Straight Answers to Fox’s 21 Questions about the Mormon Church

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/about/robert-bowman on 18 Dec 2007
Cults & Rob Bowman

Comments (103)

Related Posts

• Straight Answers to Fox’s 21 Questions about the Mormon Church
• Do Mormons believe “that Jesus was fully God”?
• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? C: John 17:21-23
• Christianity Today, Mormons, and the Deity of Christ
• Who’s Afraid of the King Follett Discourse?

103 Responses to “Straight Answers to Fox’s 21 Questions about the Mormon Church”

1. djeaton3162 on 18 Dec 2007 at 6:52 pm #

   Great post, Rob. Sometimes nailing down their doctrine from their official statements is, like my son says, as hard as nailing jello to a tree.

2. Fox’s Questions about Mormonism « Anchor for the Soul on 18 Dec 2007 at 7:17 pm #

   [...] and Pen has also addressed Fox’s 21 questions about Mormonism.  Check out Rob Bowman’s answers.  It’s a pretty good post.  Explore posts in the same [...]

3. C Michael Patton on 18 Dec 2007 at 10:22 pm #

   This is great. Thanks for helping to clarify Rob.

4. Better answers than the answers themselves « WHATEVER! on 18 Dec 2007 at 11:07 pm #

   [...] For those who may have embraced Romney’s apparent confession of faith in Jesus Christ in his December 6th speech, you really owe it to yourself to read Bowman’s article.  Everyone who would like to be better informed about a few of the peculiarities of the Mormon church should read the article.  You may do so by clicking here.  [...]

5. Above All Things » Blog Archive » Fox News and 21 Questions about LDS on 18 Dec 2007 at 11:20 pm #

   [...] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in italics, followed by commentary by Rob Bowman from Reclaiming the Mind. The answers provided by the LDS leadership are typical of what I have found in my personal [...]

6. zvitali on 19 Dec 2007 at 12:17 am #

   That was indeed very helpful.

7. bpratico on 19 Dec 2007 at 9:00 am #

   Outstanding, Rob!! Clear, concise, irenic, accurate and fair. thanks,

   Bob

8. Paul Owen on 19 Dec 2007 at 9:05 am #

   Rob,

   Thanks again for another helpful post. I would probably take a different view on a few points:

   1. The statement could have actually been much MORE direct in affirming the LDS belief in the divinity of Christ. Their scriptures are full of references to his deity and status in the Godhead. They don’t just believe he is the son of God; they believe he is God the Son. In this regard they failed to do justice to their own view.

   2. The LDS Church does not officially teach that Jesus “became” a god at some point in the distant past. When he passed through mortality and was resurrected, he was already God. So obviously he is not an exact pattern of human experience in that regard.

   3. It is not an official point of Mormon doctrine that God the Father has a “wife.” There is no binding interpretation of the belief in a heavenly Mother, and this has been understood differently within the Church. Some Mormons understand our “heavenly parents” in terms of the Father and the Holy Spirit for example.

   4. Why not just be thankful that the current LDS Church is plainly embarrassed by the notion that God the Father physically impregnated the Virgin Mary? Their instinct is to affirm that Jesus was born of a Virgin like the Bible says, and we should encourage that trend.

   5. I thought their answer to the question about humans becoming gods and goddesses was perfectly fine. You seem to want them to spell out the details in ways that go beyond their canonical sources. Why not just be thankful that they want to affirm that we will never become God’s equals?

   Those are just a few quibbles. All in all, I thought your commentary on this issue was very clear, edifying, and helpful to the discussion. Thanks again for giving it your attention.

9. Rob Bowman on 19 Dec 2007 at 12:08 pm #

   Paul,

   Thanks for your positive comments, as well as for sharing your “quibbles.”

   We’ve discussed already our disagreement over the precise boundaries of what constitutes “official” LDS doctrine. I believe the case is pretty strong for regarding belief in a heavenly mother as official LDS doctrine. See the article “Mother in Heaven” in the _Encyclopedia of Mormonism_ (2:961) for the way LDS theologians ground the Church’s affirmation of literal “heavenly parents” in its understanding of the Bible, as well as the 1909 First Presidency statement, which arguably makes it official, or as good as official. In any case, this is standard, normal LDS belief.

   I *am* thankful that the LDS Church is embarrassed by the idea that God impregnated Mary through sexual union with her! Now if they would just become embarrassed enough to disavow it (”officially”!), we’d be getting somewhere. Otherwise, we have a situation in which they are using a biblical word (”virgin”) while secretly hoping we won’t find out that they allow for it to have an unbiblical meaning. My favorite example of this is Bruce McConkie’s stipulative definition that a “virgin” is a woman who has not had sexual relations with a “mortal man”–thereby allowing him to affirm that Mary was a virgin because God the Father was an *immortal* man! (So, as I am fond of saying, Mary remained a virgin on a technicality!) While McConkie’s statement is in no sense normative for all Mormons, it illustrates the dangers of settling for the Mormons using biblical language without committing themselves to biblical meaning. I am *not* thankful that the LDS Church continues to play such semantic games.

10. Paul Owen on 19 Dec 2007 at 12:36 pm #

    Rob,

    Just to clarify, I wasn’t denying that the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is officially taught. However it has never been officially defined or interpreted in terms of God the Father having a wife (though that is commonly assumed). Some Mormons understand Heavenly Mother as the Holy Ghost, others as a reference to a feminine aspect within the being of God, and I have even seen it suggested that Jesus is the Mother figure, as the one through whom mankind was created in the image of God (”let us make man in our image” being applied to the Father and the Son).

    Oh, and I agree, it would be much better if the LDS would come out and officially denounce the blasphemous notion that God the Father procreated Jesus through a sexual union with Mary.

11. Rob Bowman on 19 Dec 2007 at 1:05 pm #

    Paul,

    LDS doctrinal materials, including the 1909 First Presidency statement, routinely refer to Heavenly Father and the heavenly Mother as our “heavenly parents.” Given the “family-oriented” perspective of the LDS Church and its doctrine of eternal marriage, I would think that the inference that the heavenly Mother is the heavenly Father’s “wife” is the presumptive, default understanding. The alternate views you mention are, as I understand the situation, on the liberal fringes of the LDS community; they cannot, then, be cited as counterevidence to the claim that the LDS Church’s actual teaching indicates that God has a wife, whom Mormons call the heavenly Mother.

    And again, whatever might be the “official” teaching, we can still talk meaningfully about the standard, normal, or mainstream LDS teaching and belief, which is as I described it, to the best of my understanding.

12. Paul Owen on 19 Dec 2007 at 2:18 pm #

    Rob,

    I don’t agree that there is anything liberal about the views I mentioned. The LDS Church has never defined the Heavenly Mother language in a prescriptive manner. It is not an official teaching that God has a wife. The view that the “Heavenly Mother” actually refers to the feminine aspect of the being of God was advocated by Erastus Snow, himself an apostle. The language used in the statements of the First Presidency on the Origin of Man and Evolution (which vaguely speak of “the universal Father and Mother”) are ambiguous enough to allow for this alternative interpretation.

13. Rob Bowman on 19 Dec 2007 at 3:12 pm #

    Paul,

    Erastus Snow, as you surely know, died two decades before the 1909 statement by the First Presidency, and therefore his opinion is (by your own standard) irrelevant for deciding what is now official LDS doctrine.

    I really don’t see anything ambiguous enough about the 1909 statement to escape the idea of two individual beings called the heavenly Father and heavenly Mother. It asserts “that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents.” It is in this context that the statement affirms, “All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.” Having already spoken explicitly of a plurality of “heavenly parents,” the reference to “the universal Father and Mother” surely must be construed likewise to refer to two individual beings. The fact that the statement refers to “all men and women” as “literally the sons and daughters of Deity” in this same sentence likewise confirms that the Father and Mother are two individual beings. Since this is how most Mormons do in fact interpret their Church’s teaching, and how it is explained in such sources as _Gospel Principles_, I am on solid ground in concluding that this is indeed what the LDS Church teaches.

14. “Why I’m Troubled that Mitt Romney is a Mormon” | Concordia TheoBLOGical Seminary on 19 Dec 2007 at 11:13 pm #

    [...] article, “Straight Answers to Fox’s 21 Questions about the Mormon Church,” http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/12/18/straight-answers-to-foxs-21-questions-about-the-mor...). Take, for example, the recent dust up over Huckabee’s recent aside, wondering if Mormons [...]

15. Challies Dot Com SideBlog on 20 Dec 2007 at 6:51 am #

    A La Carte (12/20)

    Thursday December 20, 2007…

16. Four Pointer on 20 Dec 2007 at 9:07 am #

    Mormon church dishonest about its beliefs

    These are just a few examples of why you can not trust the Mormon church to be honest about what they believe. On the sidebar, about 2/3 of the way down, is a section all about Mormonism. You can read more there. Or, you can check out this post at Pa…

17. fourpointer on 20 Dec 2007 at 9:27 am #

    Paul,

    As far as your statements on the Mormon “Heavenly Mother”–the LDS does indeed teach that God the Father has a literal wife. A few quotes:

    Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also the offspring of an Eternal Mother. An exalted and glorified Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father unless a Woman of like glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother. The begetting of children makes a man a father and a woman a mother whether we are dealing with man in his mortal or immortal state.–McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 517

    We have a mother in heaven. We are the offspring of God. He is our Father, and we have a Mother in the other life as well.–Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.191

    The fact that there is no reference to a mother in heaven either in the Bible, Book of Mormon or D&C, is not sufficient proof that no such thing as a mother did exist there. If we had a Father, which we did, for all of these records speak of him, then does not good common sense tell us that we must have had a mother there also?…If we are his offspring, then how did we become such, if we had no mother to give us spirit birth?…How can we be the offspring of God, how can he be the Father of our spirits, unless we had a mother and were born? The D&C states that we are all begotten sons and daughters unto God…In Genesis we read: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:26-27) Is it not feasible to believe that female spirits were created in the image of a “Mother in Heaven”?–Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 3, p.144

    Even the Mormon home teaching manual, Gospel Principles talks about out heavenly “parents.” So, yes, the LDS church does teach that God the Father has a wife.

18. Paul Owen on 20 Dec 2007 at 12:39 pm #

    Fourpointer,

    The question here is not whether Mormons are permitted to believe that God has a wife, nor is it whether one will find the notion in publications by Church authorities. The question is whether or not this is an official doctrine, prescribed by the teaching authority of the LDS Church. LDS teaching manuals and other sources do not establish this point. And references to “heavenly parents” do not have to be understood in terms of God having a physical wife. Heavenly Mother has been understood as the Holy Ghost, a feminine aspect of the divine being, and even Jesus the Son (the co-creator) by Mormon theologians, as I have already pointed out. Please see my previous discussions with Rob if you want to understand where I am coming from on this. Thanks.

19. Rob Bowman on 20 Dec 2007 at 2:08 pm #

    Paul,

    It is almost *always* “possible” to interpret language to mean something other than what it plainly means. There are Mormons out there who offer alternative theories on almost everything the LDS Church teaches. This doesn’t change the fact that the Church teaches what it teaches.

    In your earlier post you had cited a nineteenth-century LDS leader named Erastus Snow as an example of someone who did not believe that God had a wife. I pointed out to you that whatever Snow might have believed (I admit I don’t know), the Church has since that time come out with a statement issued by the First Presidency that states its view rather clearly on this subject. It is absurd, frankly, to interpret their statement as meaning anything other than that God has a wife. It asserts that we have heavenly parents, that they are our heavenly Father and Mother, and that men and women are their literal sons and daughters. Add to this fact that historically this is how the vast majority of Mormons have understood their own Church’s teaching, and the only reasonable conclusion is that the LDS Church does teach that God the Father has a wife, who is our heavenly mother.

    I’d be curious to know who these other Mormons are who are teaching that God does not have a literal wife, and to know if they have specifically commented on the 1909 statement.

    The question of “official” LDS Church doctrine is obviously one that keeps getting in the way of these discussions. I will be posting a new post on this blog addressing the problem.

20. Paul Owen on 20 Dec 2007 at 3:07 pm #

    Rob,

    Well, I know for a fact that Roger Keller, who teaches religion at BYU, does not believe God has a wife. At least that’s what he told me a few years ago. Nor does Blake Ostler (a very well known and respected Mormon theologian). It was Richard Sherlock (an LDS philosophy professor at Utah State University) whom I believe I first heard suggest the possibility that Jesus could be our heavenly mother, given his co-participation with the Father in creation (”let us make man in our image . . . So God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”). It is interesting for instance, that in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul grounds the ordering of the genders in the relationality within the Trinity between the Father and the Son.

    There is a strain of piety within Western Christianity that has long conceptualized Jesus as a nurturing heavenly mother figure. This is especially evident in Anselm and Julian of Norwich. So it’s not like such theological moves are lacking in precedent. And yes, before someone asks, many Mormon theologians do want to be in conversation with the wider Christian theological tradition, so voices like Anselm do matter in these discussions.

    As for views that would relate Heavenly Mother to the Holy Ghost, or a feminine aspect within the divine being, see Bergera, Line Upon Line, pp. 98, 106.

    I don’t deny that the language of Heavenly Parents and the Universal Father and Mother suggests that God has a wife. Likewise, the fact that (they teach) God the Father has a physical body suggests that he was once a man like us. But suggestions and prescribed teachings with official definitions are not exactly the same thing. When a doctrine is not officially defined, it allows LDS theology considerable room for creative engagement with the wider theological tradition. When you participate in forums like the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (as I do most every year), and enter into open conversation with those sorts of people, who are very much insiders (not liberal LDS apostates), it becomes apparent that the boundaries of “official” Mormon doctrine are a lot more fluid and flexible than evangelical apologetic literature would convey.

21. Paul Owen on 20 Dec 2007 at 3:12 pm #

    Here’s a question, Rob. Could it be that your emphasis on apologetics, rather than non-confrontational discussion and open personal dialogue with Mormon theologians and philosophers (as I have been able to participate in through various forums), disposes you to see Mormon theology only in terms of its heresies and errors, to the exclusion of its possibilities and potential for redemption? You know my work well enough to know I do not deny that polemics and apologetics have their place; but they need to be balanced with other kinds of discourse.

22. Rob Bowman on 20 Dec 2007 at 3:56 pm #

    Paul,

    I think the very question is misleading.

    First, an emphasis on apologetics and open discussion or dialogue are not mutually incompatible.

    Second, I do not “see Mormon theology only in terms of its heresies and errors.” I have always gladly and gratefully pointed out where Mormonism affirms Christian truths and values (e.g., the bodily resurrection of Jesus, or the sanctity of unborn human life).

    Third, Mormons can be redeemed, but Mormon theology cannot. Mormons can be redeemed by coming to know God’s redemptive love in the context of a biblical worldview–which requires Mormons to abandon (though not necessarily all at once) Mormon theology. Mormon theology is heretical (as a system) and simply needs to be abandoned.

    There is more to be said, but I have an appointment.

23. Paul Owen on 20 Dec 2007 at 4:09 pm #

    Rob,

    Well, I think the question is valid, and I would encourage you to give it further thought. That is actually quite a gesture for you to acknowledge that the Mormons affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Most would then add, but it’s not the “biblical” Jesus that they affirm as resurrected. And what I am talking about goes beyond merely acknowledging points of doctrine where the LDS at least verbally appear to get it right. It involves engaging in a constructive conversation with competent Mormon intellectuals who have the training and scholastic resources to reflect on Mormonism’s place within the broader Christian tradition.

    It is one thing to read a book by a Mormon scholar; it is quite another to sit down with them and talk about what they believe, or what they can or could believe. That kind of dialogue requires one to take the trouble to establish personal relationships and contacts with such people in the LDS theological community. And those contacts will not get very far if you can’t learn to appreciate what is good and true, and what could become good and true, within the theological trajectory of the Mormon tradition itself. The language you used above (written in a rush perhaps) doesn’t indicate a lot of openness to doing that.

24. Daniel Eaton on 20 Dec 2007 at 4:50 pm #

    Rob, your post is getting some exposure. Just noticed that the ReligionNewsBlog is linking to it. That probably means it will end up in the ApologeticsIndex as well.

25. johnwmorehead on 20 Dec 2007 at 5:54 pm #

    I have especially enjoyed the back and forth discussion between Rob and Paul. It points out several things, including the divergence of perspectives among traditional Christians as to how Mormon teachings should be interpreted, and it seems to also point out the case for dialogue, not only between traditional Christians and Mormons but also between those in traditional Christianity who are engaging Latter-day Saints from differing perspectives.

    Having read this exchange I agree with Paul that there is indeed a theoretical interpretive lens by which Rob and other apologists and counter-cultists interpret Mormon teachings and engage Latter-day Saints. While apologetic approaches should theoretically be compatible with dialogue (and other missing elements like a missiological approach), in practice I don’t seem much of this taking place at all in apologetic circles. The result is a largely or wholly apologetic approach which does indeed lend itself to a focus on “truth vs. error” and a reinforcement of Mormonism as little more than a “heretical cult,” while providing little room for consideration of other important elements such as dialogue, considering Mormonism as a social or ethnic identity and as a global culture or subculture, and the communication of the traditional Christian understanding of the gospel in a receptor-oriented rather than evangelical-oriented categories.

    There are significant unexamined presuppositions going on here that result in differing understandings and approaches to Mormonism as exemplified by Rob and Paul. Those utilizing a heresy refutation paradigm emphasize boundary definition and maintenance and contrast orthodox doctrine with perceptions of heresy before offering an apologetic refutation. Those drawing upon more of an interdisciplinary approach, especially the missiological model, tend to emphasize dialogue, cultural understanding, and communication in various forms through contextualization, and at times the inclusion of a contextualized apologetic when appropriate. The point to be remembered here is that the very different understandings and methods of engagement arise from the differing models being used. We need to be aware of our theoretical and hermeneutical lenses if we are to communicate with each other more effectively. For years I used the counter-cult lenses and traded them in for missiological ones, so I am very familiar with that hermeneutical framework. I’d like to ask my former counter-cult colleagues to devote greater attention to understanding the alternative framework other Christians use in their understanding and engagement with Mormonism and other new religions.

    For those interested in a contrast of the heresy refutation apologetic approach with a cross-cultural missions model I recommend Philip Johnson’s extensive article in the first issue of Sacred Tribes Journal (www.sacredtribes.com), the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization’s Occasional Paper no. 45, and Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach (Kregel Academic & Professional, 2004).

26. links for 2007-12-21 « Commonplace Book on 20 Dec 2007 at 7:27 pm #

    [...] Parchment and Pen » Straight Answers to Fox’s 21 Questions about the Mormon Church (tags: christian mormonism) [...]

27. Rob Bowman on 20 Dec 2007 at 9:27 pm #

    Paul,

    You wrote: “That is quite a gesture for you to acknowledge that the Mormons affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus.”

    Not for me. It may be out of the ordinary coming from others whom you associate with an apologetics-oriented approach to Mormonism, but it is par for the course for me. Perhaps I don’t fit within your paradigm of an apologist.

    You commented, “And those contacts will not get very far if you can’t learn to appreciate what is good and true, and what could become good and true, within the theological trajectory of the Mormon tradition itself.” Paul, I not only can learn to appreciate what is good and true in Mormonism, I already DO, as my statement – which you found remarkable coming from an apologist – illustrates.

    I will admit, though, that I have difficulty seeing “what could become good and true, within the theological trajectory of the Mormon tradition itself.” I’m not even sure what you mean by this. If you mean that it is possible for Mormonism to abandon some of its false beliefs in favor of true beliefs, of course that’s possible. But this does not mean something in Mormonism “becoming good and true.”

    Perhaps what you mean is that Mormonism, in affirming the truth of the Bible and even of the Book of Mormon (which retains a comparatively orthodox theological perspective as contrasted with the Pearl of Great Price or Doctrine and Covenants), has within its “tradition” the elements of biblical Christianity, if it can only come to appreciate those elements. Well, this has always been the case, since the very beginning of Mormonism. However, from very early in Joseph Smith’s tenure as Prophet of the Restoration, the LDS Church has reinterpreted these elements in a heretical fashion. Again, if the LDS Church were to interpret the Bible in a more orthodox fashion, that would be a step in the right direction, but that would be a change in the “theological trajectory” of Mormonism, not something becoming good and true in that trajectory itself.

    Feel free to explain what sort of phenomenon you have in mind when you speak about “what could become good and true, within the theological trajectory of the Mormon tradition itself.” Perhaps I will agree with you, once I have heard your explanation. Then again, maybe not.

    You wrote: “The language you used above (written in a rush perhaps) doesn’t indicate a lot of openness to doing that.” I did write that comment in a rush, but looking it over, I fail to see anything wrong with it. I made three points. You agreed with the first two points, so those cannot be the problem. Apparently, you disagree with something pertaining to the third point, or perhaps just dislike the way I said it. As best I can tell, you disagree with my statement that Mormon theology cannot be redeemed but must be abandoned. If so, please confirm that you disagreed with that statement, and please explain why.

28. Rob Bowman on 20 Dec 2007 at 11:18 pm #

    John,

    You wrote:

    < < The result is a largely or wholly apologetic approach which does indeed lend itself to a focus on “truth vs. error” and a reinforcement of Mormonism as little more than a “heretical cult,” while providing little room for consideration of other important elements such as dialogue, considering Mormonism as a social or ethnic identity and as a global culture or subculture, and the communication of the traditional Christian understanding of the gospel in a receptor-oriented rather than evangelical-oriented categories. >>

    Suppose I want to evangelize Mormons – or, as you put it, to communicate the traditional Christian understanding of the gospel to Mormons. I would naturally be interested in the cultural anthropologist’s study of how Mormonism functions as a culture. Such information might prove useful to me in thinking strategically about how to approach Mormons with the traditional Christian understanding of the gospel. I understand, of course, that the cultural anthropologist’s purpose is simply to understand Mormonism as a culture or subculture. I would not expect him to focus on such questions as whether Mormonism’s belief in baptism for the dead is warranted from a proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29. His purpose would not be to make evaluative judgments of its doctrinal affirmations. His only interest in the idea of Mormonism as “heretical,” at least in his capacity as an anthropologist, would be to understand how this judgment from orthodox Christianity factors into the identity of the Mormon culture. I would have no objection to learning all we can from this disciplinary approach to the study of Mormonism, or any other religion for that matter.

    On the other hand, I would also want to learn as much as I could from a theologian who has studied Mormon theology and compared it to traditional Christian theology. After all, if my goal is to communicate the gospel in “receptor-oriented categories,” as you put it, I will need to understand Mormon categories and how they differ from traditional Christian categories. The theologians have something very important to offer me at this point, because the categories that define Mormonism are at least in large measure theological categories.

    In pursuing this matter, though, I find that theologians have differing assessments of where Mormon and traditional Christian categories differ. I learn that what has happened historically is that Mormonism began with traditional Christian categories but morphed theologically, retaining much of traditional Christian language but redefining and reshaping the categories that language expressed. Almost everyone agrees that this happened to some extent. However, I find out that some theologians wish to minimize the divergence of the Mormon categories from the traditional Christian categories, while other theologians wish to maximize that divergence. Perhaps some of the former are seeking to cover up significant differences in order to deflect criticism, or in order to come across as more cordial and collegial; perhaps some of the latter are seeking to manufacture differences that aren’t there in order to be more sensational. Assuming that I want to be as “bilingual” as possible in communicating the traditional Christian understanding of the gospel to Mormons in terms they may understand, I cannot duck the unfortunately contentious question of where Mormon and traditional Christian theological categories actually coincide and where and to what extent they do not.

    I eventually come to realize that the task of presenting the traditional Christian understanding of the gospel to Mormons in “receptor-oriented categories” is complicated by the fact that Mormonism’s theological categories are largely overhauled versions of traditional Christian theological categories. Indeed, Mormonism claims that its theological categories are more faithful than the corresponding traditional Christian theological categories to the very sources that traditional Christianity considers foundational and authoritative for its theology and religion. Its entire raison-d’etre is the claim that traditional Christianity strayed from its own theological and religious moorings and adopted corrupt interpretations of its own authoritative sources.

    At this point, I want theologians from my own, traditional Christian theological tradition to make every effort to pinpoint exactly where Mormonism differs theologically from traditional Christian beliefs as well as where it does not. I want them to clarify these issues, not muddy them. I will not find it helpful for theologians from my traditional Christian tradition to be suggesting that Mormonism’s divergent beliefs are really not so divergent because one can find all sorts of fascinating analogues to the Mormon beliefs in this or that strain of Christianity. Such fascinating analogues there may indeed be, but they are not really relevant to understanding Mormonism in its own categories – which is, after all, what I am trying to do. The use of maternal imagery for the divine by Julian of Norwich, for example, is probably not very helpful in understanding what Mormons mean when they speak and sing about their heavenly mother. The purpose of this sort of parallelomania does not seem to be to facilitate the communication of the traditional understanding of the Christian gospel to Mormons. Rather, its purpose seems to be to facilitate the claim that all sorts of aspects of Mormon theology that traditional Christians view as divergent from their own theological categories are, after all, not out of place in the larger tradition of which traditional Christianity and Mormonism are both a part. Ironically, the purpose of this sort of comparison appears to be “apologetic” or polemical: that is, its purpose is apparently to defend Mormonism against the impression that its basic religio-cultural categories are incompatible with those of traditional Christianity. In other words, the purpose of such comparisons seems to be to dissuade traditional Christians from seeking to present the traditional Christian understanding of the gospel to Mormons as a message fundamentally different from their own.

    So far, I have not used the words “truth” or “error” once. Central to the traditional Christian understanding of the gospel, though, is the belief that this gospel is indeed true and that both outright denials and distorted misunderstandings of that gospel are erroneous and false. I will never convey the traditional Christian understanding of the gospel to those who advocate a radically different understanding of that gospel if I fail to communicate the point that only one of those ways of understanding the gospel can be true. Indeed, I will have abandoned that traditional Christian understanding of the gospel if I abandon its exclusive truth-claim, since that is of its very essence. There are, to be sure, some ways of doing this that are more effective than others, but a sure way to fail is to retreat from the truth question altogether in the interests of inoffensive “dialogue.”

    More in the next comment.

29. Rob Bowman on 20 Dec 2007 at 11:18 pm #

    John,

    You wrote:

    < < There are significant unexamined presuppositions going on here that result in differing understandings and approaches to Mormonism as exemplified by Rob and Paul. Those utilizing a heresy refutation paradigm emphasize boundary definition and maintenance and contrast orthodox doctrine with perceptions of heresy before offering an apologetic refutation. Those drawing upon more of an interdisciplinary approach, especially the missiological model, tend to emphasize dialogue, cultural understanding, and communication in various forms through contextualization, and at times the inclusion of a contextualized apologetic when appropriate. >>

    First, there is nothing wrong with “boundary definition and maintenance.” No self-respecting religion or movement can do without it.

    Second, as I have explained above, it is impossible to engage effectively in cross-cultural communication unless one has first understood the similarities and differences between the two cultures. Anyone who has ever tried to communicate to another culture can tell you that it is *especially* important to be sensitive to those differences that are not obvious or apparent. The most common mistake people make is not assuming a difference where there is none, but of assuming a commonality that is only illusory. The typical _faux pas_ occurs when a person assumes that an idiom or action will mean the same thing to the “receptor” as it does to that person. In any case, communication between two cultures requires a clear understanding of the “boundaries” of both cultures. That is, it requires that we clearly understand where the two cultures overlap and where they do not.

    Third, refuting heresy is not only a perfectly legitimate practice, but one that the New Testament both models and instructs Christian teachers to do. Contrasting orthodox doctrine with heresy is an activity that has both apostolic precedent and warrant. Please tell me if you question the accuracy of this point.

    Fourth, your reference to those who “contrast orthodox doctrine with *perceptions of* heresy” is prejudicial and question-begging. If someone contrasts orthodox doctrine with what he only *perceives* to be heresy – meaning, I take it, that this perception is mistaken – then he has not practiced “heresy refutation” in a sound manner. In that case, what is faulty is not the “heresy refutation paradigm” but the manner in which the apologist has analyzed the doctrine of the allegedly heretical religious group. For example, if someone alleges that Mormonism teaches heresy by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus, that allegation is simply false. The problem with such a false allegation is not that it operates from a “heresy refutation paradigm” but that it has executed the task of identifying heresy inadequately.

    Fifth, the very notion of an “interdisciplinary approach” presupposes a plurality of disciplines. Very well; but apologetics is one such discipline; theology is another such discipline; biblical studies is yet another such discipline. A truly interdisciplinary approach respects the integrity and validity of all the relevant disciplines. Nor does it expect everyone to be involved equally in all of the disciplines. I don’t expect the cultural anthropologist to be as involved in theology or apologetics or biblical studies as I am, but I respect the discipline and value whatever insights it provides. It would be nice if the cultural anthropologist did not criticize the apologist for not being an anthropologist. A true missiologist values the contributions of apologists and theologians, just as he does those of anthropologists and sociologists. The cultural anthropologist has his “paradigm” or method, and so does the apologist. I see nothing wrong with that.

30. johnwmorehead on 20 Dec 2007 at 11:57 pm #

    Rob,

    Thanks for taking some time to interact with my post in your two installments. I’ll offer a few brief responses in two installments as well.

    I am glad to see you reference anthropology, and then bring this in connection with another valid perspective provided by theology. Unfortunately, nowhere in either part of your reply did you mention missiology, a discipline which by its vary nature is interdisciplinary, and which brings together the insights of anthropology, theology, sociology, and other disciplines in order to contextualize the gospel appropriately for various cultures and religions. I certainly appreciate theology and apologetics, but your consistent emphasis on issues like definitions of theological terms and doctrines, while important, needs to be expanded to embrace a broader interpretive and responsive framework, as I argued in my previous reply. Once again it seems as if the apologetic framework is in place as the controlling item.

    In the final paragraph of your first installment in your reply you reference those who retreat from the truth question so as to keep dialogue inoffensive. I have been the object of this mischaracterization in the past, and I hope it is not alluding to my statements or efforts here or in other venues. While my missiological approach may be unsettling for some evangelical apologists, it does not sacrifice questions of truth.

    In your second installment you note that there is nothing wrong with boundary definition and maintenance for religions. I agree. However, when this becomes the only or primary approach in understanding and interacting with religions then a reified understanding of a given religion takes place, and one easily falls prey to addressing issues of primary concern to one’s own religious tradition and community while ignoring pressing issues in the religion one is engaging. I believe this takes place with evangelical apologetic approaches where the emphasis on sound doctrine is so strong that other religions are approached as if this concern has the same importance for them, and the evangelical apologist thinks two-way communication is taking place when in fact the evangelical is preaching to the choir more often than not.

31. johnwmorehead on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:06 am #

    You also reference the refutation of heresy as a New Testament practice. I agree, but this needs to be more carefully understood by evangelicals, in my view. While the New Testament speaks very strongly about heresy within the context of the church, this does not always translate into polemical or apologetic approaches. So for example, Jesus engages in confrontations with abuses within first century Judaism, yet he utilizes a dialogical and culturally sensitive approach with the Samaritan woman. And while Paul is concerned with heresy in his epistles he nevertheless provides us with the classic example of cross-cultural communication in a contextualized gospel presentation and apologetic in Acts 17. As the Lausanne issue group paper I referenced previously noted, evangelical apologists appear to draw upon the wrong texts and contexts as the biblical foundation for the heresy refutation model.

    You also reference my call for an interdisciplinary approach, and then note the interaction between biblical studies, theology, and apologetics. While this may be understood as a narrow form of an interdisciplinary approach, it still is subject to the heresy refutation apologetic paradigm. Beyond this there is significant room for expanding the disciplines to include others, especially that of missiology.

    As a missiologist I value the perspectives of theologians and apologists, as well as the perspectives provided by other disciplines, and all of this comes together under the significant biblical theme of the missio Dei, under which disciplines like apologetics serve an ancillary function to the missional task.

    In light of all of this I renew my call for apologists to expand their toolbox as they seek to understand and interact with Mormonism and other new religions.

32. Aaron Ronetski on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:11 am #

    It appears to me that some of the defenders of Mormonism here want to avoid clearly stating that Mormons must abandon their heretical doctrines and embrace the truths of the gospel. In other words they must repent of their errors, cease being Mormons, and become Christians.

    That’s what Mormons must do, otherwise they will suffer eternal destruction.

    Or shall we just settle for “discussion” and “dialogue” while they march off to hell? Where’s the urgency? Where’s the pathos?

    This dialogue stuff is the product of our pc culture. Where is there such an example in Scripture? The gospel was preached in no uncertain terms. Mormons need to have the gospel preached to them, they don’t need to enter into discussion as one equally valid expression of Christianity discussing in-house disagreement with another.

    As far as relationship building, if the Mormon repents we’ll have a relationship (just like I would with any other convert).

33. Rob Bowman on 21 Dec 2007 at 1:39 am #

    John,

    You wrote:

    < < I am glad to see you reference anthropology, and then bring this in connection with another valid perspective provided by theology. Unfortunately, nowhere in either part of your reply did you mention missiology, a discipline which by its vary nature is interdisciplinary, and which brings together the insights of anthropology, theology, sociology, and other disciplines in order to contextualize the gospel appropriately for various cultures and religions. >>

    Unfortunately, you did not read my reply carefully enough. My whole response is written with regards to a missiological perspective, as is evident from the fact that I began by discussing the relevance and integration of anthropology and theology for those studying how best to communicate the gospel to Mormons. I also ended by referring explicitly to missiology, saying, “A true missiologist values the contributions of apologists and theologians, just as he does those of anthropologists and sociologists.” This means that you misread the perspective of my entire two-part response!

    You wrote:

    < < In the final paragraph of your first installment in your reply you reference those who retreat from the truth question so as to keep dialogue inoffensive. I have been the object of this mischaracterization in the past, and I hope it is not alluding to my statements or efforts here or in other venues. While my missiological approach may be unsettling for some evangelical apologists, it does not sacrifice questions of truth. >>

    There must be a reason why some evangelical apologists are mischaracterizing your approach. Could that reason be that any time an evangelical apologist engages in apologetics, you object that he needs to be doing something else? John, please *show* us that your missiological approach does not sacrifice questions of truth. You can do this by showing how your approach does not avoid declaring that orthodox Christian theology is true and Mormon theology, in the substantial places where it differs from orthodoxy, is false.

    You wrote:

    < < In your second installment you note that there is nothing wrong with boundary definition and maintenance for religions. I agree. However, when this becomes the only or primary approach in understanding and interacting with religions . . . >>

    Am I saying that boundary definition and maintenance is the only or even the primary approach in understanding and interacting with religions? No. Is there any plausible way to extract such a claim or assumption from what I have written? No. You’ve got your straw man of what a “counter-cult” apologist does, and you’re continuing to knock it down while ignoring what I have been telling you.

    You continued:

    < < . . . then a reified understanding of a given religion takes place, and one easily falls prey to addressing issues of primary concern to one's own religious tradition and community while ignoring pressing issues in the religion one is engaging. I believe this takes place with evangelical apologetic approaches where the emphasis on sound doctrine is so strong that other religions are approached as if this concern has the same importance for them, and the evangelical apologist thinks two-way communication is taking place when in fact the evangelical is preaching to the choir more often than not. >>

    Evangelical apologetic literature on Mormonism *routinely* points out that doctrine is not nearly as important to Mormons as it is to evangelicals. Again, you are knocking down a straw man.

    You wrote:

    < < You also reference the refutation of heresy as a New Testament practice. I agree, but this needs to be more carefully understood by evangelicals, in my view. While the New Testament speaks very strongly about heresy within the context of the church, this does not always translate into polemical or apologetic approaches. So for example, Jesus engages in confrontations with abuses within first century Judaism, yet he utilizes a dialogical and culturally sensitive approach with the Samaritan woman. And while Paul is concerned with heresy in his epistles he nevertheless provides us with the classic example of cross-cultural communication in a contextualized gospel presentation and apologetic in Acts 17. >>

    Let’s see: Jesus confronted the Samaritan woman with her multiple marriages, told her that salvation was of the Jews, and told her that the Father was calling people to worship him in spirit and truth. I wouldn’t say that Jesus was culturally insensitive (!), but your dichotomy between confrontational and dialogical approaches is a false one. Paul told the Athenians that they did not know the God who made the world, that they should not be worshiping idols, and that a day of judgment was coming on all people. Again, Paul presented this message skillfully and about as winsomely as he could, but he was not shy about saying that what was false was false.

    You wrote:

    < < As the Lausanne issue group paper I referenced previously noted, evangelical apologists appear to draw upon the wrong texts and contexts as the biblical foundation for the heresy refutation model. >>

    Do you really think Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman or Paul’s speech to Athenian philosophers provide the most direct or relevant biblical examples for how Christians should respond to heresy? The focus of Jesus’ comments was not on the Samaritans’ “heresy,” although when it came up, he was outspoken against it. Paul was addressing pagans, not heretics. It is peculiar reasoning, to say the least, to maintain that the epistolary passages regarding heresy are the wrong texts for understanding how Christians should respond to heresy!

    You wrote:

    < < You also reference my call for an interdisciplinary approach, and then note the interaction between biblical studies, theology, and apologetics. While this may be understood as a narrow form of an interdisciplinary approach, it still is subject to the heresy refutation apologetic paradigm. Beyond this there is significant room for expanding the disciplines to include others, especially that of missiology. >>

    You missed my point (again). I mentioned those three disciplines, not as the only disciplines of relevance to missions and evangelism, but as three that offer valuable information in their own right.

    You wrote:

    < < As a missiologist I value the perspectives of theologians and apologists, as well as the perspectives provided by other disciplines, and all of this comes together under the significant biblical theme of the missio Dei, under which disciplines like apologetics serve an ancillary function to the missional task. >>

    You say that you value the perspectives of theologians and apologists, but then you seem to take it back when you write:

    < < In light of all of this I renew my call for apologists to expand their toolbox as they seek to understand and interact with Mormonism and other new religions. >>

    I’m afraid what you seem to be saying is that you can only value the perspectives of apologists if they agree to subsume the apologetic function to what you regard as missiology by adopting a missiological perspective rather than a strictly apologetic perspective. But this seems to be another way of saying that apologists should stop being apologists (because their approach is supposedly too narrow, monodisciplinary, nondialogical, etc.) and become missiologists. If this is not what you mean, then please give us examples of apologists who are not missiologists, who do not adopt a missiological methodology, but whose perspectives you value and whose contributions to understanding Mormonism you applaud.

34. thekingpin68 on 21 Dec 2007 at 5:47 am #

    Hi Rob,

    That is an informative article in reply to the FOXNews.com published 21 questions. I have your book on Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Trinity and it is good to see you discuss the LDS here.

    Mormons certainly have the right to define their own beliefs. However, they also have the responsibility to answer such questions more candidly than the Church’s representative did on this occasion.

    The LDS have been criticized for many years as being less than candid on several points. Watching some of Lyndon Lamborn, he stated that the LDS is declining. Perhaps the often less than candid nature of this religious organization is catching up with them. I wonder if it would be a major public relations disaster if they were more forthright with their actual doctrines. The doctrines are being exposed by Biblical Christians, anyhow.

    Cheers

    Russ

35. Paul Owen on 21 Dec 2007 at 11:25 am #

    Rob,

    Thanks for your clarifications. When I speak of what could be good and true in the future of Mormonism, I do indeed have in mind what you suggested–a return to the biblicist/restorationist roots of the Mormon religion as they are reflected in the Book of Mormon itself. The results would not be something that I as an Anglican would ever aspire to, but it would be a vast improvement on the theological mess created by Joseph’s novelties which were hatched in the Nauvoo period. All in all, I’ve again appreciated this exchange, and certainly respect your work on the whole as a model of healthy, balanced, scholarly apologetics, even if I disagree with your approach at certain points.

36. Rob Bowman on 21 Dec 2007 at 11:31 am #

    Paul,

    Thanks very much.

37. johnwmorehead on 21 Dec 2007 at 11:33 am #

    Aaron, your comment is an unfortunate illustration of responses by evangelicals that continue to miss the point, as well as the broader issues, as a result of zeal and the effects of an apologetic paradigm. This is demonstrated by your characterization of the comments, presumably by Paul Owen and myself, as “defenders of Mormonism.” I have no problem in defending Mormons and Mormonism in response to evangelical misunderstanding and questionable approaches to interacting with the LDS people, but surely Owen and myself must be understood as offering more than this.

    As to your questions about dialogue and preferences for evangelical-centered preaching *at* people rather than receptor-oriented communication that communicates *with* people in two-way fashion in terms that both parties understand, there is indeed Scriptural warrant for it. I would refer you to an article written by Craig Blomberg on this topic posted on the Standing Together website, as well as two articles by Terry Muck, “A New Testament Case for Interreligious Dialogue?” (Nov. 18-20, 1993 ETS Annual Meeting Paper), and “Evangelicals and Interreligious Dialogue” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 4 Dec. 1993).

    Finally, I am shocked and saddened by your final sentence where you withhold friendship and relationships with Latter-day Saints unless they meet your criteria of repentance. This hardly seems in keeping with the command to love our neighbors as ourselves.

38. johnwmorehead on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:11 pm #

    Rob, thank you for your continued interaction. While we have our serious disagreements, nevertheless I respect you as a thinker and believe you represent one of the bright spots in countercult apologetics.

    I don’t think I missed the perspective of your response. While you reference missiology I see no evidence that this positively impacts your understanding of or interaction with Mormonism. Once again the overarching framework is heresy refutation and apologetics, not missiology.

    As to why countercultists misunderstand and mischaracterize the missiological approach to new religions, I believe the reason is the same thought caused me to comment on Paul Owen’s comments. The missiological model is so different that when it is viewed from the heresy refutation paradigm it raises serious questions and appears so foreign that it is difficult if not impossible to comprehend. It necessitates a paradigm shift, and I believe we are seeing the beginnings of this which unfortunately adds fuel to the fire in conflicts between the differing paradigmatic camps.

    I find it curious that you would raise the question about the alleged sacrifice of truth in a missiological model, and then ask for a demonstration that this is not taking place. You assume the worst and ask me to prove otherwise, rather than raising a criticism based upon informed analysis of a specific example from an approach that I or other missional folks are using. In a previous post I mentioned several resources that readers can engage, and the Lausanne paper and Kregel book both include theoretical considerations as well as case studies which demonstrate that no sacrifice of truth is taking place with a missiological model. I find it interesting that the Kregel book has been positively reviewed by several missiological journals in the U.S. and U.K. with no concerns over truth fudging, and the only place where concerns have been raised is in a handful of countercult and apologetic circles that have made an effort to engage these materials. Why the very different impressions of the book and the paradigm? This brings me back to my original point: The missiological framework allows for a more positive assessment while the heresy refutation apologetic paradigm does not. My missional colleagues and I are on record in several venues with examples of our methodology. Please review these and raise specific concerns or questions if they arise, but the burden of proof is on the part of the concerned apologists once they’ve done their homework.

    As to boundary maintenance as the primary concern of apologists, I appreciate that you don’t feel you are doing this, and if I have misconstrued what you are saying and doing then I apologize. But as I look at your writings related to this topic and the interactions you have had with Owen and myself I see an emphasis on boundary definition and maintenance, which certainly is valid and has its place, but I see little else going on. I don’t think this is a straw man at all.

    More to come in my second installment.

39. johnwmorehead on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:14 pm #

    Your comments on the biblical passages I mentioned is interesting and again illustrative of us seeing only what we are able to see by what we bring to a given phenomenon. While Jesus certainly brought corrective in his dialogue with the Samaritan woman it nevertheless was culturally sensitive as discussed, for example in Stuart Caldwell, “Jesus in Samaria: A Paradigm for Church Planting Among Muslims” (International Journal of Frontier Missions 17:1, Spring 2000). Likewise, while Paul corrected his Athenian audience on various theological issues it nevertheless also demonstrates cross-cultural missional approaches as argued in a number of places such as Dean Flemming, “Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens: Paul’s Areopagus Address as a Paradigm for Missionary Communication” (Missiology vol 30, no. 2, April 2002), and J. Daryl Charles, “Engaging the (Neo)Pagan Mind: Paul’s Encounter with Athenian Culture as a Model for Cultural Apologetics” (Trinity Journal 16, 1995). Reading such materials that bring a missiological perspective to biblical passages will be very helpful in expanding the framework for consideration of such things.

    In response to another section of your post, one can certainly value the perspectives of theologians and apologists while also calling certain aspects of them into questions and offering critique. Peer review and critique takes place in theological and missiological circles but is sorely lacking in countercult apologetic circles. In my view they seem a little thin skinned about criticism, and it would be helpful to remember that, believe it or not, I am a friendly critic. But simply because I find value in theology and apologetics as they are part of missiology this does not mean that certain aspects of these disciplines as used by certain apologists are beyond critique. This is a consistent position.

    Finally, I noted in AR-Talk, an apologetic forum that includes a number of countercult individuals, that you made them aware of our exchange here by referring to it as me “taking you to task” for using a heresy refutation model. Rob, I thought we were having a discussion among professionals and scholars about these issues? I have articulated my concerns about the limitations of the heresy refutation paradigm as it informs interpretations of evangelical-Mormon dialogue and I have offered a missiological paradigm for consideration as a more expansive alternative. The way you framed our discussion for countercultists is disturbing to me.

40. MormonsAreChristian on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:15 pm #

    The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion This article helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity’s theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

    • Baptism: .

    Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family. The local congregation had a lay ministry. An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified.
    http://tinyurl.com/2aux3g
    The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continues baptism and a lay ministry as taught by Jesus’ Apostles. Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and prohibiting non-Christians from witnessing them.

    • The Trinity: .

    A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?

    The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one.”

    Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit,” and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .

    Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

    Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, “The Son of God became man, that we might become God.” . The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts.

    • The Deity of Jesus Christ

    Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists (28 percent of Episcopalians) agreed that Jesus was “without sin”, 70 percent of Mormons believe Jesus was sinless. http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html

    • The Cross and Christ’s Atonement: .

    The Cross became popular as a Christian symbol in the Fifth Century A.D. . Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) believe the proper Christian symbol is Christ’s resurrection , not his crucifixion on the Cross. Many Mormon chapels feature paintings of the resurrected Christ or His Second Coming. Furthermore, members of the church believe the major part of Christ’s atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane as Christ took upon him the sins of all mankind.

    • Definition of “Christian”: .

    But Mormons don’t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. They believe Christ’s atonement applies to all mankind. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”: All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. They all worship the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and address Him in prayer as prescribed in The Lord’s Prayer.

    It’s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be authentic Christians. . Early Christians had certain rituals which defined a Christian http://tinyurl.com/296xft , which members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue today. . If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.

    • The Need for a Restoration of the Christian Church:

    The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, just prior to leaving the church he established, said this:

    “There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.” (Picturesque America, p. 502.)

    Martin Luther had similar thoughts: “Nor can a Christian believer be forced beyond sacred Scriptures,…unless some new and proved revelation should be added; for we are forbidden by divine law to believe except what is proved either through the divine Scriptures or through Manifest revelation.”

    He also wrote: “I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been not only corrupted by sin, but absolutely destroyed; so that there is now nothing in them but a depraved reason and a will that is the enemy and opponent of God. I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among
    those who should have preserved it.”

    The Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from early Christianity. The Lutheran and Baptist churches have attempted reform, but Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and perhaps Martin Luther) require inspired restoration, so as to re-establish an unbroken line of authority and apostolic succession.

    * * *
    • Christ-Like Lives:

    The 2005 National Study of Youth and Religion published by UNC-Chapel Hill found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):

    1. Attend Religious Services weekly
    2. Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life – extremely important
    3. Believes in life after death
    4. Does NOT believe in psychics or fortune-tellers
    5. Has taught religious education classes
    6. Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline
    7. Sabbath Observance
    8. Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith
    9. Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily
    10. Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen (very supportive)
    11. Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality

    LDS Evangelical
    1. 71% 55%
    2. 52 28
    3. 76 62
    4. 100 95
    5. 42 28
    6. 68 22
    7. 67 40
    8. 72 56
    9. 50 19
    10. 65 26
    11. 84 35

    So what do you think the motivation is for the Evangelical preachers to denigrate the Mormon Church? It seems obvious they shouldn’t be denigrating a church based on First Century Christianity. The only plausible reason is to protect their flock (and their livelihood).

41. Paul Owen on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:35 pm #

    Rob and John,

    I think the balance of the truth is divided between you. John 4 and Acts 17 provide us with specific examples of how inter-religious conversation might be conducted. And the approach is not confrontational. Jesus acknowledges that the Samaritans worship the true God (Jn. 4:22), and Paul commends the Athenians for their religious devotion (Acts 17:22), and proclaims the Christian God as the fulfillment of some of their latent theological impulses (17:23, 27-28). Rob’s dominant model is drawn from Galatians, Jude and the Johannine Epistles, where the concern is less with reaching people outwith the boundaries of the Church, and more with establishing clear lines of demarcation between orthodoxy and heresy. Both modes of discourse have their place and are largely complimentary. I have the feeling that the two of you are speaking past each other to some degree, though the emphasis in each case is different.

42. aaronshaf on 21 Dec 2007 at 1:15 pm #

    Well, I know for a fact that Roger Keller, who teaches religion at BYU, does not believe God has a wife. At least that’s what he told me a few years ago. Nor does Blake Ostler (a very well known and respected Mormon theologian). It was Richard Sherlock (an LDS philosophy professor at Utah State University) whom I believe I first heard suggest the possibility that Jesus could be our heavenly mother, given his co-participation with the Father in creation (”let us make man in our image . . . So God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”).

    Paul, I also know Mormons who don’t think there will be eternal marriage between males and females in the afterlife. But so what? When it comes to engaging Mormonism as an interpretative tradition and a system of teachings that fosters a set of widely-held beliefs among its members, sometimes not even what is “binding” and “official” and “canonical” is crucial.

    What the Mormon Church and canon clearly and unequivocally say is official doctrine, what BYU professors say is binding doctrine, and what the Mormon interpretative tradition—largely influenced by its own church-published literature—implicitly teaches as truth in an authoritative manner are three different things.

    Instead of taking a myopic approach of engaging only what is “binding” and “official” and canonical evangelical Christians should take a more realistic and holistic approach when theologically engaging and publicly exposing Mormonism.

    The Mormon Church has a responsibility to own up to unrepudiated, long-standing traditional beliefs that are held among its members. Nothing less than public renouncement will do. Until then, Christians like Bowman are entirely warranted in writing blog posts like these without being hassled by the ever-so-wasteful, endless, foggy, unedifying discussions on what constitutes “binding” and “official” Mormon doctrine.

43. Jeff Downs on 21 Dec 2007 at 1:20 pm #

    and Paul commends the Athenians for their religious devotion (Acts 17:22).

    Many of us would not agree with you (Paul Owen) at this point regarding the Apostle Paul. How could the same apostle who proclaimed that part of the suppression of truth (the fact that man knows the particular God of the Bible), turn around and commend others for their devotion to the suppression.

    For further commentary on Acts 17 see D.A. Carson, David Wells, Greg Bahnsen, Van Til, and others.

44. Paul Owen on 21 Dec 2007 at 1:37 pm #

    Aaron,

    Not sure I want to spend a lot of time attempting to reason with you. I’ll just say that your characterization of my views says a lot more about your own attitude in these matters than it does about the value of my commentary. I don’t think Rob feels like he is being “hassled” (this is a venue for discussion and debate after all), nor do I suspect he would adopt your selected vocabulary in the description of my posts. Thanks.

    Jeff,

    I’ve read Bahnsen on Acts 17, and found it less than convincing (though I don’t have it handy at the moment). It seems like quite a strain to me to deny the transparent fact that Paul starts off by attempting to disarm the Athenians with a compliment, and then goes on to identify the Christian God with the unknown god in whose honor they have built an altar. In other words, he first establishes common ground, and then moves from there to critique. Yes, Paul then goes on to disagree with the pagan notion that God can be located in man-made temples (17:24), and that God can be adequately represented by fashioned idols (17:29). And he does call them to repentance (17:30), and warns of the day of judgment (17:31). None of that undermines the basic point I was making.

45. Rob Bowman on 21 Dec 2007 at 2:33 pm #

    John,

    This is in reply to your most recent comment to me. I will respond to you and Paul regarding John 4 and Acts 17 in a separate comment.

    Previously, you had written:

    < < Unfortunately, nowhere in either part of your reply did you mention missiology. . . . >>

    So, I pointed out that I had:

    “Unfortunately, you did not read my reply carefully enough. My whole response is written with regards to a missiological perspective, as is evident from the fact that I began by discussing the relevance and integration of anthropology and theology for those studying how best to communicate the gospel to Mormons. I also ended by referring explicitly to missiology, saying, ‘A true missiologist values the contributions of apologists and theologians, just as he does those of anthropologists and sociologists.’ This means that you misread the perspective of my entire two-part response!”

    You replied:

    < < I don’t think I missed the perspective of your response. While you reference missiology I see no evidence that this positively impacts your understanding of or interaction with Mormonism. Once again the overarching framework is heresy refutation and apologetics, not missiology. >>

    John, in the first place, you ought to have acknowledged that you were mistaken when you asserted previously that nowhere in my reply had I mentioned missiology. That was simply wrong. How seriously do you expect me to take you when you avoid acknowledging such a simple point?

    Second, you are now merely engaged in bald assertion when you say that my “overarching framework is heresy refutation and apologetics, not missiology.” You say you don’t see any evidence that missiology positively impacts my approach. Well, that’s not a surprise, since you didn’t even see my explicit reference to missiology!

    You wrote:

    < < I find it curious that you would raise the question about the alleged sacrifice of truth in a missiological model, and then ask for a demonstration that this is not taking place. You assume the worst and ask me to prove otherwise, rather than raising a criticism based upon informed analysis of a specific example from an approach that I or other missional folks are using. >>

    There’s no “assuming the worst” here. Let’s put this discussion in context. FoxNews published a series of questions it posed to the LDS Church and the answers it received from a Church spokesperson. My post here is a review of those answers, showing that in many cases the answers were not clear enough as to the significant differences between Mormon and orthodox Christian beliefs. The LDS Church’s response clearly sought to play down some of the more controversial aspects of its teaching. In my response to the LDS Church’s answers, I did what an orthodox Christian apologist should do: provide an accurate, illuminating description of what the LDS Church actually teaches and how its teachings differ from those of orthodox Christianity. This was not a context of evangelical and LDS scholars sitting behind closed doors drinking iced tea and discussing Eastern and Mormon concepts of deification. The purpose of my post was not to construct a missiological model for ministering to Mormons. Those activities have their place, but so does the activity of simply setting forth clearly and candidly what Mormonism really teaches and how it differs from orthodox or evangelical Christian theology. Such an exercise is perfectly legitimate in and of itself. Yet you come along and criticize the exercise on the grounds that it exemplifies “a heresy refutation paradigm” that you think should be jettisoned in favor of your “missiological model.” In this context, your response can only be understood as impugning the very practice of clearly describing how evangelical and Mormon theologies differ. You appear to be critical of any efforts to contrast the theologies of orthodox Christianity and Mormonism, no matter how accurately done. In this context, your criticism of my “focus on ‘truth vs. error’” appears to be a call to abandon the effort of contrasting the truth of orthodox Christianity with the error of Mormonism. Naturally, then, I wonder what place truth retains in your missiological model, since you deem my merely contrasting the two theologies in a clear way to be evidence of an improper focus.

    You wrote:

    < < As to boundary maintenance as the primary concern of apologists, I appreciate that you don’t feel you are doing this, and if I have misconstrued what you are saying and doing then I apologize. But as I look at your writings related to this topic and the interactions you have had with Owen and myself I see an emphasis on boundary definition and maintenance, which certainly is valid and has its place, but I see little else going on. I don’t think this is a straw man at all. >>

    Again, you seem to be ignoring the context here. The context is the LDS Church’s response to questions about the “boundary” of Mormon belief as compared to traditional Christianity. The problem with the Church representative’s response was that it failed to explain the differences clearly and frankly. If boundaries are the issue, then the proper focus of a response to that issue must be boundaries! But this does not mean that boundaries would be the focus in every context.

    You wrote:

    < < Finally, I noted in AR-Talk, an apologetic forum that includes a number of countercult individuals, that you made them aware of our exchange here by referring to it as me “taking you to task” for using a heresy refutation model. Rob, I thought we were having a discussion among professionals and scholars about these issues? I have articulated my concerns about the limitations of the heresy refutation paradigm as it informs interpretations of evangelical-Mormon dialogue and I have offered a missiological paradigm for consideration as a more expansive alternative. The way you framed our discussion for countercultists is disturbing to me. >>

    Really? You mentioned elsewhere in your reply that you thought evangelicals in the counter-cult ministry tend to be thin-skinned. Yet you find it “disturbing” that I would characterize your comments as “taking me to task.” John, that’s a rather mild way of saying that you disagreed with me; I cannot understand why you would find it “disturbing.” Perhaps you’re a bit thin-skinned as well.

    There is so much in my previous responses to you that you have simply not engaged. I don’t think you have really come to terms with my argument. John, there is an irony here. You rightly say that we ought to make an effort to understand Mormons in their own categories in order to be more effective in communicating our perspective with them. As I have explained, I certainly agree with this point, as do most of the people I know in counter-cult ministry. May I suggest that you try to do the same when communicating with those of us in apologetics and counter-cult ministry? Try to understand us as a “subculture” and learn to convey your message in terms and categories that will make sense to us. I attempted to do this very thing in my first comment responding to you (see above, #28). Unfortunately, you ignored or missed almost everything I said in that comment, since your response was limited to (a) asserting that I had never even mentioned missiology, which was factually incorrect, and (b) questioning whether I had you in mind as someone who had retreated from the truth question. I suggest you go back and read that comment carefully; I attempted to speak your language, to use your categories, in order to show that an apologetics-oriented treatment of a religion was not inimical to a broader missiological agenda. No doubt I could have done a better job of this, and I’d like to think I have room for growth and improvement in this area. At the same time, I think it reasonable for me to ask you to try to do the same thing toward us apologists, since you profess to value such a cross-cultural method more highly than you perceive us as doing.

46. Rob Bowman on 21 Dec 2007 at 2:45 pm #

    John,

    Here’s your chance to show us how to engage a Mormon in dialogue according to your missiological model: see the comment by “MormonsAreChristians” (#40 above).

47. johnwmorehead on 21 Dec 2007 at 2:52 pm #

    Rob, I’m not sure where to go with this since you seem to be having problems “taking me seriously.” We seem to be two ships passing in the night.

    I will surely continue my practice of trying to speak contextually to apologists and to try to meet them half way as I try to describe our common ground, our differences, and the steps I’d like to see them take. I’d like to see them and you meet me part way on this bridge building effort. I must admit my frustration at communication with you folks and I will redouble my efforts to be more effective and patient in this area.

    And I’m sorry, but I won’t take the bait on your last comment above. I’ve given plenty of opportunities to see what a missiological engagement with Mormonism looks like and I’ll allow you to engage the poster you reference through your own approach while I continue to interact with Latter-day Saints in my own way.

    I’d suggest that a way forward in this discussion is for the parties involved to be familiar with the basic information and perspectives for dialogue. I am very familiar with the countercult model having used it for years with Watchman Fellowship, EMNR and other endeavors. I’d like to ask you and other apologists to become more familiar with the missiological literature, and once this takes place we’ll have the necessary foundation for more fruitful discussion. This request is not condescending as some countercultists have stated, but simply an appeal for us all to do our homework so as to bring the proper background information to the table for discussion.

48. Jeff Downs on 21 Dec 2007 at 2:54 pm #

    It seems like quite a strain to me to deny the transparent fact that Paul starts off by attempting to disarm the Athenians with a compliment..

    How it is “transparent” when you have NT and apologetic scholars such as Carson, Oliphint, (R.K.) Wright, Wells, etc., that take the opposite view.

    You didn’t answer my question regarding the corresponding passage in Roman 1.

49. Rob Bowman on 21 Dec 2007 at 3:24 pm #

    Paul,

    You wrote:

    < < I think the balance of the truth is divided between you. John 4 and Acts 17 provide us with specific examples of how inter-religious conversation might be conducted. And the approach is not confrontational. Jesus acknowledges that the Samaritans worship the true God (Jn. 4:22), and Paul commends the Athenians for their religious devotion (Acts 17:22), and proclaims the Christian God as the fulfillment of some of their latent theological impulses (17:23, 27-28). >>

    Your comments here seem to be very selective in what you are noticing in these passages. In John 4:22, the very verse you cited from that passage, Jesus said that the Samaritans worshiped what they “did not know,” whereas the Jews worshiped what they did “know,” because, Jesus said, “salvation is of the Jews.” Yet you construe this verse as meaning that “Jesus acknowledges that the Samaritans worship the true God.” Whatever “acknowledgment” Jesus’ statement implicitly makes, the emphasis of his whole sentence is on the comparative ignorance of God in Samaritanism in relation to Judaism.

    Suppose I said, “Mormons worship God according to a false, unbiblical understanding of God’s nature and purposes, while evangelical Christians worship God according to the truth of God’s revelation in the Bible.” Now you come along. Your summary of my statement would apparently be, “Rob takes a non-confrontational approach to Mormonism, acknowledging that Mormons worship the true God”! At least, that would be your summary of my statement if you treated it the way you treated John 4:22.

    On Acts 17, in a later comment (to Jeff Downs) you wrote:

    < < Yes, Paul then goes on to disagree with the pagan notion that God can be located in man-made temples (17:24), and that God can be adequately represented by fashioned idols (17:29). And he does call them to repentance (17:30), and warns of the day of judgment (17:31). None of that undermines the basic point I was making. >>

    Really? Your basic point was that “the approach [modeled by Paul in Acts 17] was not confrontational.” Your description of what Paul said in Acts 17, though, now sounds at least somewhat confrontational to me. Does this mean that those of us who are evangelical apologists can argue that Mormonism’s doctrines do not adequately represent God, that their temple ceremonies are of no value, and that Mormons need to repent in view of the coming Day of Judgment, and we will not be deemed by you to have been “confrontational”?

    I think one of the problems here is that there are varying degrees of confrontation, and that being “confrontational” can be understood more as a matter of style than of substance. I agree that some (okay, many) evangelicals exhibit a kind of flat-footed style of confrontation that merely antagonizes Mormons (or anyone else with whom they disagree, including other evangelicals!). On the other hand, my critical engagement of Mormon theology is relatively irenic, yet I am still faulted for a “confrontational” approach or model of engagement, simply because I clearly delineate the differences between evangelical and Mormon theology.

    You wrote:

    < < Rob's dominant model [“of inter-religious dialogue”] is drawn from Galatians, Jude and the Johannine Epistles, where the concern is less with reaching people outwith the boundaries of the Church, and more with establishing clear lines of demarcation between orthodoxy and heresy. Both modes of discourse have their place and are largely complimentary. I have the feeling that the two of you are speaking past each other to some degree, though the emphasis in each case is different. >>

    I appreciate your effort to mediate between the positions that John and I have taken. However, I have to correct you: my dominant model *of responding to heresy* is drawn from the epistles (and the Corinthian epistles, Colossians, and the Pastorals play a large role as well as those you mentioned), since those New Testament writings give significant attention to responding to heresy. I do not have a dominant model of inter-religious dialogue, since I reject a one-size-fits-all approach. For communicating the gospel to those outside the Judeo-Christian tradition, I view Acts 17 as a model. Some lessons can and should be learned from that model that are transferable to other contexts, including discussions with people in heretical forms of Christianity, but I view Acts 17 as neither a dominant nor a limiting model for such engagements.

50. johnwmorehead on 21 Dec 2007 at 3:33 pm #

    Rob, it’s too bad that I have a problem being taken seriously with you. As a step towards remedying this, I acknowledge that you did indeed reference missiology. I was mistaken in my comments in a previous post in this regard. However, I reiterate that I do not see it as having much of an impact on your understanding of and interaction with Mormonism.

    In terms of the context of our discussion, if you recall it began with me stating my agreement with Paul Owen’s assertion that perhaps your apologetic framework colors your understanding of Mormonism. I believe this is the case, and while issues