I listened to his address while doing the final edits of my response to the recent article by Richard J. Mouw, where in he called for Christian hospitality.  As I listened to Prof. Lane I began to be surprised at his message, for two reasons.  First, he drew upon many of the same quotations from Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders that represent a tolerant tradition that is often not discussed.  Secondly because of two paragraphs that spoke openly and bluntly about our discourse about those not of our faith.

Let us as Latter-day Saints reach out to others not of our faith. Let us never act in a spirit of arrogance or with a holier-than-thou attitude. Rather, may we show love and respect and helpfulness toward them. We are greatly misunderstood, and I fear that much of it is of our own making. We can be more tolerant, more neighborly, more friendly, more of an example than we have been in the past. Let us teach our children to treat others with friendship, respect, love, and admiration. That will yield a far better result than will an attitude of egotism and arrogance. (Gordon B. Hinckley, “A Time of New Beginnings,” Ensign, May 2000, 87)

Professor Lane then explained:

Note that we are being asked not merely to settle with being tolerant, but to be affirmative and grateful. We are to be positive and confirming, expressing love and showing genuine gratitude for all that is good in the teachings, practices and lives of our friends of other faiths.

Unfortunately, I’m afraid we do not always do this, even at the basic level of tolerance and respect. Having listened many years to comments made in our meetings, our classes, our informal conversations, I know we can do much better. My experience has been that much that we say is either wrong and does not truly represent what others believe, or that the tone and spirit of what we say often borders on mockery, condescension, or contention.

Please remember that we do not make the gospel any truer or more persuasive by denigrating the beliefs or practices of others. We do not make the Church any more Divine by mocking other religions or by making them seem stupid. We do not make ourselves into better saints by pointing out the bad behavior of some of those of other religions (behavior that the teachings and devout followers of those religions would probably condemn as well).

I truly am convinced that an attitude of tolerance, respect, appreciation, and love towards those of other faiths is the one the Lord would have us adopt. It will help us live and do His work in His way.

Rarely have I heard anyone honestly and clearly articulate what I too have often witnessed.  In our meetings and classes, I too have heard things spoken about the faiths of others that have often been inaccurate, and displayed a lack of understanding.  It is clear that Latter-day Saints need to learn more about the faith of others, especially if we are to avoid doing that which we often accuse others of doing to us—misrepresenting our faith.  What we say about others, especially when we think no one else is listening, tells us much about our faith.  I appreciate Prof. Lane’s talk and I agree that we can and must do better.

I’m reminded of Craig Blomberg’s talk a few years ago where he stated:

You don’t have to agree with the theology.  Be polite!  If we can’t show Christian love we have no right to talk to them about anything.

I’m encouraged as I come across both Evangelical and Latter-day Saints who recognize that we face challenges and who continually speak to their respective communities with a message of greater understanding and hospitality.

Watch the video.  Read the transcript.

I remember some of my first attempts years ago in discussing the need to learn about other faiths.  It wasn’t easy to make the case for learning about other faiths.  One Christian youth responded to me by saying: “What is the point of learning about the beliefs of others if they are false?”  It isn’t always clear the best way to respond to this inquiry.

Spiritual Hospitality

Mouw begins by saying that “meaningful exposure” to other religions can deepen our religious convictions.  I believe Mouw frames the issue by employing the concept of “hospitality” that is, we make room for people to occupy our hearts and minds.  As with any form of hospitality, there is a risk and vulnerability involved.  Yet, Mouw makes the case for Christian hospitality by pointing out that Jesus often showed hospitality to those “whose lifestyle and ideas he strongly opposed.”

We are not alone however, for we should invite God into our hearts and minds, into our “inner places.”  He explains:

No spirituality of civility is adequate without self-critique—taking an honest look at our own motives and purposes. And this can only happen when we acknowledge that we desperately need God to reveal to us what is really going on in our inner being.

In this way, Mouw characterizes interreligious dialogue as a form of spiritual hospitality.

Beyond the Debate Between Dialogue and Evangelism

I was most particularly interested in Mouw’s thoughts on the polarization that happens among Evangelicals as to whether dialogue or evangelism is the proper Christian response.

We Christians seem to be fond of polarizations. This propensity shows up in discussions about our approach to other religions. Some Christians emphasize evangelizing strategies that are heavily weighted toward explicit convictedness: present the message of the gospel and invite people to become Christians. Other Christians rely heavily on civility: engage in polite dialogue with people from other religious communities in the hope of promoting mutual understanding and cooperation. The defenders of each of these approaches often don’t get along very well. The evangelizers accuse the dialoguers of sacrificing the gospel for religious relativism; they fear that the unique claims of Christianity will be bartered away in interreligious dialogue. The dialoguers respond by accusing the evangelizers of a religious imperialism that runs roughshod over the genuine insights that can be found in other religious traditions; they want to avoid a dogmatic spirit.

Do these two approaches need to be treated as an either/or choice? Is it possible to see evangelism and dialogue as complementary activities?

This paragraph greatly resonated with me, because I’ve had the same experience in my own discussions within the Mormon community.  Many Latter-day Saints have expressed to me a concern and fear that by dialoguing with Evangelicals, Mormonism may become watered down, and distinctive Mormon teachings would be compromised.  As an advocate for dialogue, I’ve found it challenging, even frustrating, to respond to this attitude.  I believe all too often Latter-day Saints fail to live up to their own article of faith to seek after “anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy.”  Indeed, as I have dialogued with my Catholic and Evangelical friends, and as I have read their writings, I have found much that is virtuous, lovely, of good report and praiseworthy.

Yet, I sympathize with the concern of my fellow colleagues.  I believe we are all trying to be true our own religious tradition.  We may disagree as to the particular articulation or emphases of our tradition, but I believe most of us are honestly trying to be true and faithful to our religious inheritance.

Dialogue and Evangelism Complementarity?

Mouw writes:

It is important, I think, to value both evangelism and dialogue without reducing the one to the other. The two activities have a complementary relationship.

Indeed, dialogue can be an important strategy for evangelism—a fact that’s been recognized by evangelicals who call for “relational evangelism.” In many situations, the best way to evangelize people is to establish strong bonding relationships with them: listening to them, identifying with their hopes and fears, gaining their trust. Then, when we do have the chance to talk with them about the gospel, they can accept our words as an expression of love for them. The empathic give-and-take of this approach is essentially dialogic in nature.

That is good and noble. But it’s important that all dialogue with persons of other religious groups not be merely a strategy for evangelism. We mustn’t set these relationships up in such a way that our efforts will be a failure if the relationships don’t develop into evangelistic opportunities.

I heartily agree.  From my perspective, I would rather have Evangelicals engaging in dialogue with Latter-day Saints even if it is a strategy for evangelism, because I believe in the course of such dialogue that people cannot help but learn more about each other and break down stereotypes.  I do appreciate Mouw adding that dialogue should not be considered merely a strategy.  Indeed, this has been one of my concerns with trying to make an argument for dialogue by saying dialogue is merely the handmaiden of evangelism (or missionary work), for I believe it is much more than this.

We are much better off recognizing and acknowledging that the Great Commission is an important part of both Evangelical and Mormon faith traditions.

Let them worship how, where, or what they may

While it may be easier to dialogue with those who are dialoguers rather than evangelizers, I believe Latter-day Saints should welcome and encourage a more dialogic engagement by Evangelicals and other Christians, even if motivated by desires for evangelism.

I believe we need to allow those not of our faith to be able to express their evangelical desires as they dialogue with us.  I believe that Latter-day Saints who demand that Evangelicals cease and desist all forms of evangelism towards them, essentially are denying others their right towards religious self-definition.

The 11th article of faith states:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

If the desire to engage in evangelism is how Evangelicals worship God, then Latter-day Saints should allow them that privilege.

The challenge of course is that some Mormons interpret evangelism by Evangelicals towards Mormons as something negative, as a reminder that Evangelicals consider Mormonism to be utterly defective as a religious system, not a legitimate expression of true and historic Christianity, and void of any salvific value.  I do not deny that many Evangelicals hold these views, and in many instances, the Mormon hesitancy is not unreasonable.  Indeed, many Evangelicals share this same hesitancy when approached by Latter-day Saints.

While spiritual hospitality entails risk and vulnerability, as Mouw points out, I believe we need a deeper humility as to what we can learn from others, and a confidence that as we allow God and others into our “inner space” that our faith commitments can be enhanced rather than weakened.

Sometimes, during these debates, Mormons try to finesse ‘works’ and explain that having faith is a work, or accepting a gift is a work.  In their mind, since both sides agree that we need faith and need to accept the gift, then this should resolve the debate.  The logic seems sound.  However, for reasons below, this kind of explanation confuses more than enlightens, and probably should be substituted for something better.

For Evangelicals, having faith or accepting Christ is seen as something outside the power of fallen man.  It isn’t something possible with an unregenerate heart (i.e. before being born again) and thus, it isn’t really man’s choice.  The Mormon who argues that accepting a free gift or having faith is a work tend not to understand this theological nuance.  In a strict form, man is totally depraved and therefore cannot even accept grace unless he is born again.  What the Latter-day Saint wants to get across is that man’s choices matter, they have significance, they are not irrelevant, and man’s choices must somehow factor into whether man is born again.

I suspect that the faith vs. works debate is really the manifestation of the larger and more important debate as to whether salvation is ultimately God’s choice or man’s choice. This is the real crux of the matter.

For many, salvation is entirely God’s choice and God’s choice alone; human decisions have no bearing on the matter.  Under this view, if a person desires to follow God, that desire was a gift given to her by God in the first instance.  On the other side, many see God as making the first move but then waiting for man to step forward and respond to God’s call in some way that cannot be performed by God. In this scenario, man’s decision must, at least at some core level, be his own choice, otherwise man’s existence has no purpose and eternal punishments and rewards for behavior for which we are not even responsible would be unjust.

Framing the issue as faith vs. works essentially masks this fundamental debate. I should point out that I’ve described the two positions as mutually exclusive, but in reality, I suspect that many people fluctuate between these two views depending on life challenges, because we probably identify with both positions in different times of our lives.  It’s in this space where dialogue and understanding can take place.

The way these positions are often understood (as either or) is probably flawed because it assumes man can neatly separate his choices independent from any divine influence. It isn’t clear, however, whether this is possible. Yet, I do feel that getting beyond the traditional faith vs. works framework and considering the issue of God’s choice vs. man’s choice, while not perfect, is a much improved framework by which to discuss these issues.

I was very pleased to be invited to attend the conference, but unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond my control, I found myself unable to attend.  I’ve had a long interest in interfaith dialogue and deeply regret not being able to attend and meet the many persons involved in what to me seemed like a singular event.  Hopefully, there will be more conferences of this kind in the future.

Fortunately, however, some individuals have shared their notes of the conference.  If you know of other write-ups, please let me know.

Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy Conference: Mormon Engagement with the World Religions by John W. Morehead at Morehead’s Musings, June 16, 2010

FID Conference (Day One) by Lynette at Zelophehad’s Daughters, June 17, 2010

FID Conference (Day Two) by Lynette at Zelophehad’s Daughters, July 10, 2010

Interreligious — not Irreligious — Diplomacy by Ralph Hancock at Times & Seasons, June 17, 2010

The purpose of interfaith dialogue is not so that in the end everyone will agree about everything they discuss. Rather, one of the purposes in my view is that where there is disagreement, the disagreement will be on the right things, where actual disagreement exists.  This can only happen when both sides are informed and both sides seek to understand one another.

At times, perhaps part of interfaith dialogue is allowing both sides to vent and express their frustration.  We should, however, also have the goal to move beyond venting, to move beyond expressing frustration about how we have been treated, to increasing mutual understanding.

On the Creeds

It is true that many Latter-day Saints say that they reject the historic Christian creeds. In fact, there are two main disagreements. The first is with the content of creeds, the second is with the function of creeds. As to the content, in reality there is very little in the creeds that Latter-day Saint must reject. Many of the creeds only make sense if understood in their historical context and once a person takes the time to learn the history the reason for the creeds become much less confusing. The only term in the Nicene Creed that most Latter-day Saints would feel they cannot accept is to say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is “one being.” Latter-day Saints reject this only because they feel it violates their understanding of the Father and the Son being two personages of flesh and bone. In the historic Christian conception, God is immaterial. As to the second disagreement, that creeds serve the function of determining who is included in the Christian polity, historically this has happened.

Creeds, Community, and History

Latter-day Saints, however, should at least acknowledge that most, if not all, religious communities have mechanisms to determine who is part of the community and who is not. Often doctrine is part of this determination. In addition, it is important for Latter-day Saints to realize that creeds also serve the function of preserving the historical understanding of the faith as it has developed in the history of the Church. To say that one accepts creeds is often to say that one accepts the historic understanding of the Christian faith. It is to say that one identifies oneself with the historic Christian Church. Here in lies one of the key points of miscommunication.

We’re Christian but not Christian.  Why can’t you understand?

On the one hand, many Latter-day Saints argue that they are “Christian” while simultaneously arguing that they are neither Catholic, Protestant nor Eastern Orthodox, that they reject the Christian creeds, and that their beliefs do not correspond to the doctrines as developed within the historic Christian tradition.  Latter-day Saints typically fail to sympathize with the difficulty others have at understanding this position.

On this point, further expressing frustration or disbelief at how any one can not understand this position does little to increase mutual understanding. Rather, we need to proceed with a genuine desire to increase understanding and to really try to see things from each others perspective. There are many who are not willing to do this.  Works like How Wide the Divide illustrate what is possible when people make a good faith attempt to understand another.

Note: This is a revised version of a comment posted December 28, 2008 at “The Mormon Trinity” Dave’s Mormon Inquiry.  See original post.

The event was held at the BYU Marriott Center, and reports estimate 12,000 in attendance.  Also in attendance were Elder M. Russell Ballard, Elder Quentin L. Cook, and Bishop John C. Wester of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City.

Cardinal George explained:

“I’m personally grateful that after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see one another as trustworthy partners in the defense of shared moral principles and in the promotion of the common good of our beloved country.”

“Our churches have different histories and systems of belief and practice, although we acknowledge a common reference point in the person and the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Cardinal: Catholics, Mormons must defend religious freedom together. Catholic News Service. February 23, 2010.

Cardinal George Addresses Religious Freedom in Speech at BYU. LDS Newsroom. February 23, 2010.

Cardinal tells BYU: We must work together for religious liberty. Salt Lake Tribune. February 23, 2010.

“Mormons, Catholics must defend religious freedom, Cardinal says.” Sara Israelsen-Hartley.  Deseret News. February 23, 2010.

“Cardinal George: Mormons, Catholics must defend religious liberty.” Catholic World News. February 24, 2010

Watch the address at byu.tv

“The thing that gives me hope is that there’s an attitude among Christians on the ground where so many of us are sick of the kind of debates and fights that cause Christians to vilify one another.”

Such is the manner that Brian D. McLaren explains why he believes “denominations” do not have to be a “source of division, it can be a source of mutual interest and understanding.”

McLaren was recently interviewed by Jim Trageser of the North County Times, a daily newspaper that serves residents of North San Diego and Southwest Riverside counties.  On February 12 and 13, he spoke at the 36th annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego at the First United Methodist Church in Mission Valley.

Mormons and McLaren

According to Trageser, “McLaren said even churches such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which many mainstream Christian denominations consider outside the Christian fold, should be welcomed.”  McLaren continued, “Mormons would not endorse the historic creeds of the Christian Church. But on the other hand, I’ve had Mormon folks contact me who’ve read my books, and I’ve found nothing but openness and curiosity about what I’m saying.”

Responding to those coming from an unchurched background

McLaren is founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church, a non-denomination church, began in 1986.  As a pastor, McLaren explained, most of the people who came to Cedar Ridge seeking truth were from an unchurched background, not from another denomination.  As a result, their questions were greatly different from those raised within a faith tradition.  This experience caused McLaren to ponder and reflect on his own faith.

“When people are coming to the faith from outside it, a lot of it just doesn’t make sense. The more I considered their questions, the more I questioned my own faith. It created a crisis of faith for me —- I had to take apart my own theology, scrutinize it and put it back together again.

“That struggle, as I sensed the growing gap between where people in churches are and people outside churches are —- that became the struggle that was expressed in my first book.”

He stepped down from pastor in 2004 to devote time to writing and speaking.  While McLaren remains a controversial figure among the Evangelical community, his message resonates greatly with a new generation of unchurched “spiritual seekers” that are considering what Christianity offers.  Read the whole article here.

Faith Under Fire

Years ago 2004-2005 there was an interesting television series called Faith Under Fire hosted by Lee Strobel broadcast on PAX-TV.  As one could expect from the title, the program pitted two people of faith against each other to debate their beliefs and of course do so as quickly as possible between commercial breaks.

Lee Strobel, author of the Case for Christ series and a former-atheist convert to Christianity, moderated the discussions.  The series was short lived after only two seasons, but had a range of personalities including Albert Mohler, Ergun Caner, Hugh Hewitt, John Shelby Spong, Greg Koukl, Deepak Chopra, Craig Haizen, Marianne Williamson, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas.  Even Robert Millet and Greg Johnson appeared on the program.

The Future of Faith

On one of the last episodes of season 2, Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra were guests and the show was titled “The Future of Faith” (4/30/2005).

Koukl hosts Stand to Reason, a Christian radio program, where he seeks to explain Christian belief from a rational perspective.  He has degrees in Christian Philosophy and Apologetics from Talbot School of Theology, Biola University and Simon Greenleaf University. Along with Francis Beckwith he coauthored “Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.” (Baker Books, 1998).

Chopra began his career as a a doctor of internal medicine and endocrinology. He taught at Boston University and Tufts University, before becoming Chief of Staff at the New England Memorial Hospital and at the Boston Regional Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. After becoming interested in Ayurvedic medicine he began to write books on healing and the mind-body connection.

Certainty vs. Uncertainty

It’s true that Koukl and Chopra from very different faith traditions, but they also come from radically different perspectives regarding the role of certainty and uncertainty. For Koukl certainty is everything and uncertainty leads to doubt, disarray and should be avoided, we should have an “active trust” and “confidence in our beliefs.” The most important thing is to get it right. For Chopra, certainty can be limiting and in some cases dangerous, while on the other hand uncertainty is to be embraced, we should be willing to “embrace the unknown.” Where do you fall?

For many American Evangelicals the topic of interfaith dialogue is confusing and suspect at best and downright dangerous or wrong at worst. On all accounts they face numerous challenges when considering if and how to enter into the realm of interfaith work.

So begins the inaugural issue of a new journal titled Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue.  The journal “seeks to create space for Evangelical scholars and practitioners to dialogue about the dynamics, challenges, practices and theology surrounding interfaith work, while remaining faithful to the gospel of Jesus and His mission for His Church.”

The inaugural issue (winter 2010) is provocatively titled “Mission and Dialogue?  Is it possible to be an Evangelical & engage in interfaith dialogue?”  Indeed, such questions sum up the main concern for many Evangelicals as they seek to come to terms with this thing called “dialogue.”

The issue contains a featured paper by Dr. Douglas McConnell, Dean of the School of Intercultural Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary.  Other contributors include Dr. Erin Dufault-Hunter, Professor of Ethics at Fuller Seminary, Dr. Martin Accad, Professor of Islamic Studies at Fuller Seminary, Carrie Graham, Pastor at Mosaic Church in Austin, Texas, and Cory Willson, Fuller Seminary Student.

Dr. Richard Mouw writes on the “The Importance of Dialoguing about Interfaith Dialogue.”

As we seek out ways of holding evangelism and dialogue together, of relating to others with conviction and civility, it is important that we talk amongst ourselves about how we go about this important task of bearing witness to Jesus in our words and actions.

The relationship between Mormons and Evangelicals surfaces in many parts in the journal not only in McConnell’s and Mouw’s experiences participating in venues such as the National Student Dialogue Conference, but also in Carrie Graham’s experiences with her Mormon friends.  I found her writing extremely insightful and her experience resonated with me.   “Through IFD,” she writes

I have been enabled to enter into other’s worlds, and have my perception of my own faith challenged and sharpened in ways that could not occur in other contexts. I have seen understanding and peace grow between unlikely friends. Perhaps most significantly, God has met me through IFD when “the other” has entered nto my world.”

I found Cory Willson’s article “Beyond Appreciate and Debate” very thought provoking.  Cory introduces readers to four main categories of interfaith dialogue as outlined by scholars: “proclamation, dialogue of life, dialogue of action, and dialogue among experts.”

The Journal contains beautiful photography by Matthew Krabill, editor and founding board member of the journal.  Matthew also participated in the National Student Dialogue Conference in 2007.  “Over the last couple of years,” Matthew writes on his blog

I have had the privilege of being involved in Evangelical-Mormon dialogue.  As a result of these experiences I have been pulled into conversations that have pushed the outer reaches of my own thinking regarding a various issues. Luckily I have had good friends to process my own thoughts, and questions with.  One of the ways we have decided to respond the rather messy topic of interfaith is to launch a journal where people can wrestle publicly on these issues.

This journal issue was a joy to read.  I was immediately pulled in by the topic and the complex experiences others have had with interfaith dialogue.  On the other hand, it will take awhile for me to digest some of the other messages.  Like Matthew, I too feel I’ve blessed with good friends who have helped me process my thoughts on these issues.  Latter-day Saints will benefit from these thoughtful Evangelical responses to the challenges presented by interfaith dialogue.

Further Links

Summary Reflections on National Student Dialogue Conference. Morehead’s Musings.  Monday, October 22, 2007.

Doug McConnell’s “Missional Principles and Guidelines for Interfaith Witness.” Morehead’s Musings.  Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Year 2009 in Review

While interfaith dialogue can be quite rewarding, online discussion forums can be a trap for the unwary.  Abraham Lincoln and Blogging was my attempt at suggesting that self-restraint in dialogue should not be forgotten.  In 2009, I discovered Premier Christian Radio, a London-based radio station, that broadcasts Unbelievable with Justin Brierley.  During the year, Unbelievable ran an American Masters of Christian Thinking series, including Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, and Gary Habermas.  Alvin Plantinga’s interview, touching on free will and the problem of evil, was superb.  Robert Millet and Greg Johnson also found themselves on Unbelievable, which often hosts debates between a Christian and a non-believer.  Brierley did an excellent job inquiring into the challenges of this exchange.

In March, I spotlighted Peter Kreeft, a well-known Catholic professor and prolific writer who often speaks on CS Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.  Fans of Middle Earth will enjoy “Christianity in the Lord of the Rings: Apologetics in Tolkien’s Classic.” In May, I highlighted an interview with another Evangelical theologian, Clark Pinnock.  Pinnock’s writings on Openness Theology are especially important to Latter-day Saints.

One of my favorite posts is Stephen Robinson and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  In the wake of How Wide the Divide, there has been a lot of confusion over this issue and I hope to have made a contribution to mutual understanding with my paper.

Perhaps the most discussed topic on my blog in 2009 was “Explaining a Calvinist Worldview to a Latter-day Saint” the interview between Aaron S, and Geoff J.

In August, taking break from introducing audio interviews, I wrote on the topic of Exploiting Self-Criticism in Interfaith Dialogue.  Religious communities engage in self-criticism.  What is the appropriate use of the self-criticism of others in an interfaith context?

“Mormonism and the Cross: Looking at the History” was another popular post this year.  Often we seek to define ourselves by pointing out how we are different from those of other faiths.  Yet, this can often be an unfortunate enterprise if we cut ourselves of from our own historical roots in the process.

In October, Christianity Today published “Most Improbable Dialogue” written by Richard N. Ostling.  Ostling provided an important, albeit skewed, overview to readers of Christianity Today concerning the Evangelical-Mormon dialogue.  I offered my critique of the article here.

Early November, Patheos ran an important series on interfaith dialogue.  This was one of these moments where a perfect storm of other demands made it impossible for me from participate and write on a topic I’m very passionate about. I lament that I wasn’t able to discuss these articles as much as I would have liked.

By far the most popular critique was concerning a triad of posts written by Evangelicals on the question “How Should Evangelicals Approach Mormon Missionaries?” Read three approaches to this important and ever-occurring question.

Overall, while posts were few, 2009 was an interesting year for interfaith dialogue.  My hope was to introduce influential thinkers relevant to Evangelicals, Latter-day Saints, and Catholics; discuss challenges and problems inherent in interfaith dialogue, and highlight some of those making efforts at enhancing mutual understanding.

I sincerely thank all who participated in these discussions and also those who lurked in the background.

Of particular note is F. Rachel Magdalene, University of Leipzig and Humboldt University Berlin, who is  presenting Retributive or Restorative Justice: Reading the Nature of God, Justice, and Humanity in the Book of Job on Monday (November 23):

The traditional understanding of the transaction between Yahweh and the Satan in the prologue to the book of Job is that this constitutes a test of Job’s faith, one which the Satan initiates but Yahweh allows as the Satan’s superior. This understanding supports the omnipotence of Yahweh, but raises several other theological questions, as well as a number of literary and legal ones. For instance, this view may well challenge both Yahweh’s omniscience and his omnibeneficience. Moreover, this reading does not readily account for the presence of the dialogues, the plethora of legal metaphors throughout the book, and the distinct nature of the Elihu speeches. This paper will argue that the Satan brings a formal legal charge against Job in the Divine Council with which Yahweh must deal juridically in order to maintain his position as the creator and maintainer of cosmic justice. God does not impose the suffering on Job nor agree with its usefulness. This is the Satan’s claim, and, once it is proven incorrect, Job’s fortunes are reinstated in a manner that does not support the idea of retributive justice, but rather God’s restorative justice. The paper concludes that a reading of the book of Job that is sensitive to the legal materials of the book reveals that the book may well represent a far different theology and theological anthropology than has previously been thought. It may, in fact, disclose a profound divine trust in humanity that foreshadows the atoning work of Christ.

Madgaline (Ph.D. University of Denver and Iliff School of Theology and J.D. University of Colorado School of Law) provides a provocative perspective to the story of Job as seen through the lens of the “divine council.”

Interfaith dialogue necessarily requires one to summarize, describe and otherwise explain one’s faith tradition in a way that others can appreciate and understand.  It goes without saying that in order to do this effectively, one must make a concerted effort to learn about the religious traditions of others and become aware of the themes, contours, the history and concerns that has shaped the faith of others.  In a sense, one must become religiously “bilingual.”  Thus, those involved in interfaith dialogue are continually learning about the faith of others but importantly, and concurrently, studying and reflecting on their own faith tradition, and as a result gain an important perspective concerning their own faith tradition.

Thus, The Pierian Spring grew out of my experience dialoguing with Evangelicals, Catholics and other Latter-day Saints.   Since the summer of 2007, I’ve had the fortunate opportunity to meaningfully converse with many outside the Latter-day Saint tradition on religious topics.  I have learned and benefited greatly from these discussions.  However, as is the case with most people involved in interfaith dialogue, I’ve also been interested in internal discussions and dialogue within the faith.

Through these experiences I have felt the need for a distinct venue to dialogue with a Latter-day Saint readership and speak to issues of concern with the LDS faith community.  Naturally, those desiring to learn more about Latter-day Saint teachings and history will find The Pierian Spring relevant.  And I find that it is quite difficult to shake the habit of writing material without having in mind the reader who comes from a religious tradition outside the LDS faith.  However, I consider it a good habit I hope not to forget.

I intend to continue to write for both Summa Theologica: Interfaith Dialogue and The Pierian Spring.  I want to thank those who have supported and encouraged me to seriously consider this project.

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 1835, Joseph Smith begins to translate the Book of Abraham which contains narrative of God in counsel with other interlocutors besides the Son.  In March 20, 1839 Joseph refers to the “the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was” in a written revelation (D&C 121:32).  In 1842, 13 years later, Joseph would finally 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.

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

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.

Why Approaches With Missionaries?

First of all, I would like to point out that these posts deal not with how Evangelicals should relate with their Latter-day Saint neighbors, friends or family in the general sense, but rather the posts particularly target the unique population of Latter-day Saint missionaries.

One might ask, “Isn’t it more important that Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals develop relationships with neighbors who are living in their community, rather than missionaries?”  It is very important.  Having said that, however, I believe there is merit to addressing this particular issue.  Mormon missionaries may be the only Latter-day Saints some Evangelicals will ever meet (or are more likely to meet) and individual Latter-day Saint feelings and attitudes about Evangelicals (mostly negative) are most often formed by Latter-day Saints while serving full-time missions.

This point was illustrated well by Dr. Craig Blomberg on Feb 27, 2008, to the Denver Seminary’s Women’s Forum in a talk titled “How Wide the Divide? Eleven Years Later, Mormons and Evangelicals in Conversation.” [1] When asked by the audience what to do when missionaries come to the door, Blomberg stressed:

What do you do when Mormon missionaries come to the door? Single most important thing, even if you are too busy to talk. Be Polite! Imagine what it is like for a year and a half to two years for several hours every day, five days a week, to go door to door.   I’ve done it half a day for my church and I am utterly drained at the end of it.  Imagine what it is like to have the majority of totally unchurched people in our country over and over again simply show no interest at best, and slam the door literally at worst.

But I have asked Latter-day Saint leaders repeatedly, “Who when you did your mission was the most hostile to you?” and the answer is always somebody who is either a self-identified Evangelical or an ex-Mormon.  That is horrible!  You don’t have to agree with the theology.  Be polite!  If we can’t show Christian love we have no right to talk to them about anything.” (time marker 1:17:40 to 1:19:15).

I’ve also heard this point in my own conversations with Latter-day Saints and from other speakers including Pastor Greg Johnson of Standing Together.  During a public conversation in Tempe, Arizona on April 25, 2008, Greg Johnson explained a time when he and Robert Millet were ready to give their event at an LDS Chapel when the bishop unexpectedly canceled the event. Greg went to speak with the bishop to ask why he canceled the event. The bishop began to explain that he served a mission almost 30 years ago and, as Greg explained, he wasn’t treated very well by the Evangelical Christians he had met. The experience had such an effect that he simply didn’t want to expose his congregation, comprised of the youth, to this same experience.  Greg told the bishop that this would not be the same experience. The bishop then agreed.  Greg noted that after the event, the bishop came up to him and thanked him.  Greg remarked that there was healing that was taking place at that moment. [2]

Be Polite

Therefore, since most attitudes are formed by Latter-day Saints while serving missions, many who continue on to hold leadership positions in the Church, it behooves Evangelicals to seek to eliminate this source of many negative attitudes towards Evangelical Christians.  I was therefore quite pleased that all three authors stressed this point in their articles.  Tim writes:

One thing I’ve learned is that Mormons generally walk away from their missions with a really bad taste in their mouth from Evangelicals.  Any hope we might have of bringing them into one of our churches after their mission is pretty slim, particularly if they were sent to the Bible Belt.

Jack writes:

DO be polite. Especially focus on gentleness and self-control as these are the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Besides, Mormon missionaries have typically seen plenty of rude behavior from evangelicals. What they need is our respect.

Purpose and Role of Latter-day Saint Missions

Having agreed that this is a topic that could be fruitful, let’s now turn to specifics of the articles.  I appreciated Jack’s suggestions in delineating the role and purpose of missionaries:

[A missionary's] purpose is not to seek out mutual interfaith dialogue. It is not to be apologists for the church and it is not to spend long amounts of time debating and answering questions from people who have no interest in joining the LDS church. They may find themselves engaging in such activities from time to time in their search for converts, but ultimately, the duty of LDS missionaries is “to find people, teach them the principles of the gospel, help them repent, and then baptize them members of the Mormon Church.” If you are not interested in leaving your religion for Mormonism, you are arguably wasting the missionaries’ time.

I probably couldn’t have said this better myself.  I find time and time again that many people simply do not understand or appreciate the role and purpose of missionaries.  For example, Aaron describes the missionary lifestyle almost in terms of prison life (i.e. forbidden to call home but twice a year, and only letters and email once a week), he also describes missionary apartments as a “budget-conscious bachelor pad” and the missionaries who inhabit them as “a bunch of 19 and 20 year olds” on an adventure of self-discovery.  He continues:

Mormons tell us all the time to take our tough and deep questions to the young missionaries, because surely these guys know the answers. But that is hardly the case. These are a bunch of young 19 and 20-year-olds who are playing the part of a Mormon tradition that is designed to help them plant deep roots of Mormon commitment and belief. Many of them are on their mission to participate in an adventure and figure things out for themselves, not yet having the deep belief in Mormonism that they wish they had. The two-year-mission largely functions in Mormonism to solidify that belief.

The reality is that Latter-day Saints members are encouraged to refer interested individuals to the missionaries because the missionaries’ purpose is to teach those interested in learning about the Church.  As Jack appropriately stated, the purpose of a missionary “is not to be apologists for the church and it is not to spend long amounts of time debating and answering questions from people who have no interest in joining the LDS church.”

Are there young Latter-day Saints who perhaps enter the mission field for the wrong reasons or who may not be as prepared as they could be?  Of course.  How many of us have always been prepared for all our undertakings?  Are there also young Latter-day Saints who have studied and learned for themselves and gained a witness for themselves prior to entering the mission field?  Absolutely!  [3]  On this point, I plead with Evangelicals to take a charitable view of Latter-day Saint missions and missionaries.  Let’s remember Krister Stendahl’s admonition: “Don’t compare your bests with their worsts, but compare bests with bests.”

I would also remind future Latter-day Saint missionaries that their behavior largely influences how Evangelicals think of Mormons.  It is clear to me that many Evangelical’s negative attitudes of Mormons comes largely from their experiences with Mormon missionaries [4].

Tim’s writings reveal that he simply does not respect the purpose of Latter-day Saint missions.  For example, he suggests that Evangelicals try to find out the first name of missionaries as a bonus.

If possible, pry their first names out of them. Don’t be too pushy, they’re “technically” not supposed to use them.  But gently chide them about both of them not really being born with the first name “Elder.”

A charitable reading may suggest that Tim hopes that knowing the first names of missionaries will create a sense of intimacy or familiarity.  However, Tim’s view is that missionaries are “stripped of their first name.” [5].  This is a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of the title Elder regarding missionaries. I’ve known some people who would call missionaries by their first name and never address them as Elder.  I think this is very bad form and demonstrates either misunderstanding or a lack of respect for the faith community of others.

The term Elder is used when referring to missionaries as well as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  It is not a first name that is being denied but rather it is a title signifying that one is called to serve.   For Evangelicals who are used to a more informal worshiping style with lack of hierarchical church organization where a leader may be referred to as “Pastor Bob” the term Elder Smith may seem awkward or contrived.  However, part of being polite is to respect the usages of titles, as it is used in a particular faith community.

Avoid Deception

In addition, part of being polite to the missionaries is to not intentionally masquerade as a potential investigator to squander the time of the missionaries.  Of course perhaps it could be the goal of some individuals to deliberately keep missionaries away from achieving their purpose of teaching those genuinely interested in Mormonism by deceptively keeping the missionaries busy and perhaps getting them to doubt their faith in the process.   Jack’s suggestion (listed as option 1) that if you are not interested in the Mormon Church, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with telling the missionaries just that: “I’m not interested.”

Jack offers another alternative (option 2) and that is to engage in interfaith dialogue.  She writes, “Explain that while you are not interested in joining the church, you would not mind learning more about what they believe if they are willing to learn more about what you believe.” (emphasis added).  I greatly appreciate Jack’s suggestion about being forthright about one’s interest in the church and her overall suggestions would be applicable to interfaith dialogue with anyone.

One of the concerns I have with approaches advanced by Tim and Aaron is the slight tendency to mask one’s interest in the Church, to be somewhat vague about it, in order to entice missionaries to accept invitations and keep coming back for more.  Tim suggests:

Answer the door, smile politely and say “I would LOVE to talk with you more about faith, but I’ve found that it’s really difficult to find meaningful conversation with strangers.  Would you like to come back on a different night and have dinner?  We could just get to know each other a little bit first and then on another night we could meet up again to talk about each other’s faith.”

This sounds as if the person is genuinely interested in learning about Mormonism.  I prefer Jack’s approach or some combination such as “I want to be upfront with you that I’m not interested in joining your Church, however, I would love to invite you over for dinner and I am genuinely interesting in hearing about your beliefs.”  Missionaries can then make up their own mind on what is the most effective utilization of their time.

Getting Missionaries to Break Mission Rules?

This is another area where Tim reveals a complete lack of respect for the Latter-day Saint missionary tradition.  Tim writes:

See if [the missionaries] want to play a board game (If they take you up on video games they’re breaking the rules. They’ll have fun, but feel guilty later).

Let them know at some point in the evening that your phone and internet access are available to them if they’d like to contact somebody back home. They will decline, but make sure they know that they can return any time in the future to use either one.

Tim has knowledge concerning appropriate conduct for missionaries during their time of service, and yet suggests that Evangelicals intentionally invite missionaries to ignore such rules.  I find this very distasteful.  In a more recent post, Tim describes a mission experience in even more grave terms than Aaron does.  According to Tim, a Mormon mission is “a breeding ground for emotional and spiritual abuse,” and as a result Evangelicals should offer their homes to missionaries as “some place safe” and a “sanctuary” from abuse and harm.  Especially so, Tim adds, “if just one Mission President is inclined to be abusive” and “on the off-chance that he’s not kind and decent.”  In other words, Evangelicals should open their home to missionaries as a kind of “safe haven” for the spiritual abuse and emotional turmoil that might befall them.  So, Evangelicals should be willing to “giv[e] them a lifeline out of an abusive situation” by allowing missionaries to use their home phone.  This is an extremely unflattering view of missions and missionaries and mission presidents.  I think I don’t need to say anymore on this point.

Preach the Good News

Other than these distasteful points, I do appreciate Tim’s suggestions.  He offers three steps:  Step  1.  The introduction (making two appointments) .  Step 2.  The dinner (to build a relationship of trust and not discuss theology).  Step 3: The testimony meeting (let the missionaries share their testimony and then you share yours).  One thing I do appreciate about Tim’s suggestion is to share the positive things that God has done for you in your life.   This is quite different from other approaches where the goal isn’t to tell the “good news” of the Gospel, but the “bad news” of Mormonism.  Tim suggests:

When they’re finished, ask if you could share your own testimony.  This is your own story of what Jesus has done for you, so I’m not going to tell you how to script it.  Your story is more powerful than anything I could tell you to say. . . If this is all you do, you’ve just given those young men (or women) an oasis experience amidst a very difficult two years.  They WILL remember your kindness and hospitality and they will remember that it was someone desperately in love with Jesus who gave it to them.

I agree.  I think more Evangelicals should take the time to share the good news of the Gospel with Latter-day Saints, rather than the bad news of Mormonism, and I give kudos to Tim for making the suggestion.  I think this would help to decrease the negativity towards Evangelicals that young Latter-day Saints sometimes learn in the mission field.  In fact, I would urge Evangelicals to use this approach not just with the missionaries but the Latter-day Saints in their neighborhood.

What is your motivation behind asking Mormons to share their testimony?

One thing, however, I would like to point out is to be sincere.  In other words, don’t just go through all of this if you really aren’t interested in really listening to these missionaries.

I’m reminded by a segment in the introductory video “Grounded: Relating to Your Mormon Friends in Truth and Love,” a training program for youth ministries developed by produced by David Pascoe and the Salt Lake Theological Seminary and is promoted by John W. Morehead, who served as a consultant, and the Neighboring Faiths Project.  In one segment, one Evangelical youth leader explained an experience of one of youths with LDS missionaries:

And we were just going all to hang out to eat some ice cream and so we’re are sitting [and] just got our ice cream, and two LDS missionaries walk in.  One of the teens with me [said] “Well I’m gonna go and share my faith with them.”  So he goes up and starts dialoging with these missionaries.  And he just kept on giving them question after question after question talking and asking them about what they believe.  And in the process I noticed the LDS missionary kind of pausing and just kind of looking at the guy more and more intent.  And finally toward the end of the conversation the LDS missionary turned to the Christian teen and said “You know, I don’t think you care about me a bit.  Every time I answered one of your questions, you were in the process thinking of the next question to ask me.  You are not even listening to my answer.”  And that teen has never forgot that.  Watch video here.

The point is that people can tell if you are not sincere, if you know you aren’t interested in hearing what the missionaries have to say, but still want to share a message with them, just be forthright about it.

Aaron’s approach is kind of like Tim’s approach on steroids.  Rather than 3 steps there are a series of invitations, always keep inviting the missionaries back and back and back and entice them with dinner and dessert and more dessert. (Images of Hansel and Gretel come to mind).  Furthermore, Aaron doesn’t just wait for missionaries to show up at his door (which they do), he actively makes sure they do by filling out referral cards at Visitor Center’s or other events and asking for new videos put out by the Church.  His suggestion is to invite missionaries in and have a short chat and then “quickly get to the heart of the matter.”  He explains:

I am forthright about my knowledge of the Mormon faith. “I have studied it for years, I find it fascinating, but I have some grave concerns.” But what I know about the history and larger movement of Mormonism is inconsequential for the moment, because “I would love to hear what you two individually believe.”

This isn’t a lie.  Of course, he leaves out the part that he would never join the LDS church in a million years but it is true he does find it “fascinating” and does want to hear what the missionaries “individually believe.”  Aaron then unleashes his dynamite question that he has been asking Mormons every chance he gets.  The question is whether it is possible that God the Father could have been a sinner on another planet like us and progressed to be a God like us, and probably he will follow up with how does that make you feel?  For those not familiar with this question, you can watch Aaron asking dozens of Mormons this question at Aaron’s website “God Never Sinned.” [6]

After letting the missionaries “have their say” and share their “series of affirmations” (i.e. I know the Church is true, etc.), Aaron then proceeds to share the Word of God from the Old and New Testaments.  On this point, as with Tim, I’m pleased that the suggestion is to share the Word of God and discuss the scriptures rather than the “bad news” of Mormonism.  Lastly, Aaron offers the following suggestion:

Keep a mental note of three or so tough questions that went unanswered, and write them down for them. “Would you guys please research the answers to these questions, and come back another time to share what you found?” Insist on it with a free dinner.

Aaron’s method is to keep this up as long as possible.  In addition, he suggests that when the missionaries ask for someone to pray “Use the opportunity to pray to our awesome and eternal God.”  I heartily endorse Evangelicals to pray to God with the missionaries.

Both Tim and Aaron focus on proactively sharing the positive experiences they have with their faith.  Jack also urges this method under option 2 “interfaith dialogue.”  She explains “As to what to talk about, you’re probably going to want to talk about your faith in Christ and your Christian testimony, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”  However, she feels that in order to explain why she is an Evangelical Christian and not a Mormon, this approach is probably insufficient.  “So when I talk about my faith,” she adds, “I spend some time discussing the things I love about my religion that Mormonism can’t give me.”

Any other options?

Jack’s last and final option (option 3) is for those who

would like to do everything you can to convince the missionaries at your door that Mormonism is not true while helping them arrive at or maintain their faith in Christ.

She explains she has less experience with this method but offers some thoughts on it nonetheless.  She describes this option almost as a mission impossible, and throws down the challenge.  Play the theme song here.  “Your mission, should you chose to accept it…”

It is almost impossible to convert people who are satisfied with their current religion, and I have never known a Mormon who switched to evangelical Christianity without becoming intensely dissatisfied with the LDS church first.  The Mormon missionaries, on the other hand, are probably not going to be dissatisfied with Mormonism. If you’re interested in witnessing to them, you have to convince them that Mormonism is in error while reaffirming the positive things about the biblical Gospel.

And that is a very difficult thing because for years Evangelicals have thrown the baby out with the bath water and when Mormons doubt God and the Church, the disaffiliation research has shown that they are more likely to leave religion all together [7].  Among the ones that do stay in organized religion, the majority join the Catholic Church rather than any Protestant denomination [8].   To-get-Mormons-to-be-dissatisfied-with-their-religion approach is not a winner in my book, and I think it rightly belongs at the bottom of the list. [9]  It often ends up backfiring and strengthening the faith of Latter-day Saints.  Generally speaking, it assumes a causality between disaffiliation and doctrinal dissatisfaction.  Studies tend to suggest that people become dissatisfied with religion for a combination of reasons and even where some intellectual defection is involved it is usually in the context of other factors. [10]

Closing Thoughts

In summary, I applaud the suggestions for Evangelicals to be polite to Mormon missionaries and I also think that if Evangelicals have the opportunity they should let missionaries, and everyone else, know what God has done for them in their lives and preach the Good News.  I do think it is important to be forthright and let missionaries know if you really aren’t interested and not pretend to be an investigator, lest Latter-day Saints suspect that there is a hidden strategy of getting all Evangelicals to invite Mormon missionaries over repeatedly to squander their limited time and prevent them from reaching the unchurched population that is genuinely considering the Latter-day Saint faith.  In one sense, however, even if this were true, I can think of worse things in life than being invited into someone’s home and being offered dinner and plates of dessert and listening to the miracles of God of the lives of others devoted to Christ.  Finally, I think we can do without the unflattering description of Latter-day Saint missionary service akin to being stripped of freedoms and coerced into a manipulative environment.  On this point I think it would be wise for Evangelicals to follow Dr. Craig Blomberg’s respectful and sympathetic example above.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Dr. Craig Blomberg, “How Wide the Divide? Eleven Years Later, Mormons and Evangelicas in Conversation.” (audio) Denver Seminary’s Women’s Forum, Feb 27, 2008.  I highly recommend this talk.

[2] See Summa Theologica blog. “Reading Scriptures with New Eyes: A Baptist and Mormon Converse.” Published June 8, 2008.

[3] For an example of prepared and articulate Latter-day Saint missionaries see Summa Theologica blog “Ergun Caner Interviewing the Missionaries” Published November 1, 2007.  Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Theological Seminary in Virginia, interviews and dialogues with LDS missionaries in front of a live audience (in 2006) as part of his “Engaging The Cults” podcast (1:06:36 total time).

[4] See for example Tim’s “Me & Mormons” series at LDS & Evangelical Conversations blog.

[5] See “Helping Mormon Missionaries Call Home” LDS & Evangelical Conversations blog, Oct 1, 2009.

[6] If you are interested in an exchange between Aaron and myself on this issue see our series of comments at “What Separates Mormons and Evangelicals Most.” LDS & Evangelical Conversations blog, June 30, 2009.

[7] See generally Stan L. Albrecht and Howard M. Bahr, “Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons.”  Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1983): 366-379; Howard M. Bahr and Stan L. Albrecht, “Strangers Once More: Patterns of Disaffiliation from Mormonism,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol. 28, No. 2 (1989): 180-200. See also John W. Morehead, “LDS Religious Disaffiliation Narratives” Morehead’s Musings blog, October 03, 2008; John W. Morehead, “Religious Disaffiliation and Migration” Morehead’s Musings blog, Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

[8] Stan L. Albrecht and Howard M. Bahr, “Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1983): 366-379.

[9] I’ve categorized various approaches before. See Summa Theologica blog “How to Win Friends and Influence Mormons.” Published September 28, 2007.

[10] See Howard M. Bahr and Stan L. Albrecht, “Strangers Once More: Patterns of Disaffiliation from Mormonism,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol. 28, No. 2 (1989): 180-200.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

After a two-year hiatus, from May 6-9, 2009, Geoff and Aaron once again discussed Calvinism in the form of an initial post, an hour long podcast (audio) entitled “A Hearty Conversation about Calvinism and Mormonism,” and a follow up post.  In this exchange, Geoff asks Aaron to help him understand how it is that missionary work towards Latter-day Saints makes sense given a worldview where “God predestines all souls to heaven or hell before He even creates them.”

While many listeners elsewhere have commented on the actual content of the dialogue and offered critiques of Calvinism, I would like to bracket my critique of the details of their discussion.  Rather, I would like to take a macro look at this exchange, a meta-analysis if you will, and offer five observations.

First, dialogue allows individuals to develop or begin to develop a relationship and this in turn leads to a higher quality exchange of ideas.

In Geoff’s follow up post at New Cool Thang, he writes:

God didn’t tell us to love horrendously bad theology like Calvinism but he did tell us to love one another. In this case, even though I think Aaron’s theology stinks, I find Aaron the person amiable.  So please refrain from attacking him personally in the comments.

I appreciate this attitude of focusing dialogue towards the critique of ideas rather than participants.  Without trust and a relationship too much communication ends up in ad hominem.  Dialogue can sometimes allow parties to get past personal attacks to focus on the matters at hand.  I believe that the quality of dialogue increases as individuals have a higher degree of trust.  Often, without trust, the information one is willing to give to others, especially those they perceive as critics is typically limited or superficial (see also Geoff and Aaron 2007 Podcast, Part 3, audio marker: 9:20).

Second, I can’t point out enough that this discussion ultimately served the function of boundary maintenance more than any other method I’ve ever witnessed.

Those in the counter-cult ministry have a strong desire to point out all the ways that Mormonism is different from classical Christian orthodoxy.  The typical method is to compare and contrast some bible verse or passage with a statement by an LDS leader.  However, after witnessing the reaction by Mormons at New Cool Thang, I have to say that I’ve never seen Latter-day Saints more willing to emphatically declare that they absolutely do not believe in the same God as described by Aaron’s Calvinist theology.  All it took was for Aaron to take the time to explain his views on the nature of God and salvation.  Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals who worry that interfaith dialogue blurs the dividing lines between Mormons and Evangelicals have absolutely nothing to fear.  I have to say that such fear is unequivocally unwarranted given what I’ve just witnessed.

Third, through this dialogue, I believe more Latter-day Saints were exposed to Calvinist theology than they ever would have been with traditional Evangelical outreach strategies.

More Latter-day Saints were exposed to Christian belief from an Evangelical point of view, more than any other method employed by critics.  Evangelicals who wish Mormons would become more aware of biblical theology as they understand it need do little more than simply explain their worldview in order to achieve this purpose.  I believe New Cool Thang has a large readership and Latter-day Saints who visit the site have learned more about Calvinist Evangelical views and for many it was their first exposure to the topic.  Those with goals of sharing their beliefs and worldview with others would do well to learn from this example.

Fourth, I hope that more Evangelicals will devote time and resources to finding the most effective and winsome methods to explain their worldview.

I’m very appreciative of Aaron’s explanations of Calvinism, the two wills of God and other issues.  However, I was deeply impressed that such views are extremely unpalatable to Latter-day Saints.  I was puzzled how it could be the case that after all these years Evangelicals studying Mormonism have not been successful at developing more winsome and attractive means by which to explain Calvinist theology to a Latter-day Saint audience (to the extent that they are Calvinist and I note that not all Evangelicals are).  Especially as how this seems to be at the root of several never-ending tensions between Mormons and Evangelicals who often (but not always) share Calvinist leanings.  I appreciated Aaron’s attempt to explain such views.  I also appreciated the attempt that Geoff made to restate Aaron’s views accurately and to seek clarification.

Fifth, Evangelicals attempting to communicate with Latter-day Saint populations would benefit from becoming more conversant with Latter-day Saint narratives.

For example, the Grand Council Narrative referred to in the introduction of this post is a narrative of God siting in council with the Sons of God before the creation of the world, contemplating the creation and the salvation of man.  In the narrative, Lucifer, a member of the council, proposes that he should be sent as the Savior and that he would redeem all mankind.  Latter-day Saints understand Lucifer’s proposal to entail a complete destruction of human free will, or agency, in order to achieve the goal of saving all men, as all men would be coerced to do God’s will.  Lucifer rebelled against God and was hurled from the council, thrust down, becoming the devil.

The great irony here is that the God of Calvinism ends up even more horrific than Lucifer since at least Lucifer planned to save all mankind, whereas the God of Calvinism not only chooses to create a world where mankind ultimately cannot act contrary to God’s will, but then inexplicably chooses to redeem only a portion of mankind created.  Latter-day Saints listening to Calvinist explanations will be evaluating and understanding Calvinism through the lens of this narrative.  Those who are attempting to reach Mormons, may do well take into account Latter-day Saint narratives in seeking to convey their beliefs in the most effective means possible.

This topic seems to be somewhat of departure from the typical posts at New Cool Thang, and I want to thank Geoff and Aaron for participating in such an exchange and making it available.  I found it animated if not feisty, while relatively respectful, and I believe this is a good example of how dialogue has the potential to increase mutual understanding.

“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

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.

Feinberg’s statement is not part of the Chicago Statement. It is not a sentence from the Summary Statement, the nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, or the accompanying Exposition. None of these portions were the topic of substantial discussion in the book, if discussed at all. Indeed, as several reviewers of HWD have pointed out, many of the actual articles of the Chicago Statement directly contradict Robinson’s own views on, for example, revelation, an open canon and the role of prophets.³ In fact, every time Robinson seems to be quoting from the Chicago Statement, he is in fact quoting Feinberg. The phrases “when all facts are known,” “in their original autographs,” and “properly interpreted” are not quotations from the Chicago Statement, but from Feinberg, even though Robinson mistakenly attributes them to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. (pp. 56, 89).

The confusion may have occurred when Blomberg described Feinberg’s statement as an “abbreviated version of the [Chicago] declaration” (p. 35, emphasis added) but it’s hard to see how Feinberg’s one sentence is an “abbreviated version” of something containing a Summary Statement, nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and accompanying Exposition. Blomberg breaks down Feinberg’s sentence into five qualifications in order to frame a useful discussion about “Scripture’s truthfulness.” Robinson at times refers to the “common parameters” or “similar parameters” or “five qualifications” of the Chicago Statement. However, there are no “five qualifications” of the Chicago Statement and Robinson is actually referring to Blomberg’s elucidation of Feinberg’s one-sentence statement or the Feinberg qualifications. It’s clearly a mistake, and one that has created confusion and invited misunderstanding.⁴

In Are Mormons Christian? Robinson points out that one of the problems with inerrancy is that it precludes an open canon and makes further revelation redundant.⁵ In his entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism Robinson states, in part, “Mormons deny both biblical inerrancy and sufficiency.”⁶ He notes in HWD that “Words like inerrancy, plenary and infallible are not scriptural, nor are they part of the LDS vocabulary.” (p. 205, ft 5). This leads me to believe Robinson was focusing on, and responding to, Blomberg’s discussion on scripture and not agreeing to endorse or to become a signatory to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. A more sensible reading is that the authors recognize that there are parameters of scripture not shared between them, and not in common, but that they can agree with those parameters that they do share. (p. 195). Indeed, Blomberg expressly states areas of inerrancy where he and Robinson differ (p. 200, fn 8). Robert Silvuka contrasts the authors’ stated views and provides other examples of where Blomberg and Robinson probably possess different understandings of inerrancy.⁷

In HWD, Robinson is attempting to draw a parallel between the eighth article of faith and the five qualifications as explained by Blomberg, not the entire Chicago Statement. Robinson’s purpose is to illustrate to Evangelicals that they should not be offended by the eighth article of faith qualification on the bible being true “as far as it is translated correctly” when Evangelicals themselves place several qualifications on “Scripture’s truthfulness,” namely the five qualifications as explained by Blomberg. Seen in that light, the qualification in the eighth article of faith should not raise serious objections. This is the kind of dialectic that Robinson is using. In fact, had the discussion been about the actual articles of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Robinson may have found Article X quite useful to his argument. There, the framers state: “We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”

Most reviewers recognized that Robinson wasn’t advancing a fully developed inspiration theory, though reviewers wished that he had done so. In the chapter on scripture, I think his main goals were to place the eighth article of faith in perspective for Evangelical readers and defend an open canon. For his part, Blomberg doesn’t dwell a lot on inspiration theory other than to clarify misunderstandings about it and explain, among other things, that “No reputable Evangelical scholar or theologian believes in divine dictation for more than a tiny fraction of Scripture” (p. 37). This is clearly an area where further thoughtful dialogue and discussion might prove beneficial.

NOTES

1. This is an expanded version of a comment I originally posted at Juvenile Instructor April 2, 2009.

2. For the full Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy see http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html.  Retrieved May 22, 2009.

3. Mosser and Owen point out “. . . Robinson’s view of inerrancy does not seem to follow. How can a text be inerrant if it is not verbally inspired to begin with? Inerrancy cannot be organically derived from the neoorthodox view of revelation here expressed. Why then does he believe in it at all? At the least Robinson’s views on the nature of revelation and its relationship to scripture are underdeveloped; at worst they are contradictory.” Mosser, Carl and Paul Owen, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” [including Appendix: Hellenism, Greek Philosophy, and the Creedal “Straightjacket” of Christian Orthodoxy] FARMS Review of Books 11, no. 2 (1999): 103-177; see also Ostler, Blake T. “Bridging the Gulf.” FARMS Review of Books 11, no. 2 (1999): 103-177.

Examples of portions of the Chicago Statement that directly conflict with a Latter-day Saint view of revelation (including Robinson’s) are as follows:

“When God’s final and climactic message, His word to the world concerning Jesus Christ, had been spoken and elucidated by those in the apostolic circle, the sequence of revealed messages ceased. Henceforth the Church was to live and know God by what He had already said, and said for all time. (Chicago Statement, Exposition.  A. Creation, Revelation and Inspiration).

“The New Testament canon is likewise now closed, inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne.  No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again.” (Chicago Statement, Exposition. B. Authority, Christ and the Bible).

“We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.” (Chicago Statement, Articles of Affirmation or Denial. Article V.)

Robinson’s own stated views on living prophets, revelation and an open canon preclude the conclusion that he would adopt these positions.

4. This has led to several commentators and reviewers to conclude that Robinson accepts the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  I believe such a conclusion, while entirely understandable given Robinson’s language, may not follow for reasons cited above.

Matthew R. Connelly writes in his summary of the literature:  “Of particular note is Robinson’s insistence that Latter-Day Saints could accept the Evangelical Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”  Connelly, Matthew R., Craig L. Blomberg, Stephen E. Robinson and BYU Studies Staff, “Sizing Up the Divide: Reviews and Replies [review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson with a reply by the book's authors] (1999)” BYU Studies, 38:3:163-190. (see p. 167)

John-Charles Duffy concludes in his review of LDS apologetic literature: “Robinson maintains, for example, that the LDS view of the Bible is equivalent to that set forth in the evangelical Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” John-Charles Duffy, “Defending the Kingdom, Rethinking the Faith: How Apologetics Is Reshaping Mormon Orthodoxy”, Sunstone, (May 2004): 22-55. (see p. 24).

Kevin L. Barney concludes that “Robinson accepts a doctrine of inerrancy consistent with the Chicago Statement.” Kevin L. Barney, “Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis,” Dialogue: a Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2000: 57-99 (see p. 73 fn 64).

Blake T. Ostler notes well the problem: “It was unclear to me, even after reading his contribution several times, whether Robinson fully adopted the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. My confusion arose from the fact that while repeatedly allowing for the possibility of errors in the written versions of Mormon scripture, Robinson nevertheless affirms that Latter-day Saints can accept the Chicago Statement.”  Ostler concludes, “I was stunned that Robinson apparently accepted the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as consistent with his Latter-day Saint beliefs, especially after he went to such great lengths to explain that he as a Mormon believes that scripture ‘is in our [Mormons'] view recorded by men who can and do make mistakes’” (internal citation omitted).  Ostler points out many places where the Chicago Statement is inconsistent with Robinson’s stated views.  Ostler, Blake T. “Bridging the Gulf.” FARMS Review of Books 11, no. 2 (1999): 103-177.  Most of this confusion disappears when we realize Robinson is not endorsing or accepting the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, but instead is referring to the Feinberg qualifications.

Comments on the issue by Mormon bloggers tend to adopt the conclusion that Robinson has accepted or endorsed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  For example, see David G. “Bart Ehrman, Biblical Criticism, and Mormons” Juvenile Instructor [blog], dated March 28, 2009. Accessed April 12, 2009 from http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/bart-ehrman-biblical-criticism-and-mormons

While some Evangelical reviewers of HWD were skeptical of Robinson discussion on inerrancy, not all Evangelical commentators concluded that Robinson must have accepted the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  Owen and Mosser as well as Robert M. Sivulka both note that Robinson is referring to the “abbreviated version” of the Chicago Statement (not the Chicago Statement) and conclude that Robinson’s views are still different from those espoused in the Chicago Statement.  See Robert M. Sivulka “Similar yet Different,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 31, no. 3 (1998): 196-98; Mosser, Carl and Paul Owen, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” FARMS Review of Books 11, no. 2 (1999): 103-177.

5. Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991). Chapter 5 may be accessed from http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser5.htm

6. Stephen E. Robinson, “Doctrine: LDS Doctrine Compared With Other Christian Doctrines,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992, pp. 399-403.)

7. Robert M. Sivulka “Similar yet Different,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 31, no. 3 (1998): 196-98.

If you’ve never read Alvin Plantinga, or are less familiar with the problem of evil and notions of free will, I highly recommend listening to this interview. In fact, because Plantinga focuses heavily on the concept of free will, I believe Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints would find the interview particularly relevant since this topic tends to linger in the background of many discussions between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints.

Highlights: Plantinga discusses his early years and particularly how he grappled with the challenges to Christianity from other students while he attended Harvard. He discusses his views on the role of philosophy in the defense of Christianity, the problem of evil, the relation between Christians and the academy, and other topics.

I was interested to learn that when he was young, Alvin’s father taught him Latin and he read Plato’s Dialogues around the age of 12 or 13.

The first year of university, I went to Harvard University.  There for the first time, I ran into people who were extremely intelligent, extremely accomplished intellectually, and who didn’t share my beliefs at all, who were agnostics or atheists or naturalists or whatever, and I got involved in all kinds of discussion and argument.  At that point in my life, these questions about whether Christian beliefs are true, whether it is rational or reasonable, these questions then assumed a very large, they took a large portion of what I thought about. . .

I didn’t hear a whole lot of people arguing against Christian belief in these courses, I heard a great deal more of it outside among my student companions.  Then, as now, I think perhaps the three main objections brought against Christian belief were first, as you mentioned, the problem of evil: how could it be that if there is this all-powerful all-knowing perfectly good God, how could it be there are so many horrifying things that go on in our world?  And secondly, the thought was, there just aren’t any good arguments for Christianity.  Why should I believe that?  Give me some arguments.  And then the third one would be something like, well hasn’t science really dispensed with the whole necessity or reason for believing in Christian, accepting Christian belief, or just believing God, don’t we now know so much more than people knew in the old times that these beliefs are no longer sensible?

Justin:  Did you have to grapple with this?  Or did you sort of relish this as a kind of challenge to your intellect?  Did you ever have any ultimate doubts about your Christian belief?

I can’t say I had any ultimate doubts, but first I was somewhat shaken.  I mean, here were these people, many of them far more accomplished intellectually than I, who knew a great deal more, seemed to have thought about these things more deeply and their views were so completely different from mine.  Could it really be that mine were right and theirs wrong?

As usual, Justin Brierley does a great job conducting the interview and always seems to follow up with the just the right questions.

On February 28, 2009, Unbelievable made available on their online archives a show they did in 2006 with Baptist Pastor Greg Johnson of Standing Together and Dr. Robert Millet of Brigham Young University.

Listen online begins at audio marker 17:20-1:20:33.

Download the MP3 from the Unbelievable Podcast Archive.

Commentary

One of the interesting things about this radio program is that callers and e-mailers come from the UK and part of Europe, Finland, etc.  Not only do we get to hear these wonderful flavors and tones of English, but it is always good to get a international perspective about Christian issues and interreligious dialogue that may not be the same as that found in the United States.  I get the impression that this is a rare kind of communication not normally seen on Unbelievable.  During the show, Brierley often remarked that it is rare to find this kind of dialogue.

Brierley asks both Millet and Johnson to explain their stories and background and how it happened that they began to engage in public dialogue.  Brierley then asks Millet to describe a brief history of the origins of the Latter-day Saint faith, including Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and notions of the Restoration.  Both Millet and Johnson offer some of their views on the difference between the faith, as well as their methodology of engaging in dialogue.  Brierly turns to Johnson to explain the main differences between Mormonism and traditional Christian beliefs.  Johnson offers three points:  1) The LDS view of God 2) the nature of works and grace, and 3) the ultimate destiny of human beings.  Millet and Johnson agree that they personally have discussed the nature of works and grace perhaps more than any of the other subjects.

One of the things I liked is that in taking callers and e-mail questions, there is a dialogue that occurs between Millet, the caller, but also Johnson comes in and explains the tensions and underlying concerns representative of the the caller’s concerns to Brierley and other listeners.  This is extremely helpful.  Sometimes we fail to appreciate that some concerns are indicative of larger paradigms at work and it is often helpful to take a larger look at what people are getting at.  Questions by callers related to the LDS notions of the priesthood, DNA research and the Book of Mormon, notions of prophets and Joseph Smith, nature of scripture and the preservation of the text, Book of Mormon historicity, church organization, church finances, and notions of the afterlife.

Hardening of the Categories

Towards the end of the program there was a interesting discussion about the three degrees of glory.  The questions took a turn towards who goes where according to Mormonism.  While many critics of Millet would probably think he was trying dodge the issue by not just giving a quick answer, I honestly think that we need to be more charitable of the way Millet has chosen to answer the caller and Brierley on this topic.  I think there is more going on here and I think Millet demonstrates the importance to be cautious when people ask you where they are going to end up.  Think about it.  I also appreciate Johnson’s clarifications and or qualifications on Millet’s answers as well.

Here is just a small selection of the exchange.  I recommend listening to the show in its entirety.

Question:  “According to the Mormon faith there are various degrees of heaven, Celestial and Terrestrial, where will I fit in, in the scheme of things?”  (e-mail from a person who on the verge of becoming a Mormon but backed out).

Bob: “. . . Now, as to her other question, what is her plight hereafter?  It would be rather foolish of me to determine where she is headed, that’s a judgment call between her and God.  I will say, God will bless every man and woman according to the light and knowledge concerning the Savior and his plan of salvation that they are willing to receive.  I read once where the Roman Catholic thinker in the Unites States, Richard John Neuhaus, made this statement, he said ‘You know, I guess I have to believe there’s a hell hereafter because scripture says so, but I can always hope it’s empty.’  And so I don’t know what her situation hereafter will be.  I think God will reward and bless her according to the light and knowledge she receives from heaven.”

. . .

Justin Brierley: “Now, I’m just coming at this as a complete novice and obviously both of you gentlemen are far more aware of the issues at stake here, but I am assuming, Bob, while you said earlier I am going to heaven on the basis of my faith in Jesus Christ, I presumably am not going to be in the same kind of place as you are because you will have put your faith in a greater revelation, is that correct?”  (audio marker 1:13:23)

Bob: “I don’t think I would say that Justin, and the reason I don’t is because, I mean, I think if you had asked me that 25 years ago I would have said Yes, yes that’s right! You made your bed, you lie in it! (laughter).  . . . What I would say is this now–Greg and I have a phrase we use, we tend to suffer on both sides of this from would could be called “the hardening of the categories” and I think the hardening of the categories is a serious issue where we tend to assume the worse or assume something about another faith and I find myself now saying, ‘No, God loves Justin as much as he loves me and he is going to make every, every available opportunity to him just as he will to me, to learn of Christ and accept his Gospel,’ and so no I’m not in a position to say that your level of salvation or your  association with the Savior in the hereafter will be any different from mine.”

Greg: “But, but Bob, Mormonism has a mechanism for making your statement a little bit more easy in that you believe in an after-life salvation possibility through baptism for the dead or temple services for the dead, that would allow someone like Justin or myself to embrace the further teachings of Mormonism beyond the grave,  and would in fact need to in order to be an inheritor of the Celestial Kingdom, right?”

Bob: “I think that’s correct.  That is, for us, life and love and learning continue into the world to come and that no person–the difference I think . . . one of the differences is the belief that Latter-day Saints hold that if a person does not have the opportunity in this life to hear the name of Jesus or learn of his Gospel, then that opportunity will come to them in the world to come.”

I appreciate the charitable but probing manner that Justin Brierley conducted the interview and for Unbelievable’s decision to make the show available online.  As usual, I recommend downloading it to your iPods and listening to the show sometime this week.

Other Resources

For readers and listeners who are interesting in learning more of the Johnson and Millet conversations, see my previous posts covering just a handful of dialogues that Johnson and Millet have had across the country and internationally.

Robert Millet & Greg Johnson Dialogue at Christ United Methodist – Sep 27, 2007
Is Mormonism Christian? A Dialogue – Nov 19, 2007
Reading Scriptures with New Eyes: A Baptist and Mormon Converse – June 8, 2008
Mormon and Evangelical Dialogue in Denver – Oct 21, 2008

Millet and Johnson’s video on Standing Together’s Youtube Channel
Millet and Johnson’s video at the Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy

I think most people have heard of Abraham Lincoln’s method of dealing with frustration. James M. McPherson, Princeton professor and winner of a Pulitzer Prize for “Battle Cry of Freedom,” a one volume history of the Civil War, has studied Lincoln and the Civil War for a large part of his professional life. Writing on McPherson’s new book for the New York times, Charles McGrath reports:

The Lincoln presidency has been so well documented and well studied that there are very few scoops anymore. To write “Tried by War,” Mr. McPherson relied on the usual sources and archives, but he said he was surprised at how often Lincoln seemed frustrated or on the brink of losing his temper.

“He would write letters but not send them,” he explained. “Or he would unburden himself to his private secretary, John Hay, or to Orville Browning, a senator from Illinois who was one of his confidants.” He added: “One’s image of Lincoln doesn’t usually include expressions of frustration and temper, but they make him seem more human.”

Before hitting submit on your latest comment written perhaps partly out of frustration, try this for a change. Save your magnum opus in a Word document and then put it aside. Sleep on it. The next day open the file and read it again.  If you feel it really would add something to the conversation or that it really does need to be said, then submit. Try this out for a couple of weeks and see what happens.

I admit to having quite a bit of Word documents full of comments that I’ve never sent.  Probably enough material for several posts or maybe even a small book.   Much of the time its not out of frustration, but simply out of a desire to gain more objectivity in my writing.  After all, who knows how long these comments are going to sit there on the Internet?  Is it really necessary? Does it really add something to the conversation? Does it matter? If I submitted this, would it advance my goals?  Am I writing this for the right reasons?  Am I exaggerating?

I also admit that I’ve had comments peer reviewed.  When I feel the occasion calls for it, I’ve sent comments to close friends, both those of my own faith community as well as those who come from different faith tradition whether they be Latter-day Saint, Evangelical or Catholic, and have asked them for feedback.   Sometimes I’ve gotten responses like, “Well, I think you’re on the right track, but here is how I would put it.” Or, “Basically I think that’s right but you want to avoid the following.” Clearly, this doesn’t need to be done all the time and obviously not for every comment or post. Yet, I’ve greatly benefited from this practice. Sometimes I’ve been encouraged to keep things I considered discarding. Other times I’ve been saved from writing something perhaps a little too inflammatory, or at least from including something that would have distracted readers from main point of my article.

Now, I know what some might be thinking.  Blogging is very time sensitive.  Who wants to be comment number 20 or 50 when you can be comment number 1?  Waiting a day?  In the blogging world, things happen quickly, will anyone really remember comment 128?  Will people really read my post when everyone else has already reported on the event?  Of course, this is all a judgment call.  However, as a general rule, I  believe that well-written pieces speak for themselves.  Timing is important, but so is clarity, distilled reasoning and thoughtful reflection.

I want to let readers know that I’m currently working on some other projects at the moment, which has left me with precious little time left to write.  (I can’t believe it’s been over a month since my last post!)  Hopefully, when things settle down I’ll be able to start posting more regularly.  There is still much to discuss!

I still read and will respond to comments, and I add posts I find interesting to my Shared Google  Reader accessible from my sidebar.

On September 23, 2008, five Harvard undergraduates were interviewed by journalist for the Washington Post, Sally Quinn, about their religious convictions (video). Students represented Islam, Mormonism, Judaism, Presbyterianism and Buddhism.   Before an audience of approximately 50 students, faculty and chaplains of diverse religions at Beren Hall at Harvard Hillel, these five students were asked to reveal their ‘spiritual biographies.’  The panel discussion was titled “Engaging Religious Difference: Personal Quests for Purpose” and was part of day long series of events on “Faith Live on the Harvard Campus: Personal Quest, Public Conversation, and Global Citizenship.”

Notably, Rachel Esplin (left in photo), an undergraduate studying East Asian Studies, and president of the Latter-day Saint Students Association, was asked to explain her background growing up in Idaho, and how coming to Harvard has impacted her religious views and convictions.  I was extremely impressed at her ability to articulate her beliefs to others in universal terms and yet in a passionate manner.

Rachel did an excellent job framing the religious questions that she has faced by coming to Harvard:  “What does religious diversity mean?  What does it mean to be in a secular environment?  What does it mean to come face to face with what I don’t know and what I have to learn?”  In Rachel’s case, coming to Harvard has actually strengthen her faith by working through these issues.  As she has learned about other faiths, her faith has been strengthened.

Quinn:  “I know a lot of people are concerned and I’ve actually read books by ex-Mormons, particularly women, who say that the Mormon church, that there is not equality of women in the Mormon church.  How do you feel about that?”

Rachel’s answer was lucid and well-presented.  In part, she explained the Latter-day Saint interpretation of the optimistic role of Eve in garden of Eden and explained that the “rib” in the creation narrative symbolizes equality between man and woman.  Rachel explains, “Although I believe God is perfect, I don’t believe religion is perfect.  And although I believe my church is true, I don’t believe all the cultural elements that come with that are a hundred-percent true.”

Quinn quickly followed up with:  “Can you give me some ideas of the elements of the Church you don’t think are actually true, or don’t follow or don’t believe wholeheartedly?”

Rachel was asked to explain the Joseph Smith story for the audience.  Again, I was particularly impressed at not only how Rachel explained the history, but how she placed the story in the context of other religious narratives that one cannot passively accept.  Such framing allows the audience to sympathize with her spiritual journey and to perhaps identify similar challenges in their own faith.  Quinn inquired into the priesthood, temple secrecy, garments, and marriage.

One thing that stood out for me was Rachel’s ability to balance her explanation of Mormonism in collective terms and in personal terms.  One of the struggles with explaining one’s faith to others is to what extent one explains the faith as an observer, one who can “interpret” religious meanings to those outside the faith, and to what extent one speaks not as an interpreter but as a conversant who communicates one’s personal faith in “I believe” terms rather than “we believe” terms.  It isn’t easy to strike this balance.  I felt Rachel did an excellent job in this area.

I want to thank Rachel for her preparation in this interview—it is clear she has thought seriously about these issues—and for being an excellent representative of her faith.

Videos

Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose – 1. Introduction
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose – 2. Sally Quinn
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose – 3. Rachel Esplin (Latter-day Saint)
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose – 4. Sadia Ahsanuddin (Muslim)
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose – 5. Ilan Caplan (Jewish)
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose – 6. Liz Cook (Presbyterian)
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose – 7. Mihiri Tillakaratne (Buddhist)

News Article

Harvard University Gazette Online (October 2, 2008)

Background
The academic conversation between evangelical and Latter-day Saints has been taking place for some time. At times this has been dialogical, and at other times scholars from both sides of the religious divide have put forward ideas and responses in forums representative of their own religious communities without direct interaction with opposing points of view. While such approaches to scholarship have their benefits, a dialogical form of academic engagement can be especially helpful. One recent and promising example of this is found in Donald W. Musser and David L. Paulsen, eds., Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies (Mercer University Press, 2007). This volume is important in that it avoids the tendency among evangelical and LDS scholars to engage in their discussion and scholarship in their own religious communities independent of direct interaction with the religious community they are writing about.

In addition to these considerations much of the dialogue and scholarly effort up to this point has been defined by boundary definition and maintenance concerns for both communities, and with the question, “Is Mormonism Christian?” lingering in the background, and at times in the forefront of interaction. While self-identity and definition are important considerations for both religious communities, there are also broader perspectives to consider that can help us understand each other more. Sacred Tribes Journal would like to serve as a forum for such exploration.

There is also the possibility for fresh perspectives to come outside of Latter-day Saint and evangelical Protestant frameworks. Broader Christendom and other places in the academy may contribute the results of their observations on evangelical-LDS interactions that may help address potential blindspots and provide for additional understanding.

Call for Submissions
The editors of Sacred Tribes Journal are planning on a special theme issue devoted to Mormonism and evangelicalism that will involve dialogical approaches to theology, and perhaps apologetic approaches. A collection of evangelical and Mormon scholars will be put together and these submissions will be reviewed by representatives of the other religious community so that a response can be offered. Issues discussed in papers may include the following:

• Perceptions of the state of affairs since How Wide the Divide?.
• The extent to which apologetic arguments and counter-arguments have been understood and responded to since The New Mormon Challenge and the FARMS response and critique of this work.
• Ethical-ritual practice perspectives.
• The place of narrative and culturally-formative stories play in understanding Mormonism in contrast with creedal and systematic theology perspectives of Protestantism.
• How narrative and ritual provide overarching hermeneutical frameworks within Mormonism in its biblical interpretation.

If you are interested in submitting an article for consideration, for general considerations please see the guidelines for contributors, and for specific questions related to this issue please contact John Morehead at johnwmorehead@msn.com.

Original call for papers at Morehead’s Musings.

I think it is important for those interested in the Mormon and Evangelical dialogue to keep abreast of the various ideas and concepts that have been discussed in order to effectively build upon the efforts of others and interact with the thoughts of others.

The better we are acquainted with the literature, the better informed our future discussions and dialogues will become.

Connelly, Matthew R., Craig L. Blomberg, Stephen E. Robinson and BYU Studies Staff. “Sizing Up the Divide: Reviews and Replies,” BYU Studies, 38/3 (1999):163-190. [HTML] [PDF]

This is a great introduction to the reactions to HWD.  Connelly provides a wide and ranging review of the many responses to HWD.  Also, Blomberg and Robinson get a chance to respond to criticisms.

Eugene England, “The Good News—and the Bad,” review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, BYU Studies 38/3 (1999): 191-201. [HTML] [PDF]

England provides an example of a Mormon who is critical of interfaith dialogue and while he continually praises Blomberg and Robinson for their civil and responsible dialogue, England is also very suspicious of Evangelicals and their theology.  In many ways, England doesn’t necessarily review HWD, but rather seeks to distinguish Mormonism from Evangelicalism in his own way.

Ostler, Blake T. “Bridging the Gulf.” FARMS Review of Books 11, no. 2 (1999): 103-177. [PDF] [HTML]

Ostler provides an excellent and rigorous critique of Blomberg and Robinson.  Ostler spends quite a bit of time on inerrancy and inspiration theory, and explains the problems in speaking of God exclusively in finite or absolute terms.

Mosser, Carl and Paul Owen, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” [including Appendix: Hellenism, Greek Philosophy, and the Creedal “Straightjacket” of Christian Orthodoxy] FARMS Review of Books 11, no. 2 (1999): 103-177. [PDF] [HTML]

Mosser and Owen, authors of the Fall 1998 article in Trinity Journal in which they exhaustively reviewed a great deal of Mormon scholarship, are aptly qualified to review and critique HWD.  They further defend the Evangelical position.  They also provide an important appendix where they “hope the sentiment that all things Greek are ‘mad, bad, and dangerous to know’ will be abandoned by Latter-day Saints.”

David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, “How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser’s Review,” FARMS Review of Books, 11/2 (1999): 221–264. [PDF] [HTML]

Paulsen and Potter, both trained in philosophy, reply to Owen and Mosser.  They future note the challenges with speaking of God in terms of finite and absolute terms.

Robert M. Sivulka “Similar yet Different,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 31, no. 3 (1998): 196-98. [SITE]

Sivulka (MA from Talbot School of Theology, BIOLA University; MA San Diego University) focuses mostly on inspiration theory and inerrancy, and provides a very needed balance to the literature.

Craig Blomberg. “How Wide the Divide? Eleven Years Later, Mormons and Evangelicals in Conversation.” Denver Seminary’s Women’s Forum, Feb 27, 2008. [AUDIO]

What happened after How Wide the Divide?  This audio lecture is absolutely essentially for understanding the origins and history of the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue.

“Stephen Robinson and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”  Summa Theological Interfaith Dialogue, blog, April 21, 2009. [LINK]

Does Robinson really accept the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?  Many commentators seem to think so.  I argue here that the confusion while understandable can be resolved by a closer reading of Robinson and Blomberg.

Feb 27, 2008, Dr. Blomberg gave a presentation as part of Denver Seminary’s Women’s Forum entitled “How Wide the Divide? Eleven Years Later, Mormons and Evangelicals in Conversation.” (Listen Here)

In this presentation, Dr. Blomberg provides an amazing look from the inside of the events before and after the publication of How Wide the Divide.  Dr. Blomberg recounts the history of how he came to enter into communication with Stephen E. Robinson, author of “Are Mormons Christian?,” the various criticism and praise which followed HWD, the events leading up to the 2004 event at the Mormon Tabernacle with Ravi Zacharius, Greg Johnson and Robert Millet’s public dialogues, the publication “The New Mormon Challenge,” and various academic dialogues with religious studies students including the National Student Dialogue Conference.  Dr. Blomberg concludes his talk with summaries of lessons he has learned from this experience.  A question and answer session concludes.

I personally enjoyed Dr. Blomberg’s talk and found myself nodding amen to essentially everything he had to say.

Regis University’s The Institute on the Common Good will host “A Mormon and an Evangelical Dialogue” event on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 from 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM in the St. John Francis Regis Chapel located on the University’s North Denver Lowell (Main) campus.  (Read News Article).

If you are in the Denver area and interested in inter-faith dialogue, I highly recommend participating in this event.  For more information contact the Institute of Common Good.

Update:  Seth at Nine Moons has posted his experience at the event.
A Mormon and Evangelical Dialogue in Denver: A Summary

Shortly afterward, Professor McDermott kindly sent me a response to my critique.  With his permission, I am pleased to post his response below.  I want to thank Professor McDermott for taking the time and interest to engage in my review.

Response to “Aquinas”

Dear “Aquinas”:

Let me say first of all that I appreciate your careful and respectful way of making critique.  It is only by that method, I think, that you and I, and evangelicals and Mormons generally, have any hope of learning from one another and growing in our knowledge of God.

I also appreciate your affirmation of some aspects of the book I did with Bob Millet, Claiming Christ.  You wrote about it publicly, and generally in a positive way, while at the same time expressing forthrightly your criticisms.

I do regret the short space in which I was forced to write in First Things.  As I told my dear friend Bob Millet, the content is not substantially different from what I wrote in Claiming Christ.  But because I had to write in such a compressed way, the tone is sharper-suggesting perhaps a dismissive hostility that is not at all what I feel.  As I wrote more than once in my book, I have been deeply impressed by the humanity and love I have seen in my Mormon friends.  And I also wrote more than once in the book that there are things evangelicals can learn from Mormons.

Now I think that some of your trouble with what I wrote comes from seeing my statements in the First Things article outside of the larger and more nuanced argument in Claiming Christ.  Another reason is that, at times, you seem to confuse what I said about the pre-fully-deified Jesus with what I wrote about the present Christ. Or perhaps I was not clear enough!

Some of our differences come, as you point out, from my failing to distinguish what some Mormons say as opposed to my suggestions that all Mormons believe such and such.  More on that below.

Then there are simply our deepest theological differences which will remain as long as you’re a Mormon and I an orthodox Christian.  But I still think it is helpful to all of us to explore those differences.

Let me explain my reasons for making some of the claims I did.

1.      Jesus is a different God from the Father.  I think this is clear from Smith’s King Follett discourse: “The head God called together the Gods . . . the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any doctrine . . . In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth.”

a.       I know that this discourse is not official scripture, but as Stephen Robinson wrote, its views have become semi-official and are regarded as normative in the LDS Church.

b.      Besides, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says God is “plural” and teaches a Mother in Heaven, who is like the Heavenly Father in glory and perfection.

c.       You fault me for suggesting that Mormons think the Son is “independent and unrelated” to the Father.  I DO understand that LDS think the Father and the Son are intimately related-just as my son is intimately related to me and shares my will and purposes (most of the time-hah!).  Nevertheless, as you say, you and other LDS believe Jesus and the Father are two different beings (even tho they share will and purpose ALL the time), just as you and I are two different beings.  This is precisely where we disagree.  And so we are not talking past each other as much as you think.

2.      There are several or more Gods.

a.       I understand that for LDS, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the only Gods with whom we have to do.  But Smith also talked about the Father having his own Father, and that Father too being from a Father-and the three “personages” being “three Gods.”  Thus Smith DID suggest at least three Gods.  Orson Pratt wrote similarly: “The person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, he was begotten by a still more ancient Father . . . .”

b.      Yes, I know from Bob Millet and others that this is not part of normal LDS discussion.  But why is it not firmly repudiated? In the absence of such repudiation, those outside the LDS perhaps can be forgiven for thinking that this possibility shows in stark fashion a major difference between Christian orthodoxy and LDS faith.

c.       The notion that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different Gods is a logical deduction from the oft-repeated LDS insistence that there is not ontological oneness in the Trinity.  I understand that some LDS still use the word “Trinity” while rejecting orthodox understandings of it.  (And by the way, Augustine affirmed quite clearly ontological oneness-oneness of being-clearly rejecting the tritheism one sees in Smith.)  But the theologically-minded among them also insist that oneness in the Trinity is limited to unity of purpose and mind among three different beings.  Thus it seems clear that LDS understanding of the Godhead is a version of tri-theism.  I do not hear any LDS saying they really DO believe in onotological oneness between the Father and the Son, for example.  In the absence of that, I must retain my conviction concerning what texts explicitly state: that the LDS worship three Gods.

i.      You suggest Smith had a particular way of making consistent “three gods” as “three personages” with oneness.  If you continue to reject ontological oneness, how is your claim any different from traditional Mormon explanations’ of unity in purpose and will and glory?

d.      I  hear what you are saying about trying to understand how Smith thought he was consistent between the Book of Mormon and his later discourses-that he felt his statement of three Gods was consistent with unity in the Godhead.  Would I be wrong to imagine that his thinking evolved, and that he therefore saw his later “three” as a way of interpreting the earlier “one”?  If that is the case, then the rejection of the orthodox Trinity goes all the way back to the earliest prophecies.  I guess I would still say the evolution was profound, and therefore that if it was not a contradiction it was nevertheless an extraordinary progression in thinking.

3.      Jesus grew into God.

a.       Smith said in the King Follett discourse that “God himself was once as we are now.” He said he would refute the idea that “God was God from all eternity.”  What was true of the Father must also have been true of the Son.  As Professor Millet wrote in A Different Jesus?, “As a premortal spirit, [Jesus] grew in knowledge and power to the point where he became ‘like unto God.’” (my emphasis)  In Claiming Christ, Bob says there is no inconsistency between 1) believing that Jesus became God and therefore not believing in his “eternality,” and 2) believing that He is “the Eternal God,” and is from everlasting to everlasting.  Bob refers to this as a mystery, and I respect that.  I believe that God is one being and three persons, and I say that too is a mystery.  But what seems clear is that LDS doctrine-at least for Joseph Smith and Robert Millet-is that Jesus both grew into becoming God and is somehow also the eternal God.

4.      Jesus is the same species as we are.

a.       This does not seem to be a stretch.  Robert Millet uses exactly the same language in Claiming Christ (p. 85).  Joseph Smith said, “You have got to learn to be Gods yourselves . . . the same as all Gods have done before you.”  (I know this does not mean that we would ever “replace” God, as you suggest I claim. I never suggest that.) Terryl Givens says Mormonism rejects orthodoxy’s “infinite qualitative difference” between the divine and human.

i.      Now that does not mean that there is not now an enormous difference between us humans and Jesus Christ as he exists today as God-for Mormons.  I acknowledge that in the book over and over.  Perhaps my article is not clear on that.  This, I think, is what tripped you and others up.  You think I am suggesting that Mormons think Jesus today is the same as we.  No, I acknowledge the fact that He is God whom Mormons worship, and is thought to be of perfect beauty and glory.  That is what I mean by “fully divine.”  Mormons say Jesus is fully divine, but important Mormon authorities (I am adjusting my language to your criticism of my failure to distinguish among Mormon voices) acknowledge he was not always fully divine.

ii.      The key difference that I tried to point out is that even tho Jesus today for Mormons is God, he is nevertheless still of the same species.  He is not ontologically different, but our same nature perfected into Godhood.  This is still a fundamental difference with historic Christianity.

b.      I hear what you are saying about my saying Jesus was “merely” a man.  You fault me for ignoring what Robinson wrote.  But there is a difference.  Robinson criticizes evangelicals for saying that the Mormon God is merely a man.  My statement is that (important) Mormons believe he was merely a man at one time.  So I was not suggesting that God is merely man-only that Jesus was once merely a man.

5.      A physical Jesus limited by the cosmos.

a.       D&C says Jesus’ spirit fills the immensity of space, but suggests there is nothing beyond this material cosmos.  The Encyclopedia of Mormonism teaches that eternal law is independent and co-eternal with God.  David Paulsen states that God “does not have absolute power” but only the power to use natural laws to further His purposes.  BH Roberts wrote that God “may not act out of harmony with the bother eternal existences which condition or limit him”

b.      One could say, as I think I hear some LDS saying, “This is no different from orthodoxy because we too believe God is the author of those laws.”  But if that is the case, then the laws are not co-eternal with God and independent of God.  The two notions simply do not cohere philosophically.

i.      So I take your criticism that I should have acknowledged diversity here.  But I would add, next time, that there is a philosophical problem here.

c.       To say that God orders or dismisses Chaos does not refute what I said.  If Chaos existed co-eternally with God, then God is not larger than the cosmos.  He does not transcend the cosmos.  He is in a real sense limited by the cosmos.  Only a Creator of all can be free from being limited by parts of the all.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Gerald McDermott

Russell R. Reno, is an associate professor in the Department of Theology at Creighton University.  Creighton is a Jesuit university and Reno is Catholic.  I was extremely impressed with his demeanor as well as his questions in sincerely trying to understand Mormonism.  In addition to his interview with Bruce D. Porter, Reno also interviews Gerald McDermott in regards to his First Things Article.  I intend to comment on that interview later, however, I want to focus on Reno and Porter in this post.  In particular I want to emphasize Reno’s questions.

Reno: In terms of the sense in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate beings, I mean, in no sense, do I, in my acquaintance with Mormons, do I have any sense they are polytheistic in any sense.  So the  question I have is, if you think about this, what do you think protects the piety from fragmenting?  (11:00-11:27)

This is an excellent question.  Reno knows from things he has read that Latter-day Saints believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three beings.  His question suggests the possibility that, this doctrine could lead to people choosing to worship one being to the exclusion of the other, or as he says it “fragmenting the piety”.  However, and most importantly, he reflects on his own experience with Mormons and from an empirical standpoint knows that he doesn’t see Latter-day Saint factions where some choose to be faithful only to one member of the Godhead.

No matter what one hypothesizes about what Latter-day Saint doctrine “might” lead people to believe, it is very important to reflect on the actual experience of Latter-day Saints and ask: does the hypothesis match?  Since this is not what happens, Reno thoughtfully asks Porter, “What do you think protects the piety from fragmenting?”  In other words, he is seeking to understand how the doctrine works, or in other words, how is it that Latter-day Saints can believe that there are three beings and yet not break into factions over worshiping just one of them to the exclusion of the others?

Porter responds with the Latter-day Saint practice of praying to the Father in the name of the Son (a practice which Latter-day Saints see as conforming to the biblical model of prayer taught by Christ in the Gospel of Matthew 6: 6, 9.)

Reno: In antiquity one of the questions used to pin people down was the question “Was there ever a time when the Son was not?” I’m wondering how a Mormon would answer that.  Was there ever a time when the Son was not?

Porter: Well, in the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine of Covenants, the Son is described as being “from eternity to eternity without beginning or end,” so no we do not believe there was a time when the Son was not.  (13:45-14:17).

Reno also points out that in the LDS Church baptism is performed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (in accordance with Matthew 28:19).

Another thing I enjoyed was Reno charitable questions about baptism for the dead.

Reno: It strikes me that the Mormon faith is optimistic. . . One of the things that I think a lot of folks find very mysterious is the idea of the baptism for the dead.  Of course, it is in [1 Corinthians 15].  And of course biblical scholars have no idea, at least modern historians have no idea what its referring to, because nothing has survived of that practice in orthodox Christianity. . . How does that work?

Porter: It is very fundamental to our religion that every soul is free, that no one is forced to heaven, forced to accept Christ.  We don’t see ordinances including baptism for the dead as compelling anyone to follow a certain course or to accept Christ.

Reno: So there is no, it is not universal salvation, but at the same time, there is a kind of, Mormonism encourages a kind of optimism about the scope of Christ’s proclamation?

Porter: Yes.  We believe that He atoned for the sins of all mankind. . . But in many of those eras they did not know about Christ, or very little.  They certainly didn’t have the gospel taught to them.  They had no access to the saving ordinances of baptism and confirmation.  And God has provided a way that they be taught posthumously in the spirit world, in a way for those ordinances to be performed on their behalf.  Part of the purpose for that is, I think, so that those who are alive today have the opportunity of performing service on behalf of those who did not have that privilege.

Reno: So it is a kind of solidarity of the human race in a way?

Porter: Exactly.  The solidarity across the centuries and across the whole world.  For us it is a beautiful vision of the power of Christ’s redemption. . .  (18:55-22:52).

On the Christian tradition Porter explains:

Porter: We respect the Christian tradition, we believe that men like Aquinas were godly men.  We believe the Protestant reformers were raised up by God to accomplish what they did.  We believe that many of the Catholic saints were holy.  We have never, contrary to what some people have said, we have never denied the Christianity of other faiths.

Incidentally, the only part of the Nicene Creed, that we would differ with in any significant degree is the statement that says that Christ is of “one substance” with the Father.  The rest of the creed is clearly straightforward and we would not disagree with it.  As you know there were subsequent creeds that continued to be a discussion and point of contention as to exactly what it meant for centuries, and subsequent creeds tried to clarify that. . . That doesn’t mean there are not portions of those creeds that we wouldn’t agree with. (25:02-26:50).

I think this is an important point to emphasize.  In their article, David Paulsen and Brett McDonald write:

If the originators and those who immediately followed could come to no consensus concerning the meaning of the creed, it is clear that modern Christians are not bound to a homogeneous interpretation of it.  Proponents of [Social Trinitarianism] (including Mormons) can accept the Nicene Creed as a declaration of the full divinity of Jesus Christ while rejecting the ontological identity of the three divine persons. This point is important and worth I repeating: the Nicene Creed can be (and was historically) interpreted in varying ways, by varying groups, with varying theological commitments.  Any number of persons, including modalists and proponents of ST, can subscribe to the creed, each producing its own studies to show why homoousios ought to be understood in a particular way.  (Joseph Smith and the Trinity, 51).

In conclusion Porter explains:

Porter: There’s also been an effort, both on our part and on the part of at least some Evangelicals to engage in dialogue.  Professor Robert Millet at Brigham Young University has spent several years now in extensive dialogue with various Evangelical authors including Professor McDermott who wrote the companion piece to mine.  They in fact, co-authored a book and tried to highlight our some of our commonalities and some of our differences.  And I think that’s helpful; we have tried to do the same with some Catholic scholars.  I think the biggest challenge for us is that, partly because of the turbulence of our early history, that our doctrine is simply not very well understood.  Many people will read an isolated statement from Joseph Smith or something that seems controversial from some of our other leaders and they never actually look at the doctrine as a whole, they rarely read the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine and Covenants, and so there is a kind of divide simply in understanding.  That’s not to say we can’t do more to understand Catholic doctrine or Protestant doctrine ourselves.  But I think we, those are so widely taught and so widely accessible in Journals such as First Things, that I think we have a better understanding of that, than most other Christians have of our own faith and doctrine. (28:20-29:57).

Reno: Well, thanks a lot for taking the time to talk.  It’s been a real pleasure.

I’d like to thank Professor Reno for providing listeners with a very hospitable and thoughtful interview with Bruce D. Porter.

First, let me express my appreciation for McDermott’s interaction with Latter-day Saints as well as his contributions to explaining Mormonism to Evangelicals.  McDermott is correct that often Evangelical critiques of Mormonism miss the mark and fail to take into consideration a larger body of knowledge.  Indeed, Latter-day Saints have no qualms with those accurately pointing out differences in doctrine and practice between Mormonism and historical orthodox Christianity.  It is usually the “differences” requiring qualification but proposed without qualification and clarification that concerns Latter-day Saints.  I shall attempt to set forth several of these concerns that have been on my mind after reading Claiming and since reading McDermott’s recent essay.  My hope is that dialogue will continue to refine and improve mutual understanding of each others faith perspectives.  Before I begin, I want to stress that there is much in McDermott’s essay that I agree with and find helpful, but I am limiting my remarks to those areas I feel could improve.

1.  McDermott writes, “A second charge sometimes made by Nicene Christians is that Mormons are modern-day Arians who reject the deity of Christ. This is untrue in an important sense. Mormons do not believe Jesus was always God but that he was fully divine in the incarnation and continues to be God the Son today. The Book of Mormon says it was “the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” who was “lifted up” and “crucified” (1 Nephi 19:10).”

The underlined sentence without scriptural citation is the culprit here.  It would be more accurate to say that “Some Mormons do not believe Jesus was always God but that he was fully divine in the incarnation and continues to be God the Son today.”  Some Mormons do believe that God was always God, and it should not be asserted as empirical fact that “Mormons do not believe Jesus was always God.”  Notice that Bruce D. Porter never includes such a characterization in his description of Mormonism.  In addition, what does it mean to not be “God” but to simultaneously be “fully divine”?  If one is “fully divine” is this not “God”?  Certainly a vast majority of Christians would logically draw this inference.  This needs to be explained to the reader.

2.  McDermott argues that Joseph Smith’s teachings in the King Follett Discourse that there are “three Gods” and the Book of Mormon’s teaching that “the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is one God” undermines the credibility of Joseph Smith.

McDermott argues that “If the prophet responsible for the Book of Mormon made cosmically significant changes in his view of God over the course of his prophetic career, one has less confidence in the reliability of his prophecies, particularly those that purport to provide a new history of God on earth.”  This is a legitimate concern for students of Mormonism.  However, McDermott makes the assumption that Joseph Smith has repudiated the teachings of the Book of Mormon which, I take it, McDermott believes that Joseph authored years previous.  This is certainly one explanation, and one way to deal with the material, but there is little evidence that Joseph ever explicitly stated that he has changed his mind or that he has repudiated the Book of Mormon.  Indeed, the evidence suggests that Joseph Smith was consistent in his view of the nature of God.  Shortly before his death, Joseph stated:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit.

Rather than assume that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon thinking that there is only one God but later on a whim changed his mind and now believes there three Gods, it would be a welcomed posture if those studying Joseph Smith and Mormonism might start with the more natural assumption that Joseph Smith did not repudiate the Book of Mormon and seek to try to understand what Joseph Smith could mean in light of the Book of Mormon.  David Paulsen and Brett McDonald in their January 2008 Faith and Philosophy article “Joseph Smith and the Trinity” offer an extended discussion on this very point.  They write:

Notwithstanding his explicit declaration that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are “three distinct personages and three Gods,” Smith’s revelations also repeatedly affirm that “the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are one God.” At face value, these two affirmations appear to be flatly contradictory. However, closer inspection discloses that the contradiction is apparent only, resulting from Smith’s equivocal use of the term “God.” It is therefore important to briefly examine what Smith meant by the term “one God,” and show how these statements, when correctly understood, are actually consistent with his affirmation of three distinct divine persons, or “three Gods.” (Joseph Smith and the Trinity, 54).

3.  McDermott argues that Mormonism “(1) asserts that Jesus is a different God from the Father; (2) that Jesus is one of (at least) three Gods; (3) that he was once a man who was not God; (4) that his nature is in all respects the same as ours, (5) and so his status is also one we can attain one day; and (6) that he does not transcend the cosmos.” This description is nearly identical to the one McDermott makes in Claiming (p. 64).

(1) What does it mean that Jesus is a “different God from the Father”?  Both in Mormonism and in historical Christianity “the Son” is not “the Father.”  St. Augustine taught:

See how the praise of Unity is commended to us. Undoubtedly our God is Trinity. The Father is not the Son the Son is not the Father, the Holy Spirit is neither the Father, nor the Son, but the Spirit of both; and yet these Three are not Three Gods, nor Three Almighties; but One God, Almighty, the whole Trinity is one God; because One thing is necessary. To this one thing nothing brings us, except being many we have one heart. (Sermon 53 on the New Testament).

It is crucial to recognize that Latter-day Saints can affirm with St. Augustine that indeed, “The Father is not the Son the Son is not the Father, the Holy Spirit is neither the Father, nor the Son, but the Spirit of both.”  Is it true that St. Augustine believes “yet these Three are not Three Gods” and Joseph Smith declares that they are “three distinct personages and three Gods.”  However, it is confusing to the reader to merely make this observation and walk away.  Paulsen and McDonald explain:

Consistent with his revelations, when Smith declares there are three “Gods,” he means that there are three individual persons, each of whom is divine. When he affirms that there is “one God,” he means that either there is one God the Father, one perfectly united divine community or one generic divine nature. (Joseph Smith and the Trinity, 56).

McDermott’s brief explanation is misleading to the reader and even more misleading to the Evangelical reader.  It tends to suggest that Jesus and God the Father are separate and distinct in a way that no Latter-day Saint would suggest.

(2) McDermott argues “that Jesus is one of (at least) three Gods” in Mormonism.  Specifically, why add the modifier “at least“?  Joseph Smith, to my knowledge, never taught that there are “at least three Gods” but rather he declares that the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost constitute “three distinct personages and three Gods.”  By adding the phrase “at least” this suggests to the general reader that there are multiple Gods in a kind of Mormon Pantheon, akin to the Greek and Roman Pantheons.  While some Latter-day Saints may believe there are several “Gods” (whatever that means) this should not be set forth as a definitive statement of Mormon teachings.  It should be stressed that some Latter-day Saints accept the Bible and Book of Mormon witness that there is only “one God.”  In fact, such individuals can remain faithful and practicing Latter-day Saints at the same time.  It seems to me that that adding “at least” only obfuscates more than elucidates Mormon belief.

(3) McDermott’s Mormon creed continues with the assertion that the Jesus “was once a man who was not God.”  That Jesus was a man is without dispute.  Both Mormonism and historic Christianity affirms the humanity and the divinity of Jesus.  Christ was a man, as orthodox Christianity affirms, he is the God-man, and as the Book of Mormon prophet Abinadi taught “God himself” took on flesh and became man (Mosiah 15:1-5).  In the Book of Mormon account, King Benjamin taught “the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay” (Mosiah 3:5).   Christ is God and according to Latter-day Saint belief he “lived a sinless life.”  (Indeed, McDermott cites a Barna Survey in Claiming that concludes: “the people most likely to describe Jesus’ life as sinless were those who attend Pentecostal and Assemblies of God churches, as well as Mormons, while those least likely to view Jesus as sinless attend Episcopal, Catholic and Lutheran churches.”).  It simply is inaccurate to claim that Mormon doctrines teaches that Jesus was once a man who was not God.  At the very least, one should be extremely cautious before asserting this is Mormon doctrine.

(4) McDermott asserts that Christ’s nature is “in all respects the same as ours.”  What does this mean?  This really only makes sense in a framework where one has a theology of natures or essences.  In fact, what McDermott seems to be saying is that unlike the traditional orthodox framework where the nature of God is different from the nature of man, man being fallen humanity, and God being God, that Mormonism teaches that both Christ and man have the same nature “in all respects.”  This is meaningless without more discussion and explanation.  First of all, if this is the case then why do Latter-day Saints insist that Christ lived a “sinless life”?  And if Christ and “the rest of us” are no different in any respects, how is it that apparently no one else other than Christ was able to live a sinless life?  In fact, in Claiming, McDermott chides Millet for writing:

Jesus also had within him the powers of divinity, which enabled him to do what no other man or woman in human history had ever done-to look upon every soul with a Godlike empathy and compassion, to lift souls and liberate captive human hearts, to resist temptation and remain sinless, to forgive sins, and to rise from the dead. (Millet, Claiming, 95-96).

McDermott takes issue with Millet’s essay because:

[He] states that it was Jesus’s “powers of divinity” that enabled him “to resist temptation and remain sinless.”  Now I am glad Professor Millet, unlike some Christian writers today, emphatically affirms Jesus’s sinlessness.  But the language I just quoted can be read to suggest that Jesus had latent supernatural power that was used to overcome temptation.  (The orthodox tradition has always said that Jesus as a human being fought temptation, not with his divinity, but by the Spirit, just as we are called to do.) (McDermott, Claiming, 107).

Notice here how even Millet’s language doesn’t support in any way the hypothesis that for Mormons, Jesus is “no different” from you or me or that Jesus was “merely a man.”  If Jesus’s nature (again whatever this means, we are never told) was no different from any of us, why don’t we raise ourselves from the dead or live a sinless life?  In addition, to suggest that Jesus overcame temptation, not with his divinity but by the Spirit, is to beg the same question.  If this is the case, how is it that no human being as been able to perfectly “fight temptation by the Spirit”, as Jesus did?  All of this is to hit home that to say “Jesus’s nature is no different from the rest of us,” is simply not reflective of how Latter-day Saints think of Jesus and can only confuses the reader as to what Latter-day Saints really think about Jesus.  Whether Jesus fought temptation with divine supernatural powers or through the Spirit is besides the point.  Whatever he did appears not to have been replicated by anyone in the history of mankind thus far.

(5) McDermott explains that for Latter-day Saints, Jesus’s “status is also one we can attain one day.”  Deification is certainly a Mormon teaching.  However, by itself, this statement tends to confuse the reader rather than enlighten.   In Claiming, Robert Millet explained his feelings on the matter: “There is no question in my mind but that God is God, and there is now and will forevermore be a chasm between the two of us.   I am not aware of any authoritative statements in our literature that suggest that men and women will ever worship any beings other than the three persons within the Godhead.” (Millet, Claiming, 82). Latter-day Saints typically do not believe they will “replace” God.  Terryl Givens explained it this way:

Mormons believe that Peter’s reference to “partaking of the divine nature” and Paul’s reference to “being joint heirs with Christ” reflect the intent that humans should strive to emulate God in every way.  The goal is not to equal God and Jesus, or to achieve parity with them, but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love, and other divine attributes. (Givens, What do Mormons Believe?)

(6) Finally, McDermott argues that Jesus “does not transcend the cosmos.”  I discuss this issue during my interview with John Morehead at Morehead’s Musings. I will reproduce the relevant portion.

We really need spend more time learning each others metaphors. I think McDermott “breaks” Latter-day Saint metaphors by projecting and imposing criteria and meaning from Evangelical metaphors. I’d like to offer three examples of this. First, McDermott makes the argument that the LDS Jesus doesn’t transcend the cosmos (Claming, 75). The Latter-day Saint metaphor is that God creates by bringing order out of Chaos. Cosmos is order. Chaos is disorder, unformed the unorganized. God speaks to Chaos and it obeys. So, what McDermott really means is the LDS God doesn’t transcend Chaos because Chaos exists when God creates. However, this breaks the metaphor because the metaphor only works when Cosmos and Chaos are opposites. The metaphor doesn’t care or it doesn’t make an issue of Chaos pre-existing as a challenge to the absoluteness of God. The point is not who exists before: God or Chaos. The point is that it is God who is creating by speaking to the waters. The point in this metaphor is that God is God because of his creative powers. The Holy Ghost broods over the waters and brings forth heaven and earth from the primordial waters in Genesis. That is one example. (Review of Claiming, Morehead’s Musings).

4.  McDermott continues, “Mormons say Jesus is a different being from the Father, and in fact a different God. Mormons therefore say Jesus is one of several Gods.”

This is where Mormons and orthodox Christians regularly talk past each other.  When a typical Latter-day Saint thinks of being, they think of being in the sense that I am a being and you are a being, and usually every person is his or her own being.  Therefore, it makes sense that Jesus is his own being and the Father is his own being and if the Father and the Son were the same “being” then it doesn’t really compute any more than to say you and I are the same “being.”

Orthodox Christians do not, or should not, mean “being” as in human being or person.  Rather, “being” refers to an ontological framework.  There are two categories in the universe: God and everything else.  If you are God, then you are uncreated, but if you are not God, then you are by default created.  The question is “What is Jesus?  Created or Uncreated?” (This debate already occurred in Christian history).  If Jesus is created, went the argument, then he obviously is not God and cannot redeem us or save us.  If Jesus is uncreate then we also have a problem because now we have two Gods and this violates the strict monotheism of the Old Testament.  The solution is the Trinity.  In the Trinity, Christians can have Jesus be God, be of the same “being” or ontological category of God, but not violate the monotheism of the Old Testament.

So when McDermott says that Jesus is a “different God” from the Father, in historical Christianity this means he is not of the same essence or substance of the Father and thus it would be like having two independent and unrelated “God the Fathers.”  However, this is not what Latter-day Saints believe at all, but the reader would never know it from McDermott’s essay.  McDermott says “Mormons therefore say Jesus is one of several Gods.”  Do Mormons say this?  The better statement which reflects actual LDS belief would be to say “Jesus Christ is one of three divine personages of the Godhead.”  To say that “Mormons therefore say Jesus is one of several Gods” is simply inaccurate.

Responding to McDermott at Roanoke College, Millet concluded:

“If you were to ask me to characterize our notion of the Godhead, I would say let me suggest three points to you. 1) There are three persons within the Godhead. 2) Each of those persons possess all the attributes and qualities of Godliness in perfection. 3) The love and unity between each of those persons is of such a magnitude that they are on occasions simply referred to as ‘God’. That’s true in the Book of Mormon, over and over, just as it is in the New Testament. So I think, for me, I hear you, but the oneness is still infinitely great. Do I believe they are separate beings? I do. But I think they are just as One as two beings can be.” (1:07:15-1:08:10)

5.  McDermott writes: “If Jesus is one of several Gods, he was not always God. For Mormons, he was once as we are now but eventually grew in his attributes until he became “like unto God” (Abraham 3:24).”

Abraham 3:24 is as follows: “And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.”  This verse simply does not teach that Christ “was once as we are now but eventually grew in his attributes until he became “like unto God.”  In fact, it says nothing about becoming at all.  The verse does not stand for the propositon for which it is cited.

6.  McDermott explains, the Mormon “Jesus is also limited by “eternal law,” which according to the Encyclopedia is independent and co-eternal with God, just as matter is. In fact, not only is law independent of God, but God is governed by it.”

Millet responded to this back in 2005.  During their public dialogue at Roanoke College, Millet explained following a similar description by McDermott:

You know this is an interesting discussion even within Mormonism, Gerry, because the question of, the way it forms itself in our past has been schools of thought that believed that law and God were sort of on an equal plane.  Well, that’s deistic to me.  That makes no sense.  And if you were to come to me, and I think most of my religion faculty, they would say no.  God is the author of law.  God is power behind law.  Thus God has all power over matter. . . From my perspective, God is the author of law. (audio marker 56:00-57:00)

Now, I’m not citing Millet to argue this is the definitive LDS view of God and law, but I am showing that this is an LDS view of things and McDermott has been exposed to it back in 2005.  Yet, McDermott’s essay would not inform the reader of this important fact.  He essentially seems to ignore Millet here as perhaps some sort of anomaly.  It would seem more meaningful for McDermott to bracket his assertion and inquire a little more into the relationship between God and law in Mormonism rather than proclaim that this is “the” Mormon view.  In other words, it is important that when students of Mormonism not present to the world one voice in Mormonism as the voice.  It is much more helpful to point out areas where there can legitimately be differing perspectives on doctrinal issues.

7.  McDermott concludes with: “Smith’s Jesus is a God distinct from God the Father; he was once merely a man and not God.”

In interfaith dialogue, one would do well to use the modifier “mere” sparingly and only with great caution when applying it to the religious beliefs of another. Years ago, Stephen Robinson wrote:

Other Evangelicals have charged, on the basis of statements made by Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow to the effect that God was once a man, that the Mormon God is “merely a man.” But again, I have never heard God referred to in all my days as “just a man.” or “merely a man.” No Mormon would say such a thing. God is God, and Mormons attribute to God every honor, power, glory and perfection that Evangelicals do. (Robinson, How Wide the Divide, p. 92).

Yet, despite this explanation given by Robinson a decade ago in 1997, and despite McDermott referring to How Wide the Divide in his book, he seems to simply ignore Robinson (and Millet) and continue explaining to other Evangelicals that “Smith’s Jesus is a God distinct from God the Father; he was once merely a man and not God.”  Part of dialogue means listening to things that Latter-day Saint interlocutors say and taking them to heart.  I hope that we can build off of these dialogues rather than ignore them or pass them by without any explanation.

In conclusion, I appreciate many of McDermott’s points but I simply want to suggest that McDermott at least recognize more voices in the Mormon tradition than presenting one point of view as the Latter-day Saint view.

Friday & Saturday
October 24-25th, 2008
Utah Valley University

This two-day conference on dialogue, sponsored by Standing Together & the Religious Studies Department of Utah Valley University, 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.

Speakers Include:

Dr. Robert L. Millet, Brigham Young University
Dr. Jerry Root, Wheaton College
Dr. Spencer Fluhman, Brigham Young University
Dr. Dennis Okholm, Azusa Pacific University
Dr. Brian Birch, Utah Valley University
Dr. John-Mark Reynolds, Biola University
Dr. Robert S. Wood, Second Quorum of the Seventy
Dr. Del Tackett, Truth Project-Focus on the Family

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

Some of the topics discussed were comparisons and contrasts between Claiming Christ and How Wide the Divide, effective and ineffective methods for interrelgious communication; challenges inherent in dialogue between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals, including the difficulty but absolute necessity of understanding what others have written about a particular topic.  I discuss the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to dialogue and suggest ways that Evangelicals might understand Latter-day Saint interest in the words of early Christian writers.  Lastly, I offer suggestions for how we might overcome perennial problems in dialogue through understanding each other’s metaphors.

If you have read Claiming Christ or have an interest in academic exchange between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals, I hope you find the interview helpful and informative.

Early this year, David Paulsen (Brigham Young University) and Brett McDonald (UCLA School of Law) published “Joseph Smith and the Trinity: An Analysis and Defense of the Social Model of the Godhead” in Faith and Philosophy a quarterly journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers edited by Thomas Flint at the University of Notre Dame, Department of Philosophy.

In 2007, Paulsen and McDonald presented a paper by the same title at the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology.

I highly recommend those working on Mormonism and the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue to obtain and read this article.  With roughly 140 cited footnotes, and peer reviewed by several Christian philosophers, Paulsen and McDonald provide a lasting contribution to our understanding of the discussion surrounding Social Trinitarianism as well as the insights that Joseph Smith’s views bring to bear on the subject.  No longer will discussions between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals on Joseph Smith and the Trinity, the Nicene Creed and homousious, be fruitful without first engaging in Paulsen and McDonald’s paper.

I’ve engaged in interfaith dialogue and discussion for many years.  While I’ve had wonderful opportunities to discuss issues of faith face to face, I’ve been able to increase the frequency of conversation via message boards and chat rooms.  During these discussions and observations of discussions of others, I noticed common patterns and predictable areas of misunderstanding between Evangelicals and Mormons.  I’ve sought, through trial and error, to find better and more effective means of coming to terms, learning each other’s languages and paradigms and increasing mutual understanding. I feel I’ve been able to have true dialogue on a wide variety of topics with Evangelicals and Catholics, as well as Latter-day Saints.  This experience has also affirmed by belief in dialogue and my commitment to dialogue as one of the means of education and understanding.

Experiencing some of the joys in that area, despite resistance, misunderstandings, and all the challenges that go with the territory, I began my blog in an effort interact with a larger audience.  I did not expect that it would quickly put me in contact with so many individuals who are interested in this topic.  I’ve also been pleased to become acquainted with scholars working in the field of the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue.  That has been both exciting and promising.

Reflections and Observations

One of the great strengths of the blog medium is the potential to communicate and interact with individuals regardless of location and circumstance.  It isn’t always easy to find people who share a similar perspective on how to approach interreligious dialogue.  One of the greatest drawbacks of the blog medium is that it brings together total strangers who have considerably different experiences and backgrounds and who do not have any kind of relationship.  One of the critical ingredients for effective interreligious dialogue is to have a relationship of trust and a history of trust in discussing matters close to one’s heart.  While a sense of community and familiarity can also arise in virtual environment the inherent nature of the blog medium poses considerable challenges.

As an illustration, I recently had the opportunity to meet with and have an extended discussion with a friend of mine who I had not seen in some time.  As we discussed our beliefs and experiences over lunch, I really felt true understanding was taking place.  Our questions were not driven by a desire to find flaws or logical errors in each others religious systems, but we were genuinely curious to learn about our respective experiences.  I was extremely satisfied not only to reconnect with an old friend but also with the ability to discuss and explain my own perspective in a way that my friend could appreciate and understand.  In addition, I learned things from my friend that was only possible because of our relationship of trust.  Once again it was impressed upon me that it would be very difficult to achieve a similar result without that face to face interaction.

As a result, I’ve tried to leverage the blog medium to what it does best.  It is a great way for people of similar interests to get in contact with one another.  I feel I have more people to receive feedback from now than I did when I began.  It is a great way to share information on online resources, books, articles, lectures, events and other experiences.  I’ve tended to discuss method and approach rather than specific substantive answers to interreligious topics that inevitably generate a barrage of highly predictable polemics that is less than useful.  I’ve done this not to avoid tackling difficult issues bur rather because I truly believe that a meta-dialogue of approach and method is what is needed now.

Challenges and Opportunities

I often use the term “dialogue” as a shortcut for something much more than two people of different faiths exchanging words.  It is an attitude, a perspective, a paradigm and an approach.  For some time now there has been a push for Mormons, Evangelicals and others to be able to sit down and discuss their faith with civility and respect.  My hope is that we can move beyond this goal and such tenor would be the standard rather than the radical.  I appreciate all those who have labored to create the environment for such civil conversation, but for me and I also suspect for them, this never was the ultimate goal.  This is a necessary foundation for moving the dialogue to the next level, but it is not the next level.

The typical exchange that I’ve observed between Mormons and Evangelicals is that one offers a depiction of the other’s faith and then the other asserts it is a mischaracterization, and the process is repeated, and repeated, and repeated.  The interlocutors are generally stuck in this process, confined to this no man’s land, and can’t seem to get out of it.  Some clearly don’t want to get out of it.  Other observers even argue that this is inevitable state of affairs either because there is no official Mormon orthodoxy or it is too hard to figure out what Mormons believe, or whatever the reason.  I don’t believe this to be the case.  Learning about another’s faith tradition simply cannot be done with one book or one conversation.  It isn’t an easy thing to do.  It requires time, patience, and a desire to get it right.

Here too, it isn’t simply about presenting the facts straight, but rather to offer charitable and redeeming interpretations of each other’s tradition and especially an interpretation in which a faithful adherent can see herself or himself.  This is crucial.  I’ve learned that many people are simply not ready to do this and they aren’t inclined to do this.  But until we learn how to do this, we will remain in no man’s land and never move to the next level.

Stephen H. Webb (Ph.d. University of Chicago), describes himself as a ‘conservative Christian theologian’ and is Professor of Religion & Philosophy at Wabash College.  His brief four page review of ‘Claiming Christ’ in Reviews in Religion and Theology came as a refreshing critique packed with amazing vignettes and serious gems.  He applauds Millet and McDermott’s intense and civil religious dialogue.  “I trust [Millett] in part because McDermott trusts him,” Webb explains, “which is to say, the book worked wonders for me.” (427). “Their friendship lets them argue with daring and honesty, but it is their commitment to the truth that makes this book truly edifying.” (426).  Webb explained how for him the book was a powerful experience in “recognizing how another religious movement truly recognizes your own savior in spite of differences in how that savior is described.”  Ibid.

Indeed, what I appreciate most about Webb’s review is that he doesn’t spill any ink contemplating on the legitimacy of this dialogue.  He wastes no time in extending the dialogue and offering his own set of questions and musings.  Webb encourages Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to “think more seriously about the Petrine office” and consider how Evangelicals, Mormons and Catholics adjudicate between “original revelation and authoritative interpretation of that revelation.” (427).  Indeed, this is likely to be an important topic for future dialogue.

The most fascinating part of ‘Claiming Christ’ for Webb is the pre-existence of Christ and most of the review is devoted to this topic.  Webb explains, “At the heart of Mormon cosmic optimism is the idea that the incarnation of Jesus was not an afterthought to creation or a contingent response to an accidental fall of humanity into sin. Christ embodied is the center of the cosmos; he lived as we do before we were created to be like him . . . Indeed, if Mormons err theologically, don’t they err in taking this worship to an extreme, if such extremity is possible?  Do orthodox Christians really want to say that Mormons make too much of Jesus?” (p428-429).

All throughout his review is a consistent call for engagement with Mormons.  “[O]ne can only conclude,” Webb stresses, “that the next great phase of ecumenical Christian dialogue with other religions has to begin with the conversation between orthodox Christians and Latter Day Saints.” (429).

Honestly, I felt only four pages was much too short for Webb’s review. How could any reader not want to read more after the observation that:

“Indeed, one of the amazing things about Mormonism is that it transgresses most theological categories as well as the standard account of theological history. Mormonism is like an alternative reality come to life – an alternative history of a post-Nicene development of pre-Nicene theology – the ultimate ‘what if’ theological parlor game.” (427).

I encourage those who have access to Professor Webb’s review to read it today, and I look forward to Professor Webb writing more on the topic soon.

UPDATE 1/24/2012

BHodges has posted a thoughtful review of Stephen H. Webb’s new book Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (OUP, 2012).

John W. Morehead has also posted a review at Morehead’s Musings.  He announces an upcoming panel to review Webb’s book to be published in Sacred Tribes Journal.

Given my interests, I’ve read books and articles by Rev. Greg Johnson and Dr. Robert L. Millet and I am aware of much of the content of such public dialogues.  However, I was hoping to have the opportunity to see first hand this kind of engagement and to see the reaction of those in the audience.  I arrived somewhat early and there was quite a large public turn out.  I noticed several ministers and pastors in the audience.

The Arizona Ecumenical Council Executive Director, Rev. Jan Flaaten offered the opening words. Rev. Flaaten began serving as director in 2002 after 30 years of ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He remarked that years ago he never had thought he would be in a Catholic church but then later he found himself with such an opportunity.  Likewise, he remarked that he never thought he would be in a LDS chapel, but remarked that here he was, speaking in an LDS chapel.  He offered the invocation.

I had originally planned to take copious notes, but as the event began I found myself realizing the futility of trying to describe an event such like this.  It really is something that needs to be experienced.  Before the meeting began, I noticed Greg Johnson setting up a couple of seats up on the stage so that he and Millet could sit down together.  This wasn’t going to be a typical meeting where one speaker talks, sits down and then another one gets up and speaks.  This was to be a conversation.

This meeting was perhaps one of the best meetings I’ve ever experienced.  Johnson and Millet’s interaction was entertaining and humorous at times, yet it was extremely moving at others.  I was deeply touched by Greg Johnson’s personal story of being saved by Jesus at a bible camp he attended as a youth.  I felt in many places that I was extremely glad that Mormons and Evangelicals were hearing their message. I felt that everyone needed to hear what they had to say.

Reading Scriptures with New Eyes

Millet explained that we should be curious about one another and for him he has been curious to know what makes Evangelicals tick.  He remarked, “You cannot study another person’s religion without it impacting your own.”  One of the interesting things he pointed out was that as a result of his engagement with Evangelicals he has been able to ”Read my own scriptures with new eyes.”  This turned phrase was particular interesting to me.

He read a statement from the Doctrine and Covenants Section 45.

3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—
4 Saying: “Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;
5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life.”

Millet remarked to the audience that this indeed was a strange defense.  He said, imagine being in a court room and your attorney says to the judge, “Your honor, my client should win because I’m a great lawyer, and I’ve never lost a case and I never will lose a case.”  In other words, the defense isn’t “Father, look at what a great person this person was, look at all the great things this person did with his life.”

What makes this exchange powerful is that Millet isn’t saying these things to try to prove to the Evangelicals in the audience that Mormons are Christian so much as he is trying to help Latter-day Saints understand this important teaching.  So many times in our discussions with those of other faiths, doctrine is tossed around not for what the doctrine can do in a persons life, but it is used as a sword and shield to attack or defend against those who seek to infringe on our identity.  As a result, we inadvertently reject much truth simply because it is coming from a person outside our faith.  Doctrine, on the other hand, should heal.  This was a message that people needed to hear and it was wonderful that both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals were hearing it together.

The Role of Healing

One of the things I realized was that there is a lot of healing that is taking place as a result of these conversations. I feel this point is largely overlooked because the ‘doctrinal debate’ aspect is more readily highlighted.  Often critics are so focused on the theological aspects of the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue that they fail to appreciate the human aspects.  Those who have read How Wide the Divide have heard Stephen Robinson’s account of attending a meeting of Christian leaders in Utah who were discussing efforts to deal with the spread of pornography.  Robinson explained that he and his colleagues were asked to leave.  Robinson explained to the group that Mormons were also against pornography.  He was told that Mormons were not Christian and that if they didn’t leave they would have to disband the meeting.  Greg related this story to the audience and noted that Stephen Robinson said that he learned that day that Evangelicals hated Mormons more than pornography, no doubt a lesson which was not lost on Robinson.

Greg Johnson explained a time when he and Robert Millet were ready to give their event at an LDS Chapel when the bishop unexpectedly cancelled the event. Greg went to speak with the bishop to ask why he cancelled the event. The bishop began to explain that he served a mission almost 30 year ago and, as Greg explained, he wasn’t treated very well by the Evangelical Christians he had met. The experience had such an effect that he simply didn’t want to expose his congregation, comprised of the youth, to this same experience.  Greg told the bishop that this would not be the same experience. The bishop then agreed.  Greg noted that after the event, the bishop came up to him and thanked him.  Greg remarked that there was healing that was taking place at that moment.

Upon hearing this story my mind turned to a close friend of mine.  As I’ve shared with him my passion for interfaith dialogue with Evangelicals and others, he has never quite responded with too much enthusiasm.  At first, I wasn’t really sure why this was so.  I thought he was too defensive and perhaps simply unable to be open to these things.  After many conversations with him, I’ve come to realize that he was deeply hurt by his encounters with Evangelicals as a missionary, perhaps in ways I have never been.  Often he would tell me that he really just wanted to avoid them because of the way he was treated.  Greg and Bob’s conversation has helped me understand my friend’s reaction, to be less judgmental towards him but also realize the lasting effects that unfortunate circumstances can have on our perceptions of others.

This isn’t something limited to any one faith group.  In many cases, it only takes one bad experience with either a Mormon or an Evangelical to sour our whole perception of all of them.  In fact, I would venture to say that in many cases where Evangelicals and Mormons are communicating online, at least from what I’ve seen, if you look behind all of the elaborate arguments and even sophisticated statements you find someone who is saying, “You hurt me” or “I was mistreated by your people.”  I’ve sometimes interacted with Mormons online who have been so hurt by their interactions with Evangelicals, I can’t even reach them.  My suggestions for them to be kind to Evangelicals, or to read their statements charitably come across like those of a ”traitor” or at best highly misguided.  Relationships with those of other faiths simply cannot go forward until we deal with that hurt.  This isn’t something trivial.

As I sat there, I recalled the remarks of someone who asked what might have happened had Joseph Smith not encountered a clergyman who was quick to dismiss the possibilities of visions and gifts of the spirit, and dismiss out of hand the possibilities of angelic visitations.  What would have happened instead had Joseph met someone who lovingly listened to his story?

Interfaith Dialogue is not about Conversion?

One last point.  Often I notice that people online are uncomfortable when Millet says that his interfaith dialogues are not about making converts.  One of the stories that Millet has offered to explain this is where an Evangelical moves into a neighborhood next door to a Latter-day Saint.  The Latter-day Saint invites this new neighbor to church and the neighbor says, “Thank you, but I already have a church and I am happy in it.”  If this is only about conversion, then the Latter-day Saint might think, “Okay, I guess they aren’t interested” and never speak with them again.  However, at this point if someone suggests actually trying to develop a relationship and become friends with the neighbor, it seems like a radical and novel idea!  Or the misconception critics have is that somehow being friends would compromise one’s faith, but this isn’t the case.  The other challenge is that there is a suspicion (and perhaps justified) that the friendship is conditional on conversion, in other words, behind the façade of friendship is a conversion agenda where ultimately friendship is merely a means to an end, and all the efforts at being “friends” will “pay off” with a convert.  The implication is that if conversion doesn’t happen that this friendship was all for nothing; just a total waste of time.

At one point Greg Johnson explained that he met a professor at BYU who asked him if he thought he was going to convert Millet to Evangelicalism, and Greg said he didn’t think so. “You do understand that he is the dean of our religion faculty?”  Greg said, “Yes, I know that” to which he was asked “Well, then are you considering joining the Church?”  Greg replied ”No, I’m not.”  To this his conversant exclaimed, “Well, I don’t get it, what’s the point?”

Millet didn’t bring up this scripture but I later recalled the account of Joseph Smith during the time he was trying to sort out which church was true:

JSH 1:6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued-priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.

Millet says that his conversations with Greg Johnson are not about conversion.  This doesn’t mean that Millet and Johnson do not have desires for conversion.  It only means that their friendship is not conditional on conversion, and it also means that success and failure is not measured by conversion but rather it is measured by how hard you are willing to try to understand your neighbor.  It is important for people to realize that people can’t simply accept that friendship is not contingent on conversion because two people say the words to each other.  I don’t believe this was the case with Johnson and Millet.  This understanding developed over time and after building trust.

Allowing God to Play a Role

I agree with Millet that:

“Reaching out to others in the form of interfaith relations is hard work. It is much easier to resort to fight or flight.”

I think it is important to realize that God has a role in all of this.  Millet and Johnson relate an occasion where they asked themselves where their relationship was going.  The question was if either side won’t convert to the other, should they continue the friendship?  They decided to continue their discussions and allow God to have a role in the matter.  God is the great mover, Greg explained, and if God wants to move Millet, God will do so.  If God wants to move Johnson, then God will do so.  The early Christians were characterized by the phrase, “Oh how they loved one another.”  True love is unconditional.

The audience sang “How Great Thou Art” a favorite Lutheran hymn at the end of the event.

I don’t think I can adequately describe what took place at that meetinghouse in Tempe on that night.   I’d venture to say that most people who came did not know what they were going to experience.  There are many moments I’m deliberately leaving out because of their intimate nature.  I am convinced that God was pleased and that the Spirit of the Lord was there in that room.  Indeed, I believe God was glorified that night.  I left that meeting with so much love for my fellow man and with the conviction that interfaith relationships are friendships.  There is no more noble virtue than friendship.

I am keenly aware of the concerns that some have about these exchanges, as if friendship was less important than salvation, or somehow that the greatest love a true Christian can give is to tell a Mormon to repent and deny Mormonism, so that they can be saved.  However, as I’ve listened to scores of unfortunate stories of people who have been hurt by those of other faiths, I am convinced that salvation doesn’t come through going up to someone, telling them to repent and walking away.  Anyone can do that.  It only pushes people away, and it drives gaps between faiths, even generational gaps that spawn generational feuds.  One generation passes on their problems to the next.

I continuously see Mormons and Evangelicals online who argue back and forth, each side claiming the other’s faith is defective and illegitimate.  Perhaps it is a phase of those who wish to test out their analytic skills and practice their debating techniques, and it will pass, but perhaps people really live that way.  (Granted it is possible a group of friends could get together and engage in respectful and rigorous debate about their respective faiths, but I haven’t seen it.)

With each keystroke they push people further and farther away, giving others ammunition to support their suspicion that the world is attacking them, perpetuating a victimology, supplying twisted interpretations of scripture and disfigured depictions of the faith.  How God would ever be pleased with that, and how this ever “glorifies God” I do not know.  All is not lost however, for there is a better way to “offer the reason for the hope that is within, with gentleness and respect.”

The classic biblical verse from which the calling and duty of the apologist is based on is 1 Peter 3:15-16.

“Always be ready to make your defense [apologia] to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (NSRV).

Apologia can be read as defense but also simply as an answer.

“Always be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (NIV).

It is the reason for hope that should be the substance of the message.  Unfortunately, it is often verse 16 “yet do it with gentleness and reverence” or “respect” which is forgotten.

As I’ve reflected on past posts, I feel there could be some who have misunderstood my views on  apologetics.  Initially, rather than set forth my views in an essay form, I chose a dialogue format in What is ‘Bad Apologetics’? to illustrate the drawbacks that I’ve seen by a popular notion of apologetics as it is often practiced.  This isn’t to say that the enterprise of apologetics in all its diversity doesn’t have a place.  Rather, it is to say that if one is determined to engage in apologetics, one should do so effectively and responsibly, otherwise the results could be quite unfortunate.

As I’ve experienced and read various authors and have become familiar with different kinds of apologists and apologetics, I’ve come to see two categories: the Apologist as Warrior and the Apologist as Healer.

Apologist as Warrior

This is probably the kind of apologetics that most people are familiar with.  The young Christian aspires to be like the famous apologists who know all the answers and have studied philosophy and ancient languages and is able to counter any argument that comes his way.  “I’ve never been defeated,” I heard one budding apologist exclaim.  This kind of apologist doesn’t simply “stand ready” to give the “reason of the hope” of Christ “when asked” but even does so when not asked.  He opts not to present the ”reason of hope within,” but rather his message is why other religions have no hope, i.e. “let me tell you why you’re hopeless.”

He goes on the offense and seeks to show the superiority of Christianity in comparison to all other religions.  Moreover, he seeks to refute any religion in competition with Christianity.  Because of this, many Latter-day Saints are more familiar with the Christian apologists who specialize in countering the new religious movements than those apologists who defend Christianity in general, against secularism and atheism.  In my experience, most of the apologetics that occurs on blogs, message boards and chat rooms are of this type.

Apologist as Healer

However, there is a second category of apologist: the Apologist as Healer.  She doesn’t seek to attack another faith but to assist those in the faith to live it better and to assist those who have doubts and concerns, or perhaps those who are unable to articulate the beauty that lies within.  The apologist as healer doesn’t need to tear down another faith in order to present her own.  Rather she seeks to present the hope that is within her.

Again, I think of C.S. Lewis who has been able to explain Christianity in such a way that his writings resonate with Latter-day Saints, Catholics and Evangelicals.  Truly, a remarkable feat.  His appeal is that he offers the reason of the hope that is within him.

Anglican philosopher and close friend of Lewis, Austin Farrer, illustrates well the activity of the apologist as healer.

It is commonly said that if rational argument is so seldom the cause of conviction, philosophical apologists must largely be wasting their shot. The premise is true, but the conclusion does not follow. For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. So the apologist who does nothing but defend may play a useful, though preparatory, part. Jocelyn Gibb, ed., “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C. S. Lewis. (Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965, p. 26.)

Notice, the goal is to “prevent the destruction of belief” among one’s faith tradition, not to go on the attack to destroy belief of others under the premise that argument will create conviction or that rational argument will be the genesis of belief, or simply believing that destruction of belief is the raison d’être of the apologist.

Apologetics is an in-house project that affects those in one’s in-group rather than one’s out-group.  This goes for the warrior and the healer.  Apologetic “debates” serve as spectacle to show believers (one’s in-group) just how solid and strong their position is compared to the enemy’s.  But the goal isn’t to reclaim the enemy, but to refute him and make an example of him for all to see.

Years ago when I frequented chat rooms I noticed that people didn’t want to argue by instant messaging.  They only wanted to argue in the chat room.  Without an audience, the argument seemed pointless.  No one wants to win an argument in solitude, but only to win it in front of others.  It becomes a kind of “theological bloodsport” with ”gladiator style apologetics.”  Such apologetics may not be apologetics at all.  They don’t give the reason for the “hope that is within them” and they certainly do not do it with “gentleness and respect.”  It becomes an empty ritual of thrust parry, thrust parry, over and over again.  My Kung Fu is better than your Kung Fu.

We need more Apologist as Healers, those who develop the capacity and truly can offer the reason of the hope that is within them.

Debate over which belief is Biblical will not achieve much in the way understanding or respect.

If one believes in the Trinity, derives motivation from that doctrine to live his religion more fully, and if I get the same from believing in a Mormon concept of God as I do, why does it matter that we do not agree? Does one of the many Christian conceptualizations of God inspire more visits “to the fatherless and widows in their affliction,” or keep one “unspotted from the world?”

I think one of the keys to this is giving up on the idea of debating for the purpose of trying to win. Understanding each other is much more important, especially on a site like this. There is a lot we can learn from each other, and through my association with a Catholic friend I have come to respect and understand better Christians who believe differently about God than I do.

As I attempted to type out a response, I was brought back to earlier musings about why it is that debate and argument are so prevalent and almost inevitable.  Like Michael Corleone, I sometimes want to say: “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in.”  The black hole of ‘apologetics’ draws everything in its path, ultimately squeezing out all light and crushing its subjects into nothingness.

In the above post, the author offers these questions:

What do you believe about God?
Where does your belief come from?
What scripture(s) or teachings best describe you belief?
In what ways are your beliefs about God manifested in your life?
Which is more important: the personal characteristics of God, or what God looks like?

One of the things I’ve come to realize is the immense draw that debate has online (or off-line).  Even topics or posts which are not intended as debate end up being pulled into debate.  For example, there will be those who see these questions as simply another challenge and will try to argue that their beliefs in God are superior to another’s.  They will argue that their beliefs come from a more legitimate source and have greater reliability and validity than another.

I agree that proof-texting is usually unpersuasive, and a more helpful practice would be to identify key passages which shape one’s beliefs to assist in understanding.  Here too, some will be quick to discredit the interpretation as wrong using any of the available methods of interpretation.

I agree that all too often the nexus between belief and praxis is ignored.  Religious devotion and faith are manifested in the life of the practitioner and yet this is often an overlooked area of inquiry.  One can seek to disprove another’s characterization of God, or they can seek to understand the inspiration and motivation which arises from that belief.  All too often people are quick to point out that they personally do not accept the beliefs of another without even attempting to appreciate how those beliefs are cherished by others and seen as beautiful by others.  This doesn’t mean one has to accept another’s beliefs by any means, but to a believer they are probably beautiful, and the sincere attempt to understand this is the key.  Here too is an area which can be pulled into debate with some arguing that certain beliefs hamper a true understanding of God, which goes in the opposite direction.

The author asks the question of which “ideas” concerning God are more “important”.  I agree that we need to explore new questions similar to this one.  This one will depend on the person and what we mean by important: important in what way?  Often one can easily say that everything about God we could possibly know is important.  Here too, debate creeps back in and people will be tempted to argue that others are “less concerned” about knowing God, etc., but that we are “more concerned.”

I completely agree that all too often people are trying to win points or prove someone false.  Often this is done for personal educational purposes and in many cases people can learn new things from engaging in debate and can practice their argumentation skills.  However, in the context of inter-faith dialogue rarely does this have a positive effect on those of other faiths.  Rather, it pushes others away, increases misunderstanding, perpetuates stereotypes and victimology.

Still, I often wonder why there is such a strong pull towards debate and argumentation.  While I fully agree that good questions are critical in our conversations, as the author points out, the spirit of understanding is central.  Any question, even one intended to enhance understanding can by hijacked for debate and argumentation.  We need to ask ourselves, am I asking this question for ammunition I can use at a later time in separate debate with someone else, or do I really care about understanding how this person sees the world in order to better understand and love my neighbor?

While I wish to end on that note, I must sadly admit that this kind of attitude also gets drawn back into debate with those claiming we should never give up or concede calling those who believe in heretical views to repentance, and others claiming that this simply isn’t effective.  I’ve heard those who lament that inter-faith dialogue merely subverts evangelism/missionary work and that it is better to hurt someone to save them (just like surgery is painful but necessary to save), than to gain someone’s love and respect just to have them end up in hell (salvation is better than understanding), with each side marshaling bible verses and personal experiences to demonstrate that their way is the best way.  I can only add my personal experiences to those of Adam F.  He writes:

I think one of the keys to this is giving up on the idea of debating for the purpose of trying to win. Understanding each other is much more important, especially on a site like this. There is a lot we can learn from each other, and through my association with a Catholic friend I have come to respect and understand better Christians who believe differently about God than I do.

This too has been my experience.  Others have understood my beliefs much more accurately and richly through dialogue than through debate. In addition, I’ve learned more about my own faith and the faith of others though respectful dialogue than would have ever been possible in a debate.

Yet the temptation to debate and win the argument is ever so strong, it is always there, with an open invitation and the siren call: “Victory is yours for the taking.”

Dr. Burch has a M.Div. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from Baylor University.  As a historian of Christian theology, he has taught courses at Grand Canyon University, Fuller Theological Seminary, and Arizona State University.  In this introductory lecture, Dr. Burch gives a fresh and balanced introduction to the fundamental principles in Christian theology and I believe Evangelicals, Catholics and Latter-day Saints will find much in his lecture which would challenge them as well as affirm their faith.

If you’ve never been exposed to the study of Christian Theology I highly recommend this lecture.  If you have studied Christian theology, you will appreciate Dr. Burch’s balanced and open approach to the subject.

Enjoy the full series “History of Christianity” available via iTunes.

Dr. Burch takes the approach that “Theology is taught by God, teaches of God, and leads to God.”
(Theologia a Deo docetur, Deum docet, et ad Deum ducit – St. Thomas Aquinas).

The majority of the lecture is in response to questions asked by the audience.  Millet relates his experience with outreach; where he’s been, where he is now, and what the future holds for interfaith relations.  Enjoy.

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.

For me, it has been easy to predict and anticipate the reaction from segments of the Evangelical community when a Mormon and Evangelical engage in dialogue. From Robinson and Blomberg to Millet and Johnson and McDermott and others, a backlash from the counter-cult movement is inevitable, and the spill over to less-apologetic Evangelicals, who have been influenced by the counter-cult movement, is predictable and perhaps even ‘normal’ given the long history and dynamics that these groups share.

What has been more difficult to anticipate is the reaction from the Latter-day Saint community as a result of Mormon-Evangelical dialogue.  Due to a long, unfortunate and polemical past, one would think Latter-day Saints would welcome with open arms not only something different from the typical bland anti-Mormon fare, but appreciate the opportunity for mutual understanding that results from the ‘novel’ and ‘innovative’ approach of dialogue.  For the most part, I believe this to be the case.

While it comes as no shock that certain apologists in the counter-cult movement would consider some one like Robert Millet as less than forthcoming in his articulation of Mormon teaching, I am puzzled when certain voices in the Mormon online community express concern that somehow one man, Robert Millet, is playing down ‘distinctives’ of Mormon doctrine to the extent that eventually Mormonism may become a watered-down version of its former self, a faint shadow of the past, lacking any of its original potency. From whence does such suspicion spring?  As I’ve listened to these concerns and pondered over the issues, I’m beginning to sense that something else is afoot.

Often when Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals engage in discussion and discover areas of commonality, I have observed a few Mormons who are quick to quip, “I’m not an Evangelical and I don’t want to be one, so don’t tell me I have anything in common with Evangelicals because I don’t!”  The message is: “Don’t try to define me!” As a matter of fact, I’ve observed some Mormons, albeit a minority, who relish and specifically enjoy rubbing ‘distinctive’ doctrines into the face of their ‘opponents,’ not because such teachings are prominent in worship or church discourse, or even in daily life, but because it allows these individuals to define themselves vis-à-vis Evangelicals in some unique way.  Certain individuals intentionally choose particular doctrines as the vehicle or mechanism by which to clothe themselves with a particular identity.  In this sense, the Gospel becomes a means to an end; a mere tool used to define oneself in relation to others.

Without a doubt, the concept of identity plays a critical and important role in these discussions and debates and in interfaith dialogue generally.  I’ve begun to realize that when some Mormons argue the merits of dialogue, they don’t do so out of theological or doctrinal concerns.  Rather, the more I listen to these arguments, I’ve come to understand that they are grounding their argument in identity concerns.  In other words, the criteria for evaluating interfaith dialogue comes down to the issue of “how does this impact my identity?”  To be more precise, these debates have nothing to do with the Gospel at all, but at their very core, the whole debate is all about “me.”

Why is this inappropriate?  To be sure, the Gospel in its purest form reveals our true nature and relationship with God; it teaches us who we are.  Identity is a complex issue and surely our religion and faith play a significant role in our personal makeup.  My concern is not that the Gospel plays a role in our identity.  It should play this role.  My concern is when the process is turned on its head.  Rather than allowing the Gospel to teach us about ourselves, we manipulate the Gospel as a means to an end and we tell the Gospel how it is supposed to define us and others.  Before we ask whether something is good or praiseworthy, or whether it advances mutual understanding, our first and many times only question is: “Does what you say, strengthen or weaken the identity that I have constructed for myself?”

I think this is the wrong approach for two reasons.

First, such an attitude inhibits dialogue.  As stated above, when the criteria of whether dialogue should be advanced hinges on how it impacts my self-identity, then no longer am I looking at the benefits of dialogue.  If someone’s identity is founded upon particular doctrinal notions, then naturally they will lash out if they perceive someone to come along and ‘de-emphasize’ such an idea.  But they are not upset because the communication is or is not true or because it reflects or does not reflect reality or the sacred texts, they are upset specifically because it impacts their sense of identity.  They don’t realize this, and they perhaps don’t intend to do so, but in the final analysis, their resistance to dialogue is founded upon self-identity.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, when the Gospel becomes merely a pawn in a game fought out between parties concerned with defining themselves and others; when we become inundated with ’hyphenated Mormons’ of every persuasion having a political message for the world, I can’t help but to fear the results.  In the Mormon idiom, all manner of ‘-ites’ are back in the land, where Paul reminds us that we are to be “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.”

One thing is clear.  People are passionate about the things that define them.  My question is whether we allowing the Gospel to define us, or whether we are exploiting the Gospel for our own benefit?  We must not let the Gospel be held hostage by our particularistic notions of self-identity.

Wallace gives an interesting introduction to this episode. He affirms the value of debates but explains that he desires to include dialogue:

Since we have been we here we have tried to chart a course between two extremes that seem to dominate to a great extent, we’re not unique in what we are trying to do, but I think that unfortunately its been hard for people to find middle ground. On the one hand among Evangelicals dealing with Latter-Day Saints, you have people who are very critical of the LDS and yet they seem almost incapable of actually engaging them and speaking the truth in love and hearing them out on terms of what they actually believe and carrying on a conversation. Then on the other hand you have people that seem to be so interested in the relationship that they seem almost incapable of critiquing what the LDS actual believe. And so what we’re trying to do is to have a respectful dialogue about the things that we believe and there is going to be things that we agree on and there is going to be things that we disagree on and hopefully there is going to be light shed on misconceptions in some areas, but also there is going to be engagement on things where we actually believe very different things.

This statement illustrates well the ‘perception’ that exists in the minds of Evangelicals concerning dialogue and those who engage in it.  While I question the accuracy of this perception, I believe Wallace is trying to appeal to those Evangelicals who disagree with dialogue by essentially saying “Hey, we are going to dialogue but with critique too!”  I don’t feel it is necessary to begin interfaith dialogue with a disclaimer where both sides say, “I think you are wrong.” “No problem. I think you are wrong too.” “Now that we have that taken care of, let’s dialogue.” I don’t think that dance is necessary at all, but if it will help people to feel more comfortable with interfaith dialogue then perhaps they need it.

Wallace and Allred discuss the method and influence of street preachers. They seem to both agree that the typical street preachers aren’t really offering anything valuable.  Wallace believes their methods are unbiblical and Allred explains that most Latter-day Saints do not see them as offering anything of good report or praiseworthy.

Wallace recites the apology given by Richard Mouw on November 14, 2004 and other statements by Mouw and asks Allred to comment on them.  Wallace seems to offer the view that dialogue between Evangelicals and Mormons will never lead to the Church rejecting restoration doctrines, similar to how the World Wide Church of God brought its teachings in conformity with mainstream Christianity following the death of its founder.  And because of this, many of the hopes and dreams for those who engage in dialogue with the Latter-day Saints is unfounded and unwarranted.  Allred, on the other hand, believes that the benefit of dialogue is that many misconceptions about Mormonism will be cleared up such as the view that Mormons do not believe in the deity of Christ.

Wallace relates an interesting story when Evangelical pastors had engaged in dialogue with the LDS Institute of Religion.  Wallace explains that he felt that Evangelicalism had become too emotional and that some Evangelicals let their emotions move them to the point where they thought if Latter-day Saints could experience Evangelical worship services that Latter-day Saints would jump ship and join the Evangelicals.  Wallace seems to be more comfortable discussing substance rather than sharing experiences.  Allred explains his side of the story that in meetings at the Institute open with a prayer and word came that some of the Evangelicals felt that they were so diametrically opposed theologically that they said they simply could not pray together in the same room: “My position was, if we can’t be comfortable praying in the Institute of Religion, it’s not a meeting we should be holding in the Institute of Religion, being sponsored by the Institute of Religion. My position was if we can’t pray, it’s probably not going to be a beneficial experience.” While Wallace sympathizes with this position he remarks that its not uncommon for other Christians to not be willing to pray with him as a Presbyterian either.

Wallace and Allred discuss the role of the institutional church in Mormonism, the role of faith and works, Jesus and Lucifer, the virgin birth, polygamy, the priesthood, eternal progression. They do not discuss these topics exhaustively, but do touch on them from time to time.  One thing I appreciated was that Wallace would say something like, “In my debates, I often say that…” or Allred would say, “Well, how I would respond to that comment would be to say…”  This allows each side to offer their positions and perspectives but to allow the discussion to go forward.

On January 24, 2008, Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippet, a public radio program focusing on religion through first-person conversations, interviewed Dr. Robert Millet.  Tippet, who holds a M.Div from Yale, is well qualified to fill the usual gap in traditional journalism’s understanding of things religious.

This interview was a breath of fresh air as Tippet’s well formulated questions allowed listeners to hear, possibly for the first time, the way that Latter-day Saint doctrine actually influences life.  As readers of my blog are aware, so often discussions of Mormonism are based merely on textual inquiry, without ever examining the role that the faith tradition plays in the actual life of the believer.  Such issues are examined through this Tippet-Millet conversation.  Audio files are available in mp3 and podcast format (total time: 53:00).  In addition, the complete unedited interview has been made available (total time: 1:36:34).  Download it and listen to it while you drive to work or run errands.   If you prefer reading, the transcript is also available.

Tippet:

And I mean, you do have lots of dialogue going on with other kinds of Christians and with Evangelicals.  I wonder, are there any Jewish Mormon dialogues?  Because, I could imagine this would be…

Millet:

Oh I think it…We’ve had some, but not too much.  I’m having more and more people say-I was with Richard [John] Neuhaus, not too long ago, and he made this statement to me that we really do-he commended me for doing work with Rich[ard Mouw] and with Evangelicals, and said how excited he was.  He said: ”Now, when you do plan to start doing this with Roman Catholics?”  I said, “It has to be done, I just need to raise up a few successors right now.”  I said, “I’m pretty busy trying to keep up with Evangelicals.”  But it has to be done, and of course, we want to do it with our Jewish friends and for that matter with our Muslim friends.  I think there is a greater openness in the church now than ever before to this kind of thing.  I’ve been doing it for ten years and I’ve received, just keep at it, it’s good, we need more friendships.  (1:14:47 – 1:16:04 unedited cut).

Towards the end of the program, Millet remarked:

As I’ve said in this whole business of outreach and interfaith relations, I’ve learned a ton about, in my case, Christian history, Christian theology in the last decade, but Krista, I’ve learned half a ton about Mormonism.  Because you cannot help but better understand your faith when you engage others who either disagree with you or take a different slant. (marker 1:28:34 – 1:28:57 unedited cut).