Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 70-79 ISSN: 1941-8167
MORMON-EVANGELICAL DIALOGUE – SETTING THE GROUND RULES: A WAY FORWARD1 James Holt Senior Lecturer, The University of Chester This article examines briefly the various polemic and polite exchanges between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. It suggests that these exchanges are asking the wrong questions, and beginning from an incorrect basis. Within Latter-day Saint circles the questions has tended to be: “How do other faiths relate to us?” By contrast, understanding how they view other faiths will enable Latter-day Saints to frame their questions and responses better. The article concludes with a suggestion for ground rules to enable the burgeoning dialogue to move forward at a pace.2 Efforts in Mormon-Evangelical dialogue have ranged from the polemic to the polite. Part of the problem for Latter-day Saints encountering Evangelicals has been the tendency to see Evangelicalism as one homogenous group in a similar way to which Mormonism understands itself.3 Thus, the experience of Latter-day Saints with evangelicals can be seen to be confusing. There is one particularly problematic aspect of evangelicalism Evangelicalism which uses emotive rhetoric in describing Mormonism as a cult, and devil-inspired. Shipps suggests that rather than being labeled Evangelical, these groups of people should be termed “neoevangelical” because “To the dismay of the mainstream Protestant denominations like mine who have always regarded themselves as evangelical, the neo-evangelicals have practically succeeded in taking possession of the evangelical designation.”4 She suggests that these neo-evangelicals are fundamentalists who “attempt to dechristianize those who do not agree with their position.”5 There are then other aspects of Evangelicalism that are more polite in their description of, and relationships with Mormonism. This tension is reflected in the description of an event involving, both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals:
69
Holt: Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue – Setting the Ground Rules
In what the Deseret News referred to as "stunningly candid" comments, Fuller Theological Seminary president and Beliefnet columnist Richard J. Mouw apologized to Mormons for evangelicals’ tendency to distort the truth about Latter-day Saints' beliefs. "Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you," Mouw said. The speech is making the rounds among surprised and generally pleased evangelical and Mormon groups.6 This improvement in relationship could be seen to have its roots in a growing respectability for Mormonism in today’s society, as well as in segments of Evangelicalism. There is a sense in which Mormonism can be seen to be becoming part of the religious mainstream. Hinckley noted this shift: “We are not changing. The world’s perception of us is changing. We teach the same doctrine. We have the same organization. We labor to perform the same good works. But the old hatred is disappearing, the old persecution is dying. People are better informed. They are coming to realize what we stand for and what we do.”7 However, to the neoevangelicals Mormonism remains a non-Christian cult. To the polite Evangelicals, while being more open to dialogue and less given to polemic, the question remains: “Are Mormons Christians?”8 Why is this question important for dialogue? Understanding how they view each other is important to both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals. When dialogue is engaged in between the two groups it is important for each group to consider: Is it as a member of the same religious community or as different religions? MacIntyre argues that this type of question is not just important for the validity of the dialogue undertaken, but also for the participating groups understanding of what they are trying to achieve and where they are coming from: “Such a person is confronted by the claims of each of the traditions which we have considered as well as by those of other traditions. How is it rational to respond to them? The initial answer is: that will depend upon who you are and how you understand yourself.”9 Evangelical writings, in the main, have begun to treat Mormonism seriously and responsibly. In some ways they can be seen to have unconsciously responded to the request of Robinson that Evangelicals should be “willing to judge the religion of the Latter-day Saints for what it actually teaches from its own authoritative sources in its mainstream twentieth century persona.”10 This task has begun in various conversation or dialogue books.11 These
70
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 70-79 ISSN: 1941-8167
interchanges reflect the ability of Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals to discuss the differences, and to a lesser extent, the similarities that arise between the two traditions. They do so taking “the word of the individual regarding what he or she believes.”12 Some issues within the discussion remain open and have not been fully explored in terms of complete transparency. It is left to other works that are not dialogical in nature to ask the questions whose answers need a fuller explanation. Blomberg in his chapter “Is Mormonism Christian?,”13 follows Robinson’s request to allow Mormons to speak for themselves, rather than being told what they believe.14 He does, however, raise some important questions for Latter-day Saints to consider. While Latter-day Saints have traditionally seen the claim that they are not Christian as an example of intolerance, Blomberg argues that it is not necessarily so. Indeed, some of Mormonism’s own statements make them equally extreme in their rejection of other forms of Christianity. By claiming that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the “only true and living Church;”15 that all other Christian denominations were “all wrong” and that “their creeds were an abomination in his (God’s) sight;”16 Latterday Saints are placing themselves as a supercessionist form of Christianity, seeing all other forms (including Evangelicalism) to be in error, and not ”true” Christians: …just as the early Christians believed they had found the only proper way to be Jews, so the early followers of the Mormon Prophet believed they had found the only proper way to be Christians… The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is best understood as a form of corporate Christianity… in much the same way that early Christianity was related to Judaism.17 As such the question could be asked; why are Mormons so concerned as to place themselves within a family of churches that have departed from the truth? Mauss has suggested that movements “like Mormonism, survive and prosper are those that succeed in maintaining indefinitely an optimum tension between the
71
Holt: Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue – Setting the Ground Rules
two opposing strains: the strain toward greater assimilation and respectability, on the one hand, and that towards greater separateness, peculiarity, and militance, on the other.”18 In gaining respectability, some elements of Mormonism can be seen to have been softened by writers who are seeking to ease it into the Christian mainstream. Millet argues that the Jesus taught in both Evangelicalism and Mormonism, with slight differences, are “one and the same.”18 Although acknowledging differences, Millet suggests that for all intents and purposes the Christ worshipped by both communities is the same. Hinckley concedes that those who draw distinctions are sometimes correct. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.19 This is slightly confusing, as elsewhere Millet has argued that traditional Christianity views Christ through the spectacles of the creeds, whereas Latter-day Saints view him through the spectacles of the revelations of Joseph Smith.20 These are fairly large differences, and indeed, a significant belief that sets Mormonism apart from traditional Christianity, and Evangelicalism in particular. This discussion is important because the resolution of what Mormonism is and how it relates to Christianity as whole, and in the immediate context to Evangelical Christianity, will frame the parameters and rules for the dialogue that is to take place. If Mormonism is different, and both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals would agree that they are, then how should they view and write about each other? From a Latter-day Saint perspective there have, if not in writing then certainly in conversation, been polemic statements about Evangelical Christianity. Conversations of such a nature, in the author’s experience, tend to focus around the idea of cheap grace; that once a person is saved it does not matter what they do. This is unacceptable; Mormons must accept the same standards and rules of debate that they expect in other people’s
72
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 70-79 ISSN: 1941-8167
treatment of them. However, perhaps unknowingly, the overwhelming attitude of Latter-day Saint dialogue has been focused around, “Please see us as Christians;” or in another sense, “Let us join your club.” This may be a rather simplistic explanation, but when Latter-day Saints spend their time trying to prove their Christianity, in some ways they are missing the opportunity to delve deeper into similarities, differences, and shared values. For most Latter-day Saints in dialogue with Evangelicals, the question of their Christianity is the elephant in the room. It is the argument of this article that this question is an unnecessary diversion. To some degree, some of the arguments that Latter-day Saints use could be seen to employ double standards. Blomberg argues, quite convincingly, that recent LDS writings, “instead of trying to demonstrate how corrupt early postapostolic Christianity became, mine the preconciliar literature for supposed parallels to Mormon distinctives.”21 Latter-day Saints ”cherry pick” from, by their own admission, apostate Christian sources to prove their Christianity, or to prove that their version of Christianity is the true version that was superseded by later changes. Blomberg rightly argues that “Latter-day Saints cannot have it both ways;”22; if they wish to assert their own Christian distinctiveness and a belief in the apostate nature of traditional Christianity they cannot borrow from these sources to prove their orthodoxy. They can recognize that there are elements of writings that appear similar to Mormon teachings, and, these writings could be used help to unpack what is meant by these doctrines within Mormonism.23 However, what is commonly done is that aspects, which are similar, are picked out to highlight how Mormonism is a restoration of ancient truths; other aspects of the same writer(s) are ignored if they disagree. Thus it is possible to highlight the possibility of temple marriage rites among the community at Qumran, but ignore the apostate Gnostic elements.24 If Mormons use such elements in their teaching they should be used transparently. This leads onto another element that Latter-day Saints and evangelicals need to be aware of in their dialogue and relationships: the issue of being divided by a shared religious vocabulary.25 Indeed, it may be that while Latter-day Saint and traditional Christian theology agree in certain areas it is at a superficial level.
73
Holt: Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue – Setting the Ground Rules
For example in discussing a Latter-day Saint Christology it is imperative to highlight that Jesus is the Son of God. However, is this understood in the same way as mainstream Christianity? The language may be the same but the understanding could be either subtly or blatantly different: “Terminology is deceptive. Men may speak similarly but mean and feel differently. And as you know, the theological vocabulary is notoriously vague.”26 Mormons and Evangelicals share the same Christian language, and in some areas agree as to the meaning behind the words (for example Jesus was crucified), but in others disagree quite considerably (Jesus is the Son of God).27 Paulsen has recently made this very point in examining the convergence and divergence of Joseph Smith’s teachings with mainstream Christianity: One more very important reminder: when it comes to Christian fundamentals – the divinity and lordship of Jesus Christ, his redemptive atonement, his resurrection, and our victory through him over sin and death – there is little to distinguish Joseph’s understandings from those of “orthodox” Christians… And a final important reminder: Latterday Saint views on many points of doctrine still differ, sometimes radically, from the more traditional Christian views. This is true for even those doctrines toward which… there has been significant Christian convergence.28 In order for dialogue to flourish between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints it is important that each recognize that the other is beginning their discussion of Christianity from a different place. Only in so doing, and being accepting that the other person views them in a way that they may not necessarily agree with, can a discussion begin. Latter-day Saints are often confused and upset as being characterized as non-Christian, without realizing, as mentioned earlier, that they hold similar prejudices with regard to other Christians. Early Christianity could be seen to offend Judaism in suggesting that this new faith was “Judaism fulfilled.” In a similar way Latter-day Saints could be seen to offend other Christians in suggesting that they are “Christianity restored.” For early Christianity, Ruether argues that it is impossible “to say ‘Jesus is Messiah’ without implicitly or explicitly, saying at the same time ‘and the Jews be damned.’”29 For Latter-day Saints this corollary is highlighted in Coleman’s discussion of the Christianity of Mormonism:
74
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 70-79 ISSN: 1941-8167
I am a devout Christian who is exceedingly fortunate to have greater knowledge of the true ‘doctrine of Christ’ since my conversion to the restored Church. These truths define this Church as having the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Like other members of the Church, I now understand the true nature of the Godhead, I have access to additional scripture and revelation, and I can partake of the blessings of priesthood authority.30. Latter-day Saints do not just see themselves as Christians but as the only true Christians. They may allow others the ability to call themselves Christians but on a deeper level it seems as though people cannot be complete Christians outside of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.31 In the development of polite discourse among faiths, Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals have a way to go in establishing ground rules. These ground rules must incorporate an acceptance of who the “other” perceives them self to be. This means, Latterday Saints accepting Evangelicals as people who see themselves as real and true Christians, in a relationship with Christ. Conversely, it would also mean Evangelicals accepting Latter-day Saints as people who see themselves as real and true Christians, in a relationship with Christ. This is not, necessarily, agreeing with the other groups view, but allowing them to self-define and speak for themselves. The rules must, however, incorporate an acceptance and understanding of how the “other” perceives “us.” For Latterday Saints this means accepting that Evangelicals see them as nonChristian, not necessarily in a pejorative way, but at the least in a certain definitional sense in terms of their understanding of the developing understanding of Christian doctrine as expressed in the creeds, and in keeping with their understanding of the significance of doctrine. Evangelicals would also accept that Latter-day Saints see them as incomplete Christians at best, and who are missing a great deal of truth, light and knowledge about who they are and the true nature of God. With these parameters constructed, the elephant in the room that has dominated discussion for so long can be put to one side and a deeper and more fruitful dialogue can begin.
75
Holt: Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue – Setting the Ground Rules
1
Thanks to Dr Ronan Head, and David Heap for reading preliminary drafts of this article and their suggestions and encouragement. The article does not reflect their views, but is better because of them. 2 What this article does not do, however, is address the reasons why both groups might engage in such dialogue. Although the assumption is for greater understanding, working for the social good, these are not the only elements of an interfaith dialogue. The Scriptural Reasoning project suggests an ability to strengthen and develop one’s own faith through dialogue. There is also the missionary/evangelizing imperative that both groups may feel as part of the Christian duty. Space determines that there is insufficient development of these themes, and they must wait for another article. 3 Although there are groups that could be included within the umbrella of Mormonism (for example the Community of Christ, or the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints) most Latter-day Saints would understand the term to refer to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (headquartered in Salt Lake City). The article does not explore the possibility that Latter-day Saints may also, not be as homogenous as perhaps they perceive themselves to be. 4 Jan Shipps, J. “Is Mormonism Christian? Reflections on a complicated question.” BYU Studies vol. 33, no. 3 (1993), 454. 5
6
Ibid. Richard Mouw, “’We Have Sinned Against You' A leading evangelical speaks at the Mormon Tabernacle and says evangelicals have spread lies about LDS beliefs,” Beliefnet (2004), electronic document, http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/11/We-HaveSinned-Against-You.aspx (accessed September 13, 2010). 7
Gordon B. Hinckley, “Living in the Fulness of Times,” October 2001 Sessions of the General Conference, http://www.lds.org/generalconference/2001/10/living-in-the-fulness-of-times?lang=eng. 8 For example van Biemen characterizes a description of Mormonism by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention: But Land’s comment seems to go a step further. A cult, he said on the Bloomberg show, ‘is a form of faith which does not comply with the essential teachings of the Christian faith but claims to be within the Christian faith or to be the true expression of the Christian faith, as opposed to being another religion like Judaism.’ Land explained that he would look at Mormonism ‘as another faith in the same sense that I would look upon Islam as another faith. I think the fairest and most charitable way to define Mormonism would be to call it the fourth Abrahamic religion — Judaism being the first, Christianity being the second, Islam being the third, and Mormonism being the fourth. And Joseph Smith would play the same character in Mormonism that Mu-
76
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 70-79 ISSN: 1941-8167
hammad plays in Islam’ (David van Biemen, “What is Mormonism? A Baptist Answer,” TIME (October 24, 2007), electronic document, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1675308,00.htm l (accessed November 9, 2010). 9 Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Whose Rationality? (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), 393. 10 Stephen E. Robinson, “Christ and Trinity,” in Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove,: InterVarsity Press), 140. This plea for a correct portrayal of doctrine was repeated in a 2007 press release from LDS Newsroom. 11 See for example Blomberg and Robinson (op cit); Robert L. Millet and Gregory C. V. Johnson, Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation Between a Mormon and an Evangelical (New York: Monkfish, 2007); and Robert L. Millet and Gerald R. McDermott, Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007). 12 Millet and Johnson, 182. 13 Craig Blomberg, “Is Mormonism Christian?,” in Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002). 14 For example, nowhere is the assertion made that Mormons believe Adam is God; neither are there any other spurious comments that have been historically found in anti-Mormon literature. 15 Doctrine and Covenants 1:130. 16 Joseph Smith – History 1:19. 17 Shipps, “Is Mormonism Christian?,” 441. A logical outworking of such beliefs is given in a personal essay by Reiss: Recently, my husband, who is Episcopalian, came with me to testimony meeting, where a very sweet guy expressed his profound gratitude for being a member of “the only true and living church on the face of the earth.” Phil and I grinned at each other, and I whispered, “Sweetheart! Look at the time. You’d better hurry up or you’re going to miss the 10 o’clock service at your false and dead church.” I’m sure if we asked that nice LDS brother what he meant by asserting his membership in the world’s only “true and living church,” he would soft-pedal, and so he should. I worry that many Mormons have absolutely no
77
Holt: Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue – Setting the Ground Rules
inkling of the logical consequences of their words. How do we imagine that such rhetoric is going to be heard outside the Mormon enclave? (Jana Reiss, “Tributaries of Faith,” Sunstone no. 148 [December 2007]: 23). 18 Armand L. Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 5. 18 Millet and Johnson, Bridging the Divide, 114. 19 Gordon B. Hinckley, “We Look to Christ,” Ensign (May 2002): 91-92. 20 Millet, A Different Jesus?. 21 Blomberg, “Is Mormonism Christian?,” 319. 22 Ibid. 23 Some may not think it is self-contradictory for Mormons to use patristic sources. However, when used it should be for the purpose of demonstrating that some of the "peculiar" beliefs are not outside historical Christian thought, as distinct from proving that the belief is more correct than current traditional Christian teaching 24 Blomberg uses the example of Robinson proof-texting the corporeality of God (“Is Mormonism Christian?,” 320). 25 Of course, many Latter-day Saints and Mormons are aware of this (e.g., Blomberg and Robinson, How Wide the Divide?, 156). This shared religious vocabulary with different meanings is complicated by shifting meanings in the development of Mormon theology, as well as polemics entering into, if not controlling the discussion of the use of terms. 26 Truman Madsen, “Are Christians Mormon?,” BYU Studies vol. 15, no. 1 (1974): 74. 27 This point is made by the LDS Newsroom in exploring doctrine in relation to other faiths (“Approaching Mormon Doctrine,” Newsroom. The Official Resource for News Media, Opinion Leaders and the Public (May 4, 2007), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approachingmormon-doctrine (accessed November 25, 2010). 28 David Paulsen, “Reassessing Joseph Smith’s theology in his bicentennial,” BYU Studies vol. 45, no 1 (2006): 37-38. 29 Rosemary Radforth Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York: Seabury Press, 8. 30. Gary J. Coleman, “Mom, Are We Christians?,” Ensign (May 2007): 94; emphasis added. 31 This is a bold claim to make, but nevertheless one that is borne out by LDS theology. It should be recognized, however, that Latter-day Saints would see Christians as possessing some truth but not the fullness. Dunn argues that the early Christians needed something to negate and reject to find it’s own identity (James D.G. Dunn, Jews and Christians:
78
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 70-79 ISSN: 1941-8167
The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135 [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999]). This argument is similarly made by Shipps when discussing Latter-day Saint rhetoric against other Christian churches which has settled down in more recent times as this identity is already established they “no longer have a sociological need for Gentiles. They do not need an other to set themselves apart either rhetorically or categorically”. It shows the “self confidence of a people whose identity is now fixed and steadfast enough that they no longer need to be segregated from other denominations” (Shipps, “Is Mormonism Christian?,” 347).
79