe? You are free to choose the former.
As to why a Mormon chooses to believe something, I suppose from your perspective there is never really any good or justified reason for a Mormon to believe anything which corresponds to the Gospel as they know it. So I’m not sure what to say to that. I would just say that people hold beliefs for many reasons and I think this is true in most religions. In religions you will find some who grew up in that faith and believe it ‘just because’, some are in it just because it is what they do, or it is what their family does, or it is their culture. Some have made conscious decisions and study things out in their mind, some are truly and fervently committed and it is they take it as seriously as one can take salvation. Given a market theory of religion, many people “choose” a religion they are comfortable with and which match their pre-existing theological views. People do “shop” for religion. I don’t think it is always the case that beliefs are caused by church instruction. In many cases people choose churches because it aligns with their beliefs.
I would also say that the idea of “binding” doctrine is an actual concept, it wasn’t invented by Millet. Whether a particular Mormon parses ideas as “binding” in their mind at any given point, I can not divine. But I think someone who is doing an ethnographic or sociological study of Mormonism would ignore at their peril the concept of authority and the concept of members accepting revelation or doctrine as “binding” in the structure and process. On the Pen and Parchment thread, Paul Owen brought up the process within the LDS Church of ‘ratification’ of doctrine in General Conference. I know Bowman thought this anachronistic. But even if it is anachronistic, that still means it is a real concept. But this really isn’t the point. The problem is that critics see these statements as arguments trying to prevent them from criticizing certain notions. Looking at this functionally, there is naturally going to be resistance to it, because they want to criticize these notions. In other words this concept plays the function of prohibiting you from criticizing doctrine. And if someone tells you can’t use this because it isn’t binding, there is going to be resistance. Again, this is one of the points of my post. I’m simply describing the rules of the game, which will explain how you are going to play it. As long as you perceive this as a means to stop you from your goal, no explanation of “binding” or “official doctrine” is going to be persuasive to you. But others who have different goals, whether Mormon or Evangelical, don’t share this perception.
Lastly, no one likes to be caricaturized. So, if I misrepresent counter-cultists, well I hope to get it right. Likewise, however, I hope the gesture goes both ways. We should all attempt to get it right and hopefully that is based on feedback from those we are describing.
Open dialog is in principle not new. What’s new is that it is happening more between evangelical and Mormon academics, using academic protocol for irenicism. Again, that’s fine, but the problem is when the academic community wants their own standards so strongly projected onto other spheres of life and community and interpersonal relationships, which happen to warrant a far wider range of emotions and passions and content and methods of communications.
When I speak of “rank and file” Mormons I simply mean “ordinary” and “common”. Yes, there is diversity, but for all the hegemony in Utah-Mormonism (which my Mormon friends will readily admit exists!) it is incorrect to say that generalizations can’t be made.
Mormonism is a religion that boasts of its extra-canonical authority and continuing revelation, so the idea that Mormonism has a form of sola scriptura is a stretch. There have always been regulating and innovating forces oscillating. But these are ebbing and flowing currents, not strict standards that the Mormon institution has always abided by. Again, institutions should, with integrity, take responsibility for the kinds of currents that it allows (at the very least by acquiescence) to perpetuate. Hypothetically, this criticize-only-what-is-canonically-binding narrow minimalism gives Mormonism the freedom to promote, encourage, and disseminate doctrines in official, correlated curriculum, and official events like General Conference, and yet be immune to any criticism over the teachings in question if the they are not found in a historical-grammatical reading of the canon. That’s simply not being faithful to the biblical call to discernment and love.
On a side note, I find it odd that often those who claim that criticism of Mormonism should be strictly limited to its canon often ignore how the Mormon leadership has historically and traditionally interpreted passages in question (great example: 2 Nephi 25:23). But the Mormon leadership have traditionally made it clear: doctrinal and scriptural interpretation is the province of the highest of priesthood authority holders. Thus, this narrow minamalism fails to take into consideration perhaps one of the most central tenets of Mormonism: the priesthood authority structure.
It seems you need to flesh out the concept of “binding” doctrine, because I’ve talked to plenty of Mormons who accept a teaching as “authoritative” but not “binding”. Are you equating the two? Mormons have ascribed layers and degrees of meaning to “doctrine”, “speculation”, “scripture”, “revelation”, “binding”, etc. The rabbit hole goes really deep, I’d hate to oversimplify the mess by the magical word “binding”. It’s not a panacea.
Sure, there is a concept of ratification at General Conference, but the vote at General Conference is more ceremonial than substantive. In any case, the breadth of what interpretive and theological traditional the LDS institution has allowed to be perpetuated and even fostered expands far beyond what is given consensus at General Conference (see a related Mormon blog post here).
Lastly, I don’t find it very loving or caring to limit an interpersonal doctrinal discussion with a neighbor to what is binding. If my Mormon neighbor believes that God was potentially a sinner or that Heavenly Father needed a wife to become a god, then those beliefs should be interacted with whether or not he or she believes they are “binding”. Such beliefs flow from the heart, and a loving evangelistic encounter, among other things, seeks to engage the individual as they really are, not merely through the abstract lens of what is considered “binding”.
Feel free to Skype me at “aaronshaf”, as it’d be easier to flesh these issues out in a audible conversation.
I think there is a very interesting question raised.
The question is, what is a justified view of Mormonism from the outside. There is no question that the Mormon church has changed. Arguably there have been quite abrupt changes throughout its history. Recently there has definitely been a move toward an orthodoxy of sorts. And that orthodoxy has been quite narrowed, partly to accommodate a host of opposing views within the church and among its leaders. A very fascinating example of this can be seen in the story of B.H. Roberts and his theological Treatise, “The Truth, the Way, and the Life” where two radically opposing theological views regarding creation were discussed and ultimately moderated by the highest leadership of the church. The trend since that time (1933) was for the church to hold an “officially” agnostic position on “non-core” matters while allowing a wide range of speculation among the leaders and the members. Mormonism’s answer to the problem solved by creedal orthodoxy is to simply avoid too much discussion in church of positions where faithful members may disagree and focus on those that can and should be universally acknowledged. The solution is somewhat elegant in that it allows for a wide range of views on “non official” positions without having to push people aside as heretics while it allows the church to present a “united front” to the world it is attempting to convert. The church does not push the “official doctrine” down onto its members over other “non official Doctrines” directly but it does try to check teachings within church meetings that fall too outside of the scope of the “official” message.
The internal reaction to this from some of those in the church who believe the “non official” doctrines to be correct as a sort of passive aggressive silencing of alternative views. By simply quieting “non official” positions by excluding them from official church publications the Church simply leaves them out. However, as any perusal of blogged opinions of members can show you, there is a great range of divergent doctrinal views expressed outside of the chapel doors. The resistance to the neo-orthodoxy should not necessarily be seen as a reactionary position by members who want to remain distinct from Non-Mormon Christianity but probably more accurately part of an ongoing struggle between differing brands of doctrine and the ability to express the doctrine that one believes openly in church. Mormonism has a tradition of unorthodox speculation and elaboration of the new doctrines of Joseph Smith as well as ongoing revelations and some of the faithful feel alienated and sometimes betrayed.
I think you rightly point out that Anti-Mormons don’t like this and see it. To Aaron it seems to be an “apologetic weasel”; but I think that is seeing things too much from their own perspective and as a reaction to their own agenda. The Mormon Scriptures and statements of Joseph Smith are replete with commands to “speak nothing but repentance to this generation” and to focus on the testimony of Jesus and the principles and to “leave the mysteries alone”. This is a very established line of thought and reasoning that has become more institutionalized as the Church as multiplied in size over the past 20 years. (Albeit at the expense of the concept of a more open theology that is also comes from Joseph Smith). In order to maintain doctrinal and institutional consistency over a large church, it was a natural step to correlate the party line.
Because the church has generally abandoned some of the doctrines that diverged most from their brand of Christianity, Anti-Mormons are frustrated and see this as a sign that the church is denying its “true” self in order to look more “Christian”.
I think there is another way to look at it. One very strong undercurrent of and even foundation of Mormonism is the concept of personal revelation and testimony. Mormons generally always point to their own personal testimony as the real foundation of their faith. One way to see the trend toward neo-orthodoxy is as sort of quasi-democratic tempering of doctrines of previous church leaders. Aaron points out that the average Mormon who is not “in the know” may not have any idea of what Joseph Smith said about blood atonement. But ultimately you could say that it is very “Mormon” of him not to care too much if he doesn’t believe it, since he is essentially only expected to believe what the Spirit confirms to him as truth. Mormons expect change since they believe the Spirit is continually speaking to the church. They expect new revelations and are prepared to abandon past teachings when definitive answers come as revelation. Mormons believe that Prophets can say whatever they want (there is no angel on their shoulder waiting to gag them when they speak falsely), and their statements may only be corrected over time. A “true” understanding of the Mormon theological project must take into account the primacy of personal revelation in the church to temper the “revelations” of the leadership. Anti-Mormons who focus on the “top-down” revelation from the leaders without recognizing the “bottom up” revelational influence from the members really fail to see the church as it is.
What does this mean for inter-faith dialogue. The Anti-Mormon agenda with regard to doctrine has always to been to marginalize the new doctrines of Joseph as unbiblical and bizarre. Often making them look as bizarre as possible to dissuade people from even entertaining them. This is, of course, a red herring. Nearly any religious doctrine can be made to look bizarre when it has not been established as “acceptable”. The Doctrine of the Trinity, and dozens of others are prime examples. They can be made to look extra-biblical, counter intuitive and essentially arbitrary interpretations of a limited number of biblical passages. (To a Muslim the doctrine of the Trinity may appear to simply be a way to “weasel” out of polytheism.) This “scare them away” approach fails because it is not really honest and does not meet the Mormon Challenge on its own ground, i.e. at the level of the spiritual experience of the members. Mormons know they are Christians and converts to Mormonism find this out because they have Christian religious experiences that are often very comparable to those they may have had in non-Mormon churches.
What is the “right” approach. The right approach from the perspective of a life-long Mormon, is an appeal to the true common ground, i.e. that God testifies to the truth through his Spirit. If some doctrines of Mormonism are false, Mormons believe that they can receive answers to their prayers regarding differing doctrinal positions (that is how the church started after all). Mormonism and other brands of Christianity will naturally become closer together by this process because as people sincerely appeal to God in the name of Jesus for answers the Lord will make his people more one. (i.e. if there is any truth at all to the Gospel).
What does this take, I think Aquinas hits the nail on the head when he points out the essential hindrance that identity plays in this process. We identify with the institutional churches that we attend, we chose or were born into. The hard road of humility for everyone is to be willing to sacrifice our social identifications for the sake of Truth. However, I think that it should be very clear that attachment identity is more primal than people’s fear of hellfire. ( I just saw the movie Black Robe, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Robe) which dealt with this issue in a very interesting way). By giving up certain doctrines I may not be able to consider myself a Mormon anymore, which would require a shift in identity. Mormons who grew up in the church may feel this identity stronger than converts, but we are now a minority of the membership. The Anti-Mormon move to refuse the label of “Christian” to Mormons also manipulates identity by implying that you will be kicked out of an identity group by joining the Mormons (not to mention go to hell).
So, what kind of discussion should we have regarding doctrine. I would suggest that the Bible gives some critical examples. The Christianity of Acts required a radical shift of identity as it moved away from some critical prohibitions of Judaism. For a Jew to become an active Christian they had to downplay their attachment to a particular interpretation of the scriptures (such as prohibitions on eating with Gentiles). They had to put their identification with a certain group below their attachment to the new truth they heard from the Apostles.
The paradigm of interfaith discussion could also be the disguised Jesus’ discussion with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Jesus taught from the scriptures regarding himself which caused their hearts to burn, clearing up a confusion regarding the interpretation of messianic prophesy) Attempting to “correct” a Mormon in this manner (or correctly teach anyone in this manner) would be an approach that the “rank and file” Mormon could buy into.
Such an approach would build on solid common ground. Both Mormons and non-Mormons Christians believe the fundamental prophecy that “every knee will bow and every tongue will confess” that Jesus is the Christ. I think that most non-Mormons would agree in principle with the prophecy in the first section of the Mormon Doctrine & Covenants. ” The voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape, and there is no eye that shall not see. . . neither heart that shall not be penetrated.”
Jared, I really like your comments and insights. You’ve made several points and I can only comment on a few of them. I appreciate your example with B.H. Roberts. There is also another example I have in mind discussed by Gregory Prince, author of “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,” regarding a issue with Sterling McMurrin where some individuals felt his views were so unorthodox that he should not be in the Church. Pres. McKay got wind of this and asked McMurrin to meet with him. He asked him a series of rhetorical questions such as “What is it that a man must believe to be a member of the church? Or what is it that a man is not allowed to believe to stay a member of the Church?” Prince relates that when Pres. McKay made his intentions known to defend McMurrin’s membership, the issue went away. Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with how others would view Mormons. It is an internal issue. Prince also discussed Joseph Fielding Smith who had strong anti-evolutionist leanings and published a book on the matter, and how Pres. McKay protected Smith’s freedom to hold these beliefs as long as they were not advanced as church doctrine. To me, this shows that there is a wide tolerance for various views within the membership and people have the freedom to believe what they wish. It only becomes an issue if someone wants to advance their views as official Church doctrine. In the case of Bruce R. McConkie, there was a question in church leadership on the appropriateness of a member of the Seventy publishing a book to the world called “Mormon Doctrine” without assignment or supervision from those who have the responsibility to speak for the Church on doctrine. Yet, despite misgivings by Church leadership at the time on several portions of the book, the book was published, republished, and McConkie was never publicly rebuked. It is in the Church’s or any religious institution’s interest to maintain the integrity of their doctrinal instruction. Again, all of this is happening internally and no one is saying “Hmm, well, let’s invent the concept of ‘official doctrine’ so that we can shield ourselves from criticism.” I do feel this is not something unique with Pres. McKay but part of the Mormon tradition. Notice Joseph Smith’s critique on creeds. “I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.” He doesn’t like the idea of a creed stopping someone from holding a belief if they desire. It is clear to me that the mechanism to regulate doctrine in Mormonism is not to tell people what they can’t believe personally. Prince makes an argument in the case of Pres. McKay that much of this arises out of a regard for agency, and I think Price is right.
Now again, none of this will be meaningful for those who only see ‘officialism’ as a tool to parry criticism. However, for those who desire to understand the role of authority and the nature of instruction in the Church, I think these are extremely important elements. It is also important for those who are interested in comparing mechanisms for maintaining teachings in different faith. If one compared Catholicism, Mormonism and Evangelicalism, one will find they all have means to regulate instruction and doctrine, but that the method and structure will be different. Jared you are also right on the money when you say that protection against teaching speculation isn’t something new but rather is a long-standing position of the Church.
I want to stress that if you took Evangelical apologists and counter-cult apologists out of the equation, if there was a hypothetical world where they didn’t exist, Mormonism would still have this concept and Mormons would still have this internal issue of what teachings are authoritative. This isn’t a concept which was invented as a shield for criticism. It has an internal logic and purpose completely unrelated to forces which may come from other religions. Yes, Mormonism has an expanded canon and continuing revelation. Part of the problem is assuming that if the LDS Church doesn’t use typical means of regulating doctrine such as creeds or doctrines of sola scriptura that “anything goes.” Any system of religion which includes dogma is going to have some sort of mechanism to maintain or regulate dogma, but that doesn’t mean all religion will use the same means. While Mormonism may not employ mechanisms of creeds or sola scriptura, there are still means of defining what is authoritative.
Aaron, you seem to be unwilling to accept that Mormonism has any other concerns with people teaching outside of what is authoritative and official, other than trying to limit outside criticism, and you are entitled to that opinion. However, in my view, this isn’t the primary concern. But again, it’s probably your experience given what you do.
Jared, you make an interesting point and suggest that personal revelation has a role of “tempering” the “revelations” of the leadership. I would add that that Church leadership plays an important role in “tempering” the “personal revelations” of individuals in the Church. I sometimes get the sense that some Mormons online tend to argue their views by saying they have received some sort of confirmation as to the truth of their individual views. However, there is more than a dichotomy between public revelation and personal revelation. On top of this there is the concept of stewardship or to borrow legal language, jurisdiction. As J. Reuben Clark, himself a lawyer, pointed out: “[O]nly the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church.” Some Catholics have asked how Mormons can believe both in personal revelation and scripture. “Wouldn’t it just lead to confusion with everyone advancing their own views?” After I explain that one is only to receive revelation for that over which they have stewardship, they said, “I see. Well, that’s not much different from how we [Catholics] do it.” Often I feel some Mormons have abandoned the notion of stewardship and believe their speculative ventures allow them the right to legitimately claim new truths and revelation. That may be so; however it ceases to become legitimate once this same individual tries to force their new found knowledge onto others as binding and authoritative church doctrine. I want to stress these are internal dynamics which would occur regardless of outside criticism. Thanks again for your comments.
Your point on stewardship is well taken and is right in line with Mormon Doctrine from the very beginning. It sounds like you have a very good handle on Mormon history. There are dozens of early examples of the development of doctrinal debate with the church, including the numerous Orson Pratt v. Brigham Young conflicts over doctrines.
I am advancing a theory that is slightly outside of the paradigm of stewardship (an “unofficial” speculation if you will). The idea that personal revelation tempers how the leadership define what is “official” is not explicit in Mormon teaching but may be involved in the newer phenomena of Neo-Orthodoxy. Let me lay out what I mean a bit clearer, as most of the church consists of converts, as Aaron points out, the rank and file are not familiar at all with doctrines taught by earlier church leaders, they listen to and believe what is being taught today. Their own conception of Mormonism has nothing to do with blood atonement and the Adam-God theory or the numerous speculations about what “Men are as God once was, God is as man may become” means in practice (this doctrine can be explained entirely from biblical sources). They ratify the current teachings of the church through activity and practice and generally go to the scriptural canon to answer doctrinal questions. They are open to new revelation but the church is very careful regarding what it attaches its name to. They institutional church is generally tolerant of all kinds of speculation but imposes just a narrow slice of dogma on its members, even when it comes to interpretations of scripture. I believe the neo-Orthodox teachings that the church leadership considers binding is limited by what the church generally believes. The Church leadership in principle and in practice does not want doctrines to be a stumbling block to someone joining the church unless there is a consensus belief that the doctrine is truly revealed rather than speculation. This would explain a trend toward “mainstreaming” as well as limiting LDS “official doctrine” that comes from the common denominator what people generally accept rather than from scriptural interpretations that come from the top. The fact that the membership never generally accepted Brigham Young’s Adam God theory as well as some of Joseph’s Smith’s doctrinal teachings I think best explains why they did not remain as core doctrines today.
The question of “institutional integrity” to take ownership and responsibility for extra-canonical speculations of church leaders that Aaron brings up seems to be another red herring. If you are going to criticize the Mormon Church then criticize it for what it believes and holds sacred now, not what some leaders said previously and few of the members believe. The bottom line is that you can completely disbelieve and repudiate these doctrines in private (or love and accept them) and still be a Mormon in good standing. Its a bit like criticizing Catholics and Protestant Christians for the crusades, rampant antisemitism, religious jihad during the reformation, defense of slavery, etc. These doctrines were once taught from both Catholic and Protestant pulpits. However it would less than honest to insinuate that leaders of contemporary Christian churches secretly hold these doctrines to be the truth or that these doctrines are what the church currently stands by, despite any appearance to the contrary. Anti-Mormons use this tactic all of the time with regard to the LDS church and Anti-theists use it in a similar form when attacking Christianity.
I understand the Evangelicals’ motivation for using all the ammunition you can gather to evangelize someone away from a faith that they have decided is heresy. The ends may appear to justify the means, if a small distortion saves them from hellfire then that distortion can’t be too bad. However if you are seeking for rigorous, reasoned criticism of the LDS Church on biblical grounds, the most effective and honest place to focus would be to explain the heresy of the “core” doctrines as they are taught and understood by Mormons. As Aquinas said, there is certainly enough there: i.e. “a corporeal God the Father, pre-mortal life, eternality of element and spirit, rejection of creatio ex nihilo, proxy baptism on behalf of those who have died, the role of the temple, and the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith.”
I just spent the past 72 hours talking to Mormons in my living room and in downtown Salt Lake City. I was told, over and over and over again… that God the Father at least potentially or even probably sinned in a past mortal probation. I engaged them primarily for who they were as individuals, working off what they said they believed, and working off how they related themselves to their larger institution. Engaging people like this through an impersonal, distorting, abstract lens of what a few define as “binding” wouldn’t have been edifying or constructive.
Again, you’re putting me into a box and you’re putting words into my mouth. Mormonism has a package of concerns. As I said in summary, “There have always been regulating and innovating forces oscillating.”
I’ve offered to have a live audio conversation. We can either do it over Skype or I can call a land line (e-mail me if you’re interested). For now it seems like in order to advance your own agenda you are sticking with a distorted view of both the countercult community and Utah-Mormonism.
Take care,
Aaron
Aaron, I appreciate your continued interest. I’m glad you engage people at an individual level. I also believe individualized dialogue is beneficial and inter-faith dialogue is not a dialogue between two faiths in the abstract, but a dialogue between two individuals who come from a particular faith perspective.
You report that these Mormons related to you their beliefs in terms of “potentially” or “probably.” Were I to engage these Mormons I might, I’m not saying I would, but I might depending on the circumstances ask, “Why do you say potentially or probably and not definitely or absolutely? Let’s talk about that.” People hold beliefs within a spectrum of certainty. If I asked them, “Do you believe this with the same degree of certainty that you believe God lives?” If they said yes, then I might know that they hold these beliefs with the same passion and certainty. That would tell me something addition about their beliefs. However, if they said, “Well, no, I mean, this is possible mind you, but I wouldn’t say I’m just as certain of this as I am that Jesus is the Messiah,” then I would have learned more about the intensity and certainty of their beliefs. I might also follow up on that. Again, that is if I wanted to know about this, if I wanted more data as to the quality of those beliefs.
If you find the notion that God the Father was a sinner to be abhorrent and contradictory to the scriptures, I would say that it is my experience that there are many Mormons who also find this notion abhorrent, unscriptural, and who do not believe it. Perhaps they would even join you in attempting to persuade others of the problems with that view. Now, that’s my experience. I didn’t have your experience in Salt Lake. That is why I say, I don’t refute your experience. It would be futile and meaningless for me to do so. However, part of dialogue is that people can come together and share their different experiences and perspectives.
I have listed some thoughts related to the subject of traditional Lorenzo Snow couplet theology here.
All faith traditions have a disconnect between what their disciplined scholars believe and what their lay membership believes. This isn’t any particularly big secret. Christian scholars regularly lament “rampant heresies” they encounter among the lay membership. Anyone who has been irritated by a sappy faith-related email chain letter knows there’s a difference between the scholar’s religion and the popular religion.
The question is, which one do you engage when conducting interfaith dialogue?
Personally, I’m fine with engaging either – as long as the debator makes it clear which group is being engaged. So when Aaron says he doesn’t care about what Millet and Robinson say and is more concerned with what his next door neighbors in Utah think, that’s fine by me. Being an in-the-trenches ministry, that’s probably a fairly reasonable stance to take.
However, if that’s what you are going to do, you need to be clear about what you are and what you are not addressing in ALL situations.
For instance, suppose a Utah-based evangelical missionary encounters a practicing Mormon couple who are convinced that God once served in a capacity as “a Holy Ghost” for another godhead, then He got promoted to serving as a “savior figure” in a subsequent godhead, and then He became “God the Father as we know Him today and they believe all human beings will go through a similar process of promotion.
Now, I don’t think any of us will object to the said evangelical missionary attempting to show, by the Bible, that this is a heresy against “true Christianity” as the missionary sees it, and should be abandoned. So far so good.
But now, supposing the missionary is reasonably familiar with Mormon doctrine, is he required to point out to the Mormon couple that their views are at odds with current accepted LDS orthodoxy, or at the very least, unsupported by the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture? Is he required to point out that this particular view of God is not shared by current LDS leadership?
I’d say no. It’s not the missionary’s job to enforce Mormon orthodoxy for the LDS Church.
But now, suppose the missionary goes on to claim that what the Mormon couple thinks IS Mormon doctrine? After all, LDS leaders have never decisively refuted it. Some Mormon scriptures could POSSIBLY support it. And then there are a few obscure and mostly forgotten statements from past LDS leaders that seem to argue for it. And those statements have never been officially refuted…
Can the missionary claim this view as doctrinal? Can he then hold a seminar for evangelical youth on Mormon heresies and claim this as a part of “what Mormonism teaches”?
Or does he need to make it clear that this is merely “what some of the Mormons you’ll encounter” think? Does he need to point out that this is not an official view and one does not need to believe this particular heresy in order to be a Mormon?
You see, the problem is not when you decide to devote yourself to a particular audience. The problem is when you are primarily concerned with a limited audience, and yet try pull a fast one and claim your target demographic is representative of more than it really is – even when you know it isn’t.
I don’t care if an evangelical ministry wants to lament popularly held Mormon views. But I find it either careless or dishonest (take your pick) when they try to equate the popular with the actual religion. If you are opposing “popular Mormonism” you had better make it quite clear that this is what you are doing.
Aaron,
As I understand your position, Mormons “generally” believe some radical and heretical ideas that are worthy of rooting out and bringing to light. From my understanding that position is only partially true. The current institutional church tolerates all of these beliefs, and that may be objectionable enough, but does not endorse them or require them. By not having a creed on these matters, the church leaves it open for speculation but prohibits any particular view from “winning” until it is endorsed as revelation to the entire church.
An accurate attack by Counter-cultists would be that Mormonism allows and breeds heretical doctrine by not following and sticking to creeds and the truth they contain. But it would be inaccurate to say that the Church itself generally endorses or follows any particular doctrine that is not acknowledged as “official” or from the canon. There are many Mormons whose conception of God is very close to that generally held by Protestants, and are fully supported by the Mormon canon and leadership. Thus, the “Mormons don’t have the same Jesus or God as us” seems to distort this fact and argument ignores this spectrum of belief. The first Articles of Faith, which has been canonized leaves a lot of room for speculation and interpretation and I think you will find all flavors within the church, especially on esoteric issues of theology.
The general problem, I see with the Counter-Cult methodology is that they make “generalizations” without knowing what most Mormons really believe by focusing on the most “radical” doctrines. (I don’t think there is much good data on what the average Mormons really believes.) This is an impediment to true dialogue and mutual understanding, but it strikes me that is not part of the axe they are grinding.
I simply have a broader view of institutional responsibility and accountability. I don’t think the Mormon church has the moral freedom to promote heresy from the General Conference pulpit, influencing the worldviews of millions, but then hide behind some conceptual framework of what is supposedly “official” doctrine. For me to take the aforementioned abstractions more seriously, I would have to see compelling evidence that the membership more actively and generally uses them. Until then I will be reading things like the recent Joseph Smith manual (which although not part of the standard works, is considered “official” at a lay level), considering how they are received using traditional and general Mormon interpretative frameworks, and then holistically considering my accumulative experience with Latter-day Saints.
If I simply looked at the Mormon canon to discern what the Mormon institution endorsed, I would conclude Mormons are Trinitarian, modalistic, and tritheistic all at the same time. If it was the 1800’s I could include the binitarianism of the Lectures on/of Faith. It would be unloving and misrepresentative to form assumptions of what Mormons believe based on a historical-grammatical reading of their canon. Why? Because they are neither Trinitarian or modalistic (or binitarian for that matter). Their canon must be understood within what is considered to be a more important interpretative framework promoted both by the words of the highest priesthood authority leaders, as well as by the oral traditions that persist. Not holistically approaching either institutional Mormonism or general Mormonism-of-the-people is naive and impersonal.
As for whether we only focus on “fringe” and “radical” teachings/beliefs, I’d encourage you to consider one of our most popular topics, the issue of repentance and whether it necessitates successful abandonment of sin before forgiveness can be granted. These ideas are not simply pie-in-the-sky speculations of a few weird Mormons that countercultists like to turn into caricatures or icons. No, these are ideas held by Mormons that are expressed on a daily basis to us by Mormons we encounter.
Please consider contacting me over Skype at “aaronshaf”, as I don’t often get to frequent blogs for replies. A 30-minute audible dialog can often bring more clarity to something than a two-month blog conversation. I remain convinced that many people are ironically operating off an uninformed caricature of the contemporary countercult community.
Take care,
Aaron