Mormon Coffee

Christianity Today posted an article on November 10th by Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary. Titled Shoot-First Apologetics, Dr. Mouw here recounts a story he once read, written by the late Dr. Walter Martin, about the danger of too quickly labeling someone an “enemy of the gospel.”

As the story goes, Dr. D. G. Barnhouse was hosting a theological discussion at his Pennsylvania farm. While walking with Dr. Martin on the grounds, Dr. Barnhouse mistook a bluebird for a troublesome grackle and shot it dead. Being a bluebird lover, Dr. Barnhouse was upset over his error; but he used the incident to illustrate an important point. He told Dr. Martin,

“You are right in defending the faith against its enemies, but you are too inclined to ’shoot from the hip,’ even as I was when I fired at this bird. In the excitement of the moment, it looked like a grackle, but a closer examination would have saved its life and my feelings. It is not wrong to contend for the gospel, but it is wrong to shoot first and ask questions later. What you think might be a grackle, an apostate, or an Antichrist might well be a bluebird you looked at in a hurry.”

I think Dr. Barnhouse offered some very good advice–advice we would all do well to heed. Many of us have a tendency to do too much talking and very little listening, which is not conducive to effective evangelism or efficient communication. Many times I’ve been informed by Mormons that I believe something which I do not believe, or that I’m motivated by something I do not possess. I’m thankful when there is an opportunity for conversation that allows me to explain what I believe or what motivates me in ministry. And I’m thankful when I can learn what things hinder someone from recognizing and surrendering to Christ, giving me the opportunity to teach that person what she most needs to learn.

Having said that, I turn your attention back to Dr. Mouw’s article. I think he has misapplied Dr. Barnhouse’s lesson of the bluebird. Dr. Mouw related the bluebird incident in print, he said, because

I was chided recently by someone who was upset with me because of my extensive dialogues with Mormon scholars. “How can you engage in friendly conversations with people who believe such terrible things?” he asked me. I tried to explain that if we are going to criticize Mormonism, it should be on matters that they actually believe, not on what we think they believe. I said the best way to know Mormon beliefs is to actually engage in dialogue with Mormons.”You don’t need to have dialogue with Mormons to know what Mormonism is all about,” the person retorted. “All you have to do is read Walter Martin! He had those folks figured out!”

Let me state up front that I don’t have a problem with Christians engaging in friendly conversations with anyone, regardless of what they believe. Indeed, friendly conversation is one of the ways God has ordained for the preaching of the gospel. My concern over Dr. Mouw’s comments is two-fold.

One, Dr. Mouw stated that any criticism of Mormonism must be based on what Mormons actually believe; Dr. Mouw has carelessly combined two different entities into one.

If I’m speaking to a Mormon–or anyone else–I do need to understand what that individual believes before I can determine whether or not he may have a saving relationship with Christ. Each person is in a different place in his spiritual journey, and each one must be approached with respect for who he is and what he actually believes.

But what Mormonism is, is not dependent on what individual Mormons believe. Mormonism is a specific set of official doctrines expounded by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And to know what Mormonism is, there is much more wisdom in gaining that information through official LDS sources (as Dr. Martin has done) than through the Mormon who lives next door. My Mormon neighbor might tell me what he believes, and maybe even what he thinks is Mormon doctrine, but this does not guarantee that his understanding is in line with what the LDS Prophets have taught. If I want to evangelize my Mormon neighbor, I need to understand his individual faith; if I undertake to criticize Mormonism, I need to understand the official doctrinal positions of the LDS Church.

My second concern is over Dr. Mouw’s implication that, in keeping with the parable, Mormonism is not a grackle, but a bluebird. He concluded his article with this:

Not long ago, I came across a comment by G. K. Chesterton–another sharp-witted defender of the faith who was concerned that we sometimes shoot from the hip in identifying enemies of the faith. “Idolatry is committed,” Chesterton warned, “not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils.”

Though he has not stated so directly, in the Christianity Today article Dr. Mouw has implied that identifying Mormonism as an “enemy of the faith” is setting up a “false devil.” This may be the impression he gets through dialogues with his Mormon friends; but in actuality official Mormonism–official doctrines of the religion–do oppose God’s truth in many essential areas (please visit Mormonism Research Ministry for specifics).

Dr. Barnhouse reportedly suggested that it is

“Better to pass up an occasional grackle in theology and leave him with the Lord than to shoot a bluebird and have to answer for it at the Judgment Seat of Christ.”

This counsel was offered to Dr. Martin in the context of taking care not to “shoot first and ask questions later.” Christians have been asking pertinent questions about Mormonism since 1830. The answers clearly reveal Mormonism is no bluebird, though it is possible that there may be some individual Latter-day Saints who are–despite the teachings of their Church.

I would like to see Dr. Mouw put away the gun altogether and resist taking pot-shots at those who responsibly criticize Mormonism for the doctrines that it actually prescribes.

Comments (2)

In October a new book hit the shelves: The Open Curtain by Brian Evenson. Dubbed a thriller by Publishers Weekly, The Open Curtain is a story about Mormonism and murder.

Evenson (Altmann’s Tongue) explores some controversial Mormon history in this thoughtful thriller rooted in an actual century-old murder case. When Rudd, a disaffected, fatherless Mormon teenager living in an unspecified part of Utah, discovers he has a half-brother, Lael, in suburban Provo, the two meet and embark on a strange friendship. While researching a school project, Rudd learns from a series of stories in the New York Times about a murder committed by William Hooper Young, a grandson of Brigham Young, the Mormon pioneer. In 1902, William Young was tried for, and convicted of, the murder of Anna Pulitzer. The crime cast a dark shadow on the Church of the Latter-Day Saints by exposing such arcane, perhaps doctrinal concepts as “blood atonement,” a disturbing idea about the saving of a Mormon soul by shedding someone else’s blood. (Copyright Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Brian Evenson has authored six previous fiction books. He is currently the director of Brown University’s Literary Arts Program. Brian is a former Mormon and a former teacher at Brigham Young University. According to Booklist,

Evenson lost his teaching post at Brigham Young University because his writing was too implicitly critical of the Mormon Church.

I’ve not read any of Dr. Evenson’s books, but based on an online interview written by Angela Stubbs, Dr. Evenson’s dismissal from BYU over a controversy surrounding his first book is not surprising. (Read about Dr. Evenson’s experience writing this book, Father of Lies.)

Ms. Stubbs’ interview with Dr. Evenson is really interesting and very revealing regarding Mormon culture. For instance, Ms. Stubbs asks,

Do you feel that it’s inherent in Mormon culture to suppress or deny religious history or at least the facts that might blemish the church’s reputation in any way?[Dr. Evenson answers:] I don’t know if it’s inherent, but it’s certainly been established practice for a number of years. In the 1950s, the Mormon Church had almost no publicity department; now, that’s one of the largest departments in the Church’s bureaucracy. The Mormon Church has acted more and more like a corporation as time has gone on, and has become incredibly conscious of negative publicity. I do think that too often that leads to suppression of or minimizing of facts from Mormonism’s very colorful and to my mind very interesting past. In the last few decades Mormonism has worked very hard to present itself as a Christ-centered Church that fits really snugly into Middle America. But to be able to see it that way, you have to forget a lot of Mormonism’s history.

In discussing the Mormon main character in The Open Curtain, Ms. Stubbs asks,

Because Rudd has been living in a religious culture where he’s been told how to think and feel about things for so long, he’s lost the ability to make decisions for himself. He turns to this alter-ego or other “self” to tell him what to do or who to be. Why do you think Rudd has these issues?[Dr. Evenson answers:] I think it’s an extreme response to a subculture that has a kind of internalized split. Mormonism in its day-to-day services seems very Protestant; in its temple ceremonies, it’s very ritual and almost pagan at times. You talk about the Church in one way among Church members and in another way to outsiders. And then you try to reconcile that to the ideas and attitudes and mores of American society as a whole, weaving yourself carefully into that fabric as well. And then if you’ve have [sic] a religious structure telling you what to do and what to be, what happens if you lose your faith? Who tells you who to be and what to do then? Maybe nobody, or maybe you start hearing from all that that religious structure has repressed…

Having acknowledge earlier that Dr. Evenson has revealed quite a bit about the LDS temple ceremony in The Open Curtain, Ms. Stubbs asks,

As a Mormon rule, non-members aren’t allowed to witness the temple wedding ceremony. Rules like these cause suspicion among non-members due to the secretive nature involved with this ceremony. You go into great detail about the temple ceremony in The Open Curtain. Do you feel you’ll get any backlash from friends/family members who are still LDS or fellow readers for divulging top secret information?[Dr. Evenson answers:] Since Mormons are generally polite, I think generally there will be very little overt response: they simply won’t respond. Certain of my friends who are still Mormon are likely to break off their friendships with me, others will simply pretend like the book doesn’t exist. A few friends who feel particularly close to me or family members might say how sad it makes them that I would write about Mormonism in this way, and there will be some public discussion of the book on Mormon e-mail lists and blogs that will probably be upset with the book. I’ve gotten several weird emails, always from anonymous sources, telling me that if I look hard enough at myself, I will see I am a tool for evil and I’ll repent. I’ve also had several death threats, but they’re always very silly and not worth paying attention to.

The Stubbs/Evenson interview is quite long but, as I think is demonstrated above, it’s well worth the time. Pour a cup of coffee and settle in. Dr. Evenson’s experience, perspective and candor make for a fascinating and enlightening read.

Comments (2)

The newspaper of Burlington, Iowa, The Hawkeye, ran a story on Monday about Truth Outreach, a 30-minute television program hosted by Rocky and Helen Hulse. The Hulses are the directors of the Nauvoo Christian Visitors Center, a Christian presence in the heart of the historic Mormon town of Nauvoo, Illinois.

Truth Outreach is a Christian apologetics program devoted wholly to the comparison of Mormonism and Christianity. It has been on the air in a limited mid-western market for four years, but as The Hawkeye reports:

The message of local Nauvoo Christian Visitors Center directors spread internationally for the first time one week ago when their television program, “Truth Outreach,” aired in South America and Europe…[Christian Television Network] officials said the international program could reach 500 million people. CTNi program director John Lucena said it will reach about 69 million in South America and Spain each week.

“His [Rocky's] message is important to Christians,” Lucena said from his office in Florida. “Any program that bases itself in the Bible attracts us to it…”

“We want to spread the word of God,” Lucena said. “Our programs are educational.”

The Hulses hope many people gain an education from their program, including Mormons, Christians, and people who have been or will be approached by LDS missionaries.

“Mormon missionaries are having a huge success (converting people in other countries),” Rocky Hulse said. “In the Caribbean, they have had over a 140 percent growth rate. In Chili, one out of every 10 Chileans are Mormon. It’s because there is no information out there.”Hulse hopes Christian missionaries in South America and Europe see the “Truth Outreach” broadcast so they know the difference between the two religions. They can pass that information along…

Truth Outreach also currently airs in Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah.

Hats off to CTNi for their willingness to promote the cause of Christ by broadcasting a truthful comparison between Mormonism and Christianity — in places where this truth is often hard to come by.

The international broadcast can be viewed via web cast on Sundays at 9:30 a.m. (ET) at Christian Television Network International.

Comments (1)

Last week Massachusetts Senator John Kerry took a lot of heat from all sides for a comment he made about education. He told a group of students at Pasadena City College that if they study hard, do their homework, and make an effort to be smart, they will do well. If you don’t, Kerry said, “you get stuck in Iraq.” His comment naturally offended a number of people who felt he was slamming our military (again?). Kerry has since apologized for what he calls a “botched joke” that was really meant to criticize President Bush.This reminds me of a comment made by BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson that appeared in his book, Are Mormons Christians? On pages 19-20 Robinson was trying to fend off criticism toward second LDS President Brigham Young regarding his infamous “Adam-God” sermon. In a conference message on April 9, 1852, Young stated that the first man, Adam, was our Father and our God, and the only with whom we have to do.” Said Robinson:

During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don’t; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute-we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don’t know what “it” is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here, and even expert students of his thought are left to wonder whether he was misquoted, whether he meant to say one thing and actually said another, whether he was somehow joking with or testing the Saints, or whether some vital element that would make sense out of the reports has been omitted.

First of all, to say Latter-day Saints “have never been able to understand” Young’s remarks is totally ridiculous. They may not like what Young said, but it is inaccurate to conclude that he was not understood. Young’s meaning was certainly not lost on Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie who admitted in a letter dated February 19, 1981, that Young did indeed teach that Adam was the Father of our spirits. Can we really take Robinson’s explanation seriously and somehow assume Young was perhaps “joking”? I don’t think so when we take into consideration how Young ended this conference message:

Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

If this is meant to be taken as a joke, I fail to see the humor. Perhaps it is just me, but I don’t see threatening people with damnation as something that is funny. Millions of Latter-day Saints believe Young was a modern-day prophet, yet at the same time, they, like Robinson, are reluctant to believe that Adam is God. If the former premise is true, wouldn’t it be safer for Latter-day Saints to concede that Young’s warning might also be true? If so, isn’t it also logical to conclude that most Latter-day Saints are in danger of eternal peril?

Before Mormons run to their keyboard and insist, “Yeah, but this teaching was never ‘official’ doctrine,” they might wish to think more deeply about the matter. Young’s teaching (as erroneous as it is) meets the criteria of being an LDS doctrine even by today’s LDS standards.

1. It was taught by a living prophet (last I checked Young was alive when he said it).

2. Young himself called it a doctrine (not a “theory” as most LDS apologists suppose).

3. It was taught in Conference.

4. Young’s connection between Adam and God is found in LDS scripture when the D&C (27:1; 116:1; 138:38) states that Adam is the “Ancient of Days” (the term “Ancient of Days” is an Old Testament reference to God in Daniel 7:9, 13, 22).

5. It was accepted as true by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve (though Orson Pratt admittedly had serious reservations).

6. It was actually a part of the temple endowment ceremony for a time (Mormon historian David John Beurger wrote, “The St. George Temple endowment included a revised thirty-minute ‘lecture at the veil’ which summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and also contained references to the Adam-God doctrine”).

Few things in Mormonism get more “official” than that.

Comments (27)

As I mentioned in a previous post, LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley is fond of inviting people of other faiths to come to the Mormon Church. He often suggests something like this:

“We recognize the good in all churches. We recognize the value of religion generally. We say to everyone: live the teachings which you have received from your church. We invite you to come and learn from us, to see if we can add to those teachings and enhance your life and your understanding of things sacred and divine.” (London News Service 8/28/1995. Also see Ensign, November 2002, page 78 and Ensign, October 2006, page 5 for similar invitations)

Last week I talked about President Hinckley’s invitation for people to come to the LDS Church and bring along with them all the “good” they have received from their non-Mormon churches. But in these invitations issued by President Hinckley there is something else that captures my attention. That is, his suggestion that the Mormon Church can add to the teachings people have received from their own churches.

The idea got me thinking. What sorts of things does the LDS Church have to add? Using the example of someone coming from a traditional Christian church, let’s look at a few possibilities.

• The Christian church teaches there is one book of sacred Scripture: the Bible. The LDS Church can add to that; it has four books it considers sacred Scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
• The Christian church teaches there is but one true God. The LDS Church can add to that; it has three true gods for this world and an unknowable number of true gods beyond this world.
• The Christian church teaches two possible eternal destinations: Heaven and Hell. The LDS Church can add to that; it has four eternal possibilities: the Celestial kingdom, the Terrestrial kingdom, the Telestial kingdom, and Outer Darkness.
• The Christian church teaches there is one salvation, given freely by God’s grace through faith, based on the sufficiency of Christ. The LDS Church can add to that; it has two salvations, one unconditional (i.e., resurrection from the dead) and one conditioned upon obedience (resulting in an eternal home in one of the four previously mentioned destinations).

Are these the sorts of things to which President Hinckley was referring? Or might he have been thinking of something more along the lines of adding to revelation?

• The Christian church teaches Exodus 33:20 is complete as it stands in the Bible:
  

  “But He said, ‘You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me and live.’”

  The LDS Church can add to that. The LDS edition of the King James Bible includes an appendix with changes Joseph Smith made to the biblical text. The LDS version of Exodus 33:20 is:

  “And he said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceedingly sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live.”

• The Christian church teaches John 1, verses 1 and 4, are complete as they stand in the Bible:
  

  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.”

  The LDS Church can add to that. The LDS version of these verses according to Joseph Smith’s corrections read:

  “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God… In him was the gospel, and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men.”

• The Christian church teaches Ephesians 2:8 is complete as it stands in the Bible:
  

  “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.”

  The LDS Church can add to that. It’s Book of Mormon says,

  “…for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23)

In these few examples I guess we find that the LDS Church has plenty it can add to the beliefs of one who has been nurtured in a Christian church. But more is not necessarily better.

In reality, when someone with a Christian faith background chooses to join the LDS Church she cannot hold on to her previous faith and simply “add to it.” She cannot believe the Bible is God’s only complete and wholly trustworthy written revelation to mankind, and at the same time believe it is incomplete and corrupt as the LDS Church teaches. She cannot believe there is one true God over all, and at the same time believe God is but one of many true Gods. She cannot believe salvation is by grace alone, not of works, and at the same time believe that the grace of salvation kicks in only after all she can do. She is required to abandon the faith of her fathers in order to embrace Mormonism.

I wish President Hinckley would be more straightforward in his invitations to non-Mormons; tell people up front that Mormonism is an entirely different belief system than found in the “teachings they have received” from their churches. President Hinckley entices people with an offer of “more;” but what they actually get is a complete doctrinal make-over.

Comments (6)