I had the privilege of being interviewed on Mormon Book Reviews. I talk about my perception of the LDS church in the Philippines, the wacky conversation I had with LDS missionaries that changed my life and the things that led to the creation of this blog. I hope you can check it out.
I think Robert George and Cornell West offer an important message to today’s culture. With the impulse to shame and silence anyone who disagrees with us at an all time high, the ability and willingness to listen and seek a common truth is important.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
Mormon blogger Greg Trimble recently wrote a blog article that has picked up a decent amount of social media buzz entitled “51 Questions That Might Lead You to Mormonism“. Running through his post it became quite clear to me that after 7 years of blogging about Mormonism and Evangelicalism I’ve discussed almost every single one of these in one form or another. I felt like Horsack from “Welcome Back Kotter”. It’s quite possible that I’ve actually written something about every one of these questions on this very blog. In the tradition of marathon runners and novelist throughout history, I’m going to do something that’s going to take a lot of time; I’m going to answer all 51 questions. That’s my pledge to you.
I’m going to break up my answers into multiple posts and I’m not quite sure if there will be 5 posts, 10 posts, or something in between. As you can imagine, it’s much easier to ask 51 questions than it is to answer 51 questions. Most people would just turn his post around on him and ask 51 questions that might lead you out of Mormonism. I learned a long time ago that that sort of thing is not my job. Other people have taken it on and I’ve found it doesn’t really line up with my goals in this space. My job is to dialogue with Mormons about the shape of our respective faiths and to clear the air of misconceptions and errant assumptions.
Before I begin I feel the need to discuss Greg’s list as a whole and give a little bit of context to the answers I’m going to provide. First off, Trimble’s list is quite frequently known as the “shotgun approach”. Rhetorically it’s a bit like bringing a bucket to a water balloon fight. It provides the emotional satisfaction of getting someone else wet even if 90% of the water falls on the ground. At that ratio, I think it’s fair to say that at least 5 of my responses are not going to be all that satisfying. They for sure won’t overcome a person’s decision to follow a personal spiritual experience in the face of other considerations. Continue reading
Ravi Zacharias will again be speaking in the Mormon Tabernacle. His visit to Utah will also include a stop at BYU. I hope some of my Utah based friends can attend. Live streams of the event are included below for those who can’t be there in person.
BYU Live Stream
Friday, January 17, 2014 – 12:00pm-1:00pm (MST)
Title: What Does It Mean To Be Human?
Dr. Ravi Zacharias will speak on what it means to be human as he believes faith, family, and society cannot be fully appreciated until this question is first answered.
Mormon Tabernacle Live Stream
Saturday, January 18, 2014 – 6:30pm-8:30pm (MST)
Title: Lessons from History: Building A Nation Under God
Dr. Ravi Zacharias will speak on the centrality of the Word of God as the guide for personal conduct, true freedom, and building a nation under God.
Teryl and Fiona Givens were recently on a tour of British ward houses giving a series of talks entitled “The Crucible of Doubt”. The point of the talk seemed to be to encourage Mormons who may be struggling with doubts. One attendee recorded the talk and shared it. Another attendee took notes on the talk and shared those notes. I’ll set aside the content of Givens’ apologetic arguments in order to focus on something he said about Protestantism. Continue reading
I first heard the following chestnut as a teenager. Though it is sometimes shared by miscellaneous kinds of Christians (often as a humorous but good-natured anecdote meant to show how confusing the Trinity can be), it was first introduced to me by a Mormon friend who wanted to show me that belief in the Trinity was ridiculous. It reads as follows:
“Whom do men say that I am?”
And his disciples answered and said, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.”
And Jesus answered and said, “But whom do you say that I am?”
Peter answered and said: “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as his rationality and then, by an act of his will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”
And Jesus answering said “What??”
The joke was recently posted to the comments of an LDS scholar’s blog, with the scholar who runs the blog calling it, “A wonderful joke, and right on target.”
Pope Francis appears to have a new, dramatic, position on salvation for the non-believer. Catholic Online gives a detailed account of the Pope’s sermon yesterday where he stated that even atheists were redeemed by Christ and would go to heaven if they “do good.”
A quote from the article:
Francis explained himself, “The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!” We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
I recognize that the pope is not really making himself out to be a universalist, but he definitely opens the door to salvation to anyone regardless of belief. If this is a sign of things to come, I think this pope may have ideas that could really unite Christianity. If the pope believes an atheist can get into heaven, this seems to change the entire dynamic of Christian interaction with the world. The fundamental missionary act would be to promote and support good conduct–Christian love–rather than merely spreading Christian theology or belief. Is the pope implying this? Am I reading too much into it? Whether this represents a sea change or is simply warmer rhetoric, I think its a very positive step. Thoughts?
The journal, Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue, dedicated its most recent issue to Evangelicalism and Mormonism. It features two terrific articles I’d like to direct your attention toward.
The first written by Robert Millet, reflects on the meetings of Evangelical and Mormon scholars over the last twelve years. Speaking of the challenges the meetings have confronted he writes:
Third, as close as we have become, as warm and congenial as the dialogues have proven to be, there is still an underlying premise that guides most of the Evangelical participants: that Mormonism is the tradition that needs to do the changing if progress is to be forthcoming. To be sure, the LDS dialogists have become well aware that we are not well understood and that many of our theological positions need clarifying. Too often, however, the implication is that if the Mormons can only alter this or drop that, then we will be getting somewhere. As one participant noted, sometimes we seem to be holding “Tryouts for Christianity” with the Latter-day Saints. A number of the LDS cohort have voiced this concern and suggested that it just might be a healthy exercise for the Evangelicals to do a bit more introspection, to consider that this enterprise is in fact a dialogue, a mutual conversation, one where long-term progress will come only as both sides are convinced that there is much to be learned from one another, including doctrine.
Later, Millet writes:
In pondering on the future, there are certain developments I would love to see take place in the next decade. I would hope that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would become a bit more confident and secure in its distinctive theological perspectives and thus less prone to be thin-skinned, easily offended, and reactionary when those perspectives are questioned or challenged. In that light, I sense that we Mormons have to decide what we want to be when we grow up; that is, do we want to be known as a separate and distinct manifestation of Christianity (restored Christianity), or do we want to have traditional Christians conclude that we are just like they are? You can’t have it both ways. And if you insist that you are different, you can’t very well pout about being placed in a different category!
Craig Blomberg writes another article about the future of these meetings. He writes:
It is also time for people to stop learning only secondhand about people whose religious views at times differ from theirs. In a global village, there is no reason not to engage members of other religions or denominations directly.12 So much Evangelical literature on these topics is overly simplified, historically dated, not representative of the entire movements depicted, and/or downright inaccurate. Short introductions to complex belief systems almost inevitably distort, especially when the author has a particular dislike for a given movement. The biases may be semi-conscious, but they affect the results nevertheless. I have been recently reading for the first time a collection of fifty of the most important or famous sermons of John Wesley and realize how skewed my own theological education was in mostly Lutheran and Calvinist contexts as to what I was taught about Wesley’s theology!
Mormons likewise need to engage Evangelicals in far less confrontational settings than the classic door-to-door evangelism they are known for. They should invite Evangelical friends and leaders to fireside chats and similar forums, as I have occasionally experienced. They need to get to know the “silent majority” of us who are not nearly as “mean-spirited” (to use their preferred term for the most combative or polemical of us) as the anti-Mormons they are more used to encountering. They need to learn the breadth of Evangelicalism, so that we are not all tarnished with the same two brushes of “easy believism” and rigid Calvinism.
There are several other articles in the journal which I have not yet read, but all of them appear to be as thoughtful as the two I’ve linked to. I look forward to reading these others as well.
Earlier this fall my wife and I attended the 2011 Together for Adoption conference. If there was only one sermon I would want you to hear this year, it’s this one by Bryan Loritts. This talk was the buzz of the conference and afterwards everyone felt they had heard something pretty special.
You won’t feel you have to adopt after listening but you will have a vision for putting your faith in action.
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
There is a controversy currently running in the Evangelical world over this passage. The issue centers on Norman Geisler and his attempts to censure Mike Licona for his references to this passage as a form of apocalyptic literature.
Licona recently presented a paper in his defense at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. You can read that paper here or listen to his presentation here (mp3)
Geisler’s response can be found at his website. At issue is the doctrine of inerrancy and whether or not Licona is rejecting inerrancy or properly discerning a shift in genre in this passage. Christianity Today wrote a summary of the issues here.
[hat tip: Francis Beckwith]
Rob Bowman provides this excellent critique of a Deseret News article by Daniel Peterson on the doctrines of exaltation and theosis. I really appreciated how he took his time in covering the issues involved and was thorough in the places he felt Peterson deserves criticism. Parchment and Pen provided the review in a 5 part series. I highly recommend this series to get an overview of exaltation and theosis and their place in Ancient Christian thought.
If you’re interested in the topic, you should also check out Jack’s article published here.
[hat tip to JB]
The chief differences between Mormonism and Christianity are often difficult to decipher. I recently attended a seminar presented by Carl Mosser in which he tried to spotlight the different faiths in terms of contrasting worldviews. It’s one thing to say that they are similar because they both feature Jesus as the Savior of humanity. It’s another to broaden the picture to the origins of the universe itself. Is Jesus the only self-existing Creator ever or is he one of many self-existing beings? Perhaps he’s part of a vast universal system that forms matter together into beings that in turn form more matter together.
In a good faith attempt to illustrate the various religious views on the nature of God (and the capital “U” Universe”) I created this diagram. A comment by Christian J inspired the reptilian illustration. Virtually no one sees God as some sort of reptile, it’s merely a humorous attempt at illustrating the ideas that each worldview presents.
I will gladly admit that the Mormon section was the most difficult to capture. Depending on the Mormon you talk to, and the day you talk to him, I’m sure there are many different ideas floating around. Blake Ostler for instance will give a picture more inline with Social Trinitarianism. So go easy on me if you think I got it wrong. If you disagree, I’m interested to know how you would have drawn it.
Click the image to see the full-size version, you may have to click the image again when it pops up to see it in full magnification (browser dependent).
*Made a few clarifying edits on 11/8/11.
Here are three quick links I thought readers would be interested in
Learning Proper Manners for the Religious Roundtable: Kuyper and Convicted Civility
How one Evangelical has been influenced by Abraham Kuyper in religious discourse.
Francis Chan Dominates Top 10 NYTimes Best Sellers
A discussion of Chan’s latest book “Erasing Hell” and his view on the reality of Hell.
Edward Fudge on Alternative Third View of Hell
Fudge is the preeminent Christian scholar on Annihilationism.
This is an interesting discussion from the Sunstone Symposium. The panel included Shawn McCraney, Grant Palmer, Brian Birch, Rex Sears, Bill Russell and Dan Wotherspoon. You can download the file from here.
I thought it was interesting that there were basically 3 paths given that would mainstream the LDS church into orthodox Christianity.
I think any of these would have an effect on Mormonism that would bring it into orthodox Christianity in pretty short order. I imagine that #1 and #2 would probably bring about #3 on it’s own. While #3 in isolation would be welcomed, but would not necessarily produce a vibrant Evangelical-Mormonism.
Your thoughts? Are they merely teaching “essential Christian values” or something different? See their articles on marriage, the cross and church organization.
I discovered a couple of resources that highlighted an interesting conversation within Mormonism to me. What does a Mormon have to believe to be a Mormon?
The first was this interview on Mormon Expression Podcast with a Bishop who is currently serving despite experiencing a crisis of faith. I enjoyed hearing his thoughts and think the LDS church would be well served by his leadership. But then I heard him express some rather unconventional theological viewpoints, namely this one quoted from Millennial Mormonism:
You are the golden plates that have been hidden (deep in the mountain side) and are now coming forth. You are being translated correctly and published to the world. You are the most correct book on earth.
The counter-point to Bishop “X” is this article by J Maxwell Wilson (hat tip to Andrew S.). Wilson argues for Mormon orthodoxy to the extent that he thinks those who think orthopraxy is all that is required of Mormons are Pharisees. I think he does an excellent job of making his case and encourage you to read his thoughts for yourself.
I’m not going to weigh in on the debate, lest I be accused of being a critic seeking a definition of “Mormonism” that I can use as a lever against the LDS church. Nonetheless I think the debate is extremely important as Mormonism adapts to the 21st Century.
Many will say that there are no thought-police within Mormonism. Mormons are free to believe any theological position they desire; there is only a problem when a person starts teaching others to join them in their heresy. It’s at that point the Mormon church exercises its prerogative to define itself and discipline the heretic or excommunicate him. I can understand this viewpoint, I’m beginning to wonder though, if recording podcast episodes and writing blog entries might not be “teaching” and wonder how long the LDS church can sustain non-traditional definitions without undermining its centralized authority.
I also wonder why Mormons are upset at orthodox Christians for holding the same standard in defining who is and who is not a “Christian”. To my knowledge there are no thought police in any well known Christian denominations or churches. Members and attendees are free to believe anything they want, there is only a problem when a person starts teaching others to join them in their heresy. Joseph Smith and any who teach his unorthodox style of Christianity are welcome to do so, but they are not allowed to redefine Christianity any more than Mormon heretics are allowed to redefine Mormonism.
Bridget Jack Jeffries (“Ms. Jack”) is a member of the Evangelical Covenant Church. She blogs at ClobberBlog.
Romans 16 has often been overlooked and underappreciated when compared to the rest of Romans. It’s far lower in theological content and subsequently tends to warrant less space in commentaries and fewer mentions in sermons so that many end their reading of Romans without taking a careful look at this chapter. I find this unfortunate, because I consider Romans 16 to be the “cool-down” at the end of a high-energy theological cardio work-out. And as anyone who works out can testify, while it may be tempting to turn off your television and step away from your exercise video once the trainer initiates the cool-down phase, you’ll only be cheating your body if you do. Likewise, Romans 16 does have important lessons to teach us, even if they’re of a much different tone and nature than the heavy theological treatises of the preceding 15 chapters, and we cheat ourselves out of a portion of God’s “revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past” (v. 25) when we skip over this chapter and call it a day.
Alex T. Valencic is a life-long Mormon, born and raised in central Illinois. He served a full-time mission in southern California (ostly in Victorville), and spent a semester studying abroad in Melbourne, Australia. He is currently the Webelos Den Leader in his ward and works as a substitute teacher in his community. He also unabashedly uses non-American English spellings.
Summary
Romans 15 continues on from the advice started in chapter 12, giving practical advice to how the Saints can “present [their] bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is [their] reasonable service.” Having discussed a variety of aspects of practical Christian behaviour in the previous chapter, Paul starts off by admonishing the Romans to “bear the infirmities of the weak” and to “every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.” Paul then gives counsel that we be “likeminded one toward another” that we “may with one mind and one mouth glorify God”.
Paul acknowledges that the people to whom he was writing were “full of goodness” and “filled with all knowledge” but he had written boldly to them on several subjects because it was his duty. He then talks about his own mission among the Gentiles and admits that he was worried about building on the foundation others had started—he felt his mission was to go to those who had not yet heard of Jesus.
He ends by promising to visit the Romans the next time he goes to Spain, but, first, he had to stop at Jerusalem because the Saints in Macedonia and Achaia had a contribution for the benefit of the poor in those parts. He asks for them to pray with him and for him, so that he can avoid being arrested by their persecutors in Judaea.
Application
There are three items that Paul brought up in this chapter that I find of particular application to my life:
I. How are we to bear the infirmities of the weak, and how does this help strengthen them?
I can’t help but draw a comparison to the classic sermon in Mosiah in the Book of Mormon, in which Alma tells those desiring to join the fold of Christ to “mourn with those who mourn” and to “comfort those who stand in need of comfort”. It is one thing to feel bad that someone else is sad. We can make them a casserole, drop it off, say the trite things that don’t really help, and then we carry on with our day. But to truly mourn with others, we feel their sorrow as if it were our own. To bear another’s infirmities, we feel the struggle they go through. Their struggles become our struggles. A friend of mine is trying to help one of her friends stop smoking. For every day that her friend goes without a cigarette, Sarah is going to go a day without shaving. Another friend of mine attends AA meetings with his friend, to be a support to his buddy. The LDS church has recently implemented an Addiction Recovery Program, patterned after AA, that allows people to attend simple to help those struggling with addictions. All of these examples show how we can bear the infirmities of the weak. Having a support system helps the weak overcome and become strong. And, by being that support system, we often find ourselves growing stronger, as well.
II. How can we be likeminded one toward another?
I don’t actually have a complete answer to this. I am reminded of Paul’s angry letter to the Corinthians:
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
This should be one of the great issues facing the Christian world today, but I don’t think it is. I fear that this is a passage that is glossed over or ignored. Or, worse, we all blame everyone else for what’s wrong. I am interested to know how others respond to this verse.
III. Paul teaches that we are full of goodness.
In several places in the scriptures, we find passages that tell us that “there are none that are righteous”, that “none of us are good”, and that what we think is good is really “as filthy rags before the Lord”. Even the Book of Mormon teaches us that we are lower than the dust of the earth. Yet here we have Paul saying, “Look guys, you really aren’t that bad. Yeah, I know, I’ve called you to task on a lot of stuff. But really, by and large, you are good people. You mean well. You do well. You’re smart, you’re funny, and, gosh darn it, people like you!”
Okay, maybe that’s not exactly how he put it, but that is what I hear him saying. I hear Paul telling us that, yes, we screw up. A lot. And we are so very, very fortunate to understand that it doesn’t matter how badly we screw up, because Christ can overcome everything. His mercy, His grace is stronger. To paraphrase a children’s song, Jesus is bigger than the boogeyman. And because of that, we don’t need to be flogging ourselves every night. We don’t need to be groveling on the floor saying, “We’re not worthy, we’re not worthy, we’re not worthy.” We know we aren’t worthy, but Christ can make us worthy, and He will, if we will let Him. So, instead of beating ourselves up, we can acknowledge that we are capable of doing good and that, in so doing, we are going to have a positive influence on others.
This review of Romans 14 is provided by BrianJ, a Mormon.
NET: Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.
NIV: Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
NKJV: Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
NRSV: Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions.
receive/accept/welcome: It seems as though Paul meant this as an instruction to “receive in full fellowship; i.e., as a member,” as opposed to merely “welcoming as a (temporary) guest.” Still, I wonder if he wouldn’t extend this advice to the latter as well. Do we receive/welcome/accept guests or visitors the same as we do new converts of our denominations? Should we?
One problem with interpreting Paul here is that he was writing with a Christianity in mind that is quite different than today. I realize that there were differences in doctrines taught in the different cities during Paul’s day, but the delineations were not nearly as demarcated as they are today. Is it reasonable to extend Paul’s admonition to include interfaith relations? Would Paul encourage a Catholic to receive a Baptist? an Evangelical to accept a Mormon? a Mormon to welcome an Anglican?
weak: I confess that I’d like to misread Paul here as well. I’d like to read this verse as an indication of his self-awareness: Paul wrote some confusing, difficult stuff in the chapters we’ve already covered, and here he is backing down (intellectually speaking) to acknowledge that a lot of people aren’t going to understand everything at first pass.
But that would require misreading what Paul means by “weak in faith.” “Weak” must refer back to Paul’s use of “weak” in previous chapters to mean someone who is holding onto old religious traditions; their weakness is made manifest by their inability to let go of the outwardness of the Law and make the leap to the new covenant. Thus, Paul makes no concession (at least here) to those who don’t understand—or trust—his previous chapters.
disputes/quarrels over opinions: This is where I saw some irony if I purposefully misread Paul. Throughout our group study, we’ve had many disputations—in fact, to some degree that was one of the purposes of our group discussion. So even though Paul, in chapter 14, wasn’t talking about discussions like ours, I wonder what he would tell us. Some sort of adaptation of this verse, encouraging flexibility and friendship, or would he favor a more hard-lined approach? Would Paul tolerate differences of opinion over matters of doctrine, or just over something he sees as trivial (such as what one eats)?
Actually, that’s the kind of question we’ve had all along in regards to Paul: How far is Paul willing to take his rhetoric? How far would Paul extend this forbearance? Some of us have taken Paul’s words with full force, whereas others have suggested that Paul might be exaggerating his doctrinal positions for effect.
Verses 5-6: What I still don’t get from Paul is whether he is merely tolerating the idea of holding on to certain religious “rules” or if he actually respects the practice. It seems the former, since he keeps referring to such people as “weak.” Is this why (some) Evangelicals criticize Mormons for our adherence to rules of Sunday dress, Sabbath activities, Word of Wisdom, etc.?
Verses 7-9: I find this analysis very odd. Not that I dispute the conclusion in verse 9, but it seems kind of thrown in there—almost like a reflex “amen!” If I just look at the logical flow of these verses, I come up with: Christ died and was resurrected so that he could be Lord of…people who eat pork and people who don’t (?).
Verse 13: Okay, I promise never to put a stumbling block in my brother’s way…but tell me: what is a stumbling block? How am I to know if I’ve placed one? Paul’s teaching seems straightforward enough, but in practice…. Paul used as an example the eating of kosher foods, telling both “sides” not to make it an issue for the other “side.” That’s a fine example, because it’s easy to see how pork chops or crab cakes could cause disputations between early Christians, but where I get a bit lost is in knowing how to apply this today. How can I know what will cause my brother to stumble? (And isn’t it, at some point, still his decision whether or not to stumble?)
Verse 15 anticipates this concern, even if it does not explicitly answer it. “Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died” (NET). Ahh, well said Paul: you expertly call us petty. There’s no room to complain about another’s “weak faith,” saying anything like “What? I have to give up meat because my (ignorant) brother doesn’t understand that it’s okay to eat? What’s next? Give up milk, cheese, bread? How about my clothes or musical preferences? Maybe my brother should just grow up!” No, there’s no room for any of that because, after all, Jesus gave up his very life! Points like this make me very grateful for Jesus’ example of charity.
Verses 19-20: I’ve hinted at this already, but what if we took “food/meat” in these verses as merely a metaphor. A metaphor for…doctrine? ritual? worship style or ritual? etc.? Is that taking Paul’s words too far out of context, or would Paul endorse that exercise?
LDS & Evangelical Conversations 