sign in sign up
<<
Home , Book of Mormon, Mormon cosmology, Mormon Doctrine (book)

The SBJT Forum: Speaking the Truth in Love

Editor’s Note: Readers should be aware of the forum’s format. Russell D. Moore, R. Philip Robers, Robert Stewart, John Divito and Richard Abanes have been asked specific questions to which they have provided written responses. These writers are not responding to one another. The journal’s goal for the Forum is to provide significant thinkers’ views on topics of interest without requiring lengthy articles from these heavily-committed individuals. Their answers are presented in an order that hopefully makes the forum read as much like a unified presentation as possible.

SBJT: How can evangelical Protestants ism, evangelicals should read the works engage Latter-day Saints with historic of Latter-day Saints who explain why they ? love their . Some LDS intellectuals Moore: Evangelicals often wonder why who have concluded, to their regret, that believe such an incredible Smith constructed from his own system: golden tablets translated with mind the narrative of the Book of “magic glasses,” an advanced society of and the “translation” of the Book of Abra- ancient American Indian Israelites who ham are instructive here. Grant Palmer’s left behind no archaeological evidence at An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, for all, a “” of polygamy that was instance, warns that his conclusions are reversed when needed to do so for not for children or new converts. Demon- statehood, a “revelation” barring black strating the roots of the Mormons from the that was in the nineteenth-century world of King reversed after the triumph of the civil James , freemasonry, occultism, and rights movement, an of godhood frontier Americanism, Palmer nonetheless producing spirit babies, and special pro- remains a committed Mormon—because tective underwear. he loves the social and theological Russell D. Moore serves as Dean What we must understand is that of the LDS culture. Likewise, Coke New- of the School of , Senior Vice Latter-day Saints (LDS) believe these ell, a convert to the LDS church in his President for Academic Administration, things for the same reason that people late teens, lays out why a drug culture and Professor of Theology at The South- everywhere believe the things they do: vegetarian would find the LDS church ern Baptist Theological Seminary. He they want to believe them. Very few compelling. In so doing, he glories in the also serves as executive director of the Mormon converts become convinced by ancient mysteries of Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical rational arguments of the prophetic office and : from a and a God- Engagement. Dr. Moore is the author of . Indeed, Mormon mis- dess who produce offspring to a future of The Kingdom of Christ: The New sionaries don’t ask one to do so; instead in which deified humans rule a vast Evangelical Perspective (Crossway, relying on a “burning in the bosom” that . Newell makes clear that he isn’t 2004). He is also a contributing editor the claims of Smith are true. simply convinced by Smith’s claims; he is of Touchstone magazine. To understand the draw of Mormon- convinced because he loves the picture of 70 they portray. allure of falsehood is because falsehood is This should come as no surprise to parasitic on the truth. We need not just ask evangelicals who have read the whether Mormons believe things that are Paul’s revelation of the roots of human untrue and dangerous; they do. We must in the first chapter of Romans. ask also why they believe these things, and Fallen humans have affections and counter them with the revealed truth. inclinations that they then prop up with Latter-day Saints do not need an beliefs, convincing themselves that their unbiblical and unsatisfying vision of systems are true. This could not be clearer Christian hope that is not much more with , which is in reality little than an eternal choir practice. Instead, more than an Americanized version of a our LDS neighbors (and all of us) need Canaanite fertility cult. With this the case, to hear of the biblical glory of a restored evangelicals should take more than a scat- universe in which human beings will rule tershot approach to knocking down Mor- with Christ over all things, a universe in mon claims (although this is necessary). which nature itself is freed from the curse We must also present a counter-story to and in which human friendship, love, and the Mormon story: one that resonates with community continue and grow forever. the beauty of truth and holiness. Latter-day Saints do not need to hear of Evangelical “how-to” sermons are not a creation stance that piecemeal stands going to reach our LDS neighbors. Neither in the gaps left by Darwinism. Instead, are anti-theological churches that major Mormons (and all of us) need to hear of a on Christian experience and piety discon- beautiful and resonant biblical narrative nected from doctrinal content. Instead, of creation that explains the meaning we must present the the way the of the universe and our place in it. LDS did in the aftermath of Pente- families don’t just need to hear that we cost: as a “mystery” that now explains are pro-family. They need to understand everything in terms of God’s purposes that we are pro-family because the family in Christ. For an example of how reflects the Fatherhood of God (Eph 3:14), to proclaim the gospel to Mormons, we a Fatherhood that finds its meaning not in should pay attention to Paul’s proclama- pre-mortal spirit babies but in the sonship tion of the gospel to a cultural milieu of Jesus Christ (Rom 8:15). that closely resembled that of Salt Lake Yes, we need apologetics directed City: the pagan enclave of Ephesus. Paul toward Mormons. And, whatever some presented Jesus as the key to understand- evangelical leaders may say, we must ing God’s cosmic plan, as the reason for not back away from the sad reality that human existence, human , human Mormonism is not even remotely Chris- fatherhood, even human sexuality. Paul tian. But we must remember that we will did not shy away from speaking of what not Mormons with rational we intuitively seem to know is true: that arguments alone. This means we cannot there is an ancient warfare of which the rely on piecemeal attempts to point out affairs of human beings are only a part. discrepancies in the Book of Mormon, or The apostle understood that for the archeological proofs against the Nephite Ephesians, and for , and civilization, or philosophical holes in indeed for all of us outside of Christ, the Mormon cosmology. All of these things 71 are important, but we must remember longing within us for this story. That’s that, deep within their hearts, Mormons because it is true. And more than that, it know that Joseph Smith is a fraud. They, is the truth, and the way, and the life. That like we before conversion, are “suppress- is good news for Latter-day Saints, and for ing the truth” (Rom 1:18). forgiven Canaanites like us. The Spirit can conquer this kind of deception, and he does so through SBJT: Can you provide any reflections the word of truth. This does not mean on recent dialogue that has taken place proof-text argumentation, necessarily. between some evangelicals and Mor- It does mean presenting the big picture mons? of Scripture, tying it together in the pin- R. Philip Roberts: The excitement began nacle of all truth, Jesus of Nazareth. This in the fall of 2004. For the first time since is not the subjective, irrational “burning D. L. Moody spoke there over a century in the bosom” of our Mormon - ago, the story line ran, a leading evan- ary friends. But let’s remember where gelical was asked by representatives of they found the “burning in the bosom” the LDS Church to address an assembly language. of religious leaders and assorted members When Jesus was walking with the of the general public in the historic LDS dejected disciples to Emmaus, he took Tabernacle in . On a Sunday them through all of the Scriptures, show- evening in November, Ravi Zacharias ing them how the Christ was the focus took the podium in the famed venue to of them all. After he left them, they said speak on the particularly appropriate to one another: “Did not our hearts burn topic of the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. within us while he talked to us on the This unique event apparently was the road, while he opened to us the Scrip- brainchild of “Standing Together”—an tures?” (Luke 24:32, ESV) This was not, ad hoc ecumenical Mormon-evangeli- and is not, the anti-propositional relativ- cal alliance led by former LDS member ism of postmodern epistemology, nor is and Baptist pastor, Greg Johnson, and it the irrational of BYU religion professor, Robert L. Millet. R. Philip Roberts is President of occultism. It is the human heart created Millet and Johnson have been traveling Midwestern Baptist Theological Semi- in the image of God, freed by the Spirit, the country together for some few years nary in Kansas City, Missouri. Prior to resonating with the truth. This is what hosting town hall meetings and listening this he served as Professor of Missions the apostle John means when he writes sessions together with LDS and evangeli- and at Southeastern Baptist that we know the spirit of truth from cal audiences. Their stated purpose has Theological Seminary and, later, Vice the spirit of error because the one who is been to increase understanding between President for the Strategic Cities Strat- from God “listens to us,” the prophetic- the two groups and aid in improving egies Group for the North American apostolic instruments of divine revelation relationships. Mission Board. Dr. Roberts has served (1 John 4:6). The big evening came in Salt Lake as pastor for churches in Germany, We must remember this when we wel- City. Ravi Zacharias, typically articulate England, and Belgium. He is the author come our LDS neighbors over for dinner, and passionate, made a presentation on of Mormonism Unmasked (Broadman or when we lovingly spend an evening Christ’s uniqueness, which was appar- & Holman, 1998) and a contributor to with diligent Mormon . ently well-received, with a large number The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism When divine revelation is presented in of evangelicals in the audience urging him (Harvest House, 1998). all of its Christocentric glory, there is a on. If anything, however, it appears that 72 his presentation avoided the particulars gelical theology? While I hope so, in my of just how and in what ways the Jesus opinion, a more sober assessment demon- Christ of evangelical thought differed strates that this is hardly the case. or contrasted with the Jesus of Latter- In a highly centralized, bureaucratic day reckoning. But in the context, others and secretive religious structure like the argued, it was the best that could be done LDS Church, Robert Millet is a very long without appearing inflammatory and way from the levers of power and influ- overly provocative. Perhaps so. ence. While the Church is obviously in The real headliner for the event, some ways supportive of his efforts and however, was stolen by Richard Mouw, values the public relations spin-off of a President of Fuller Theological Seminary. leading evangelical seminary president’s Prior to Zacharias’s presentation, Mouw apology, the purpose for their support is came to the podium to make a surprise likely more about public relations than a statement. He proceeded to apologize serious search and desire for theological and offer lamentations on how Mor- truth. This modus operandi falls in line mons and the teaching of Mormonism with the entire approach taken by the had been abused, misrepresented, and LDS church over the last 25 years to lower caricatured by evangelicals, particularly the “cult” profile of the movement while those involved in counter-cult ministries. working hard to gain a measure of accep- Numerous evangelicals responded in tance and recognition among Christians various ways, ranging from mild appro- generally and evangelicals particularly. bation to disappointment and rage. On LDS leaders probably believed that the further reflection, Mouw issued a state- recasting of their image will greatly assist ment of clarification stating that he knew in their proselytizing efforts. of only two persons that he had in mind Other signs, however, tell us that when he apologized and those were the nothing much has changed in Salt Lake late Walter Martin, author of The Kingdom City. Here are a few examples. There are of the Cults, and Dave Hunt, Christian no substantive doctrinal changes in any apologist and author. official LDS publications. “Well,” someone The LDS , when reporting might say, “What about the publication the event, however, gave almost their of Robert Millet’s most recent book, A entire attention to Mouw’s comments Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-Day while largely ignoring Zacharias. It Saints? (Eerdmans, 2005). Interestingly, appears that an apology for apologetics by this tome released by William B. Erdmans a leading evangelical seminary president Publishing contains endorse- was more important news than a presen- ments by several evangelicals including tation of the Christian gospel. Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary, So just what’s going on in Salt Lake David Neff of Christianity Today, and City? Are Mormons coming to their Craig Hazen of Biola University—as well theological senses? Is there a doctrinal as both a foreword and afterword by seismic shift afoot akin to what occurred Mouw. It is heralded as a breakthrough with the World Wide Church of God just a volume signaling, if not a shift, then per- few years ago when that group renounced haps an opening to a consideration of a their heretical views and embraced evan- shift by the Mormon church. 73 A bit further reflection, however, calls make Millet’s book so potentially mis- for less effusiveness. In fact, it is just the leading in the supposed rapprochement kind of volume the LDS public relations of evangelical Mormon relations. After moguls love to see surface. Why? Because all, remember that, in addition to being it provides just enough public relations a religion professor at BYU, Millet is also credibility for the LDS Church to begin to manager of Outreach and Interfaith for be thought of in more mainstream—even the LDS Church and as such serves in its distantly evangelical—terms without giv- public affairs office. ing away anything of substance. Millet Other such basic and - toys enough with familiar evangelical appropriate tools (like Gospel Principles), terms and concepts to sound convincing which contain the essence of what a new to the uninformed. Without being an or potentially new convert to Mormon- official publication of the LDS Church, it ism will learn about Mormonism, are left also allows church leadership plausible unchanged. These works are the official deniability, if what Millet writes rankles publications of the Mormon church. some church members or causes a crisis More importantly, the sources of among the less stable. of Mormonism, The Book of Mormon, Allow me to risk being termed “hard The Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine core” and “abrasive” by saying that at least and Covenants, are left unchanged. Only some of what Millet says has the appear- when changes are made in authoritative ance of actually misleading the reader. sources or even in official proselytizing, For instance, when he discusses that Jesus indoctrinating sources can one be assured and Jesus alone “saves,” and nothing else, that something more substantive than he fails totally in elucidating the point public relations spin is afoot. that, in fact, or “immortality” Notably, the latest edition of the LDS in Mormon thought is provided for all in missionary manual (2004) contains all either the terrestrial or telestial kingdoms of the same old teaching including the except for apostates from the LDS church, notions of the great (i.e., all the devil and his angels. An evangelical forms of traditional Christianity are cor- might think that Millet is speaking of rupted), the concept that God is confined salvation as an evangelical does—that to a physical body, and that the “fullness a Christian receives the “fullness” of of salvation” is finally revealed in latter- salvation through, by, and because of the day Mormon revelation. Additionally, work of Christ alone. Not so. It is only missionaries are encouraged to be less through the “ordinances and ” of than forthcoming, one might even say the “fullness” of the gospel provided by disingenuous, about the teachings of the latter-day revelation and the “latter-day,” LDS Church. On the doctrine of “the Fall,” i.e., Mormon, that all of salva- they are instructed, “When first teaching tion is possible. In other words, apart from this doctrine, do not teach everything you proxy dead, only “Temple- know about it,” (Preach My Gospel: A Guide worthy” Mormons will enter the celestial to Missionary Service, 50). It appears that kingdom and become . They will be the official, sanctioned representatives the only ones to experience the fullness of the LDS Church to the world, the mis- of salvation. It is omissions like these that sionaries, have not changed either their 74 style or substance. God than all the learned ministers of the A further sense of a loosening of the gospel of the ages” (Church News, June 20, reins by church hierarchy seemed far- 1998). I encouraged Dr. Paige Patterson, fetched when Mormon author Grant H. then president of the Southern Baptist Parker was disfellowshipped early in 2005 Convention, to write President Hinckley. for the publication of his work, An Insider’s With a bit of my involvement, he did so View of Mormon Origins (, speedily and enthusiastically. In his letter, 2002). This volume seriously questioned among other points, Dr. Patterson stated the historicity of Mormon and The Book the following: of Mormon origins. Parker has a year to I appreciate your acknowledgement reconsider his position and, presumably, of a point most evangelical theolo- to withdraw his book before being excom- gians have been stating for some municated. time and that is: that traditional Christians (including ) and Do any of these developments carry Mormons do not believe in the same the hope of possible change? Not at all. Jesus. Many of your church’s spokes- men in recent years have sought to Remember that repentance and redirec- minimize that distinction. Your can- tion in the World Wide Church of God dor is refreshing. In my opinion, that basically started at the top. Robert Millet, enhances your credibility and the fact that traditional Christians and Stephen Robinson, and others at BYU are Mormons believe in two different not official LDS church leaders. At the and distinctive views of Christ. present time, LDS church leadership dis- President Hinckley, the issue of who Jesus is, as well as that of the nature plays no indication of making doctrinal of His work, is absolutely critical. adjustments. They are doubtlessly desir- If one does not have their faith in ous to see impressions altered, though. the genuine, biblical Christ then we must acknowledge that they are not This desire is evident in the amount of Christian. Sadly and regrettably, time and money spent on trying to gain on this most critical issue our two respective confessional communi- acceptance from mainstream Christianity. ties disagree. They welcome dialogue and discussion Nonetheless, I appreciate your to this end. forthrightness in expressing your church’s views. In my opinion, true In June 1998, on the occasion of the dialogue among begins with meeting of the Southern Baptist Conven- honest expression of both agree- tion in Salt Lake City, the Mormon Presi- ments and disagreements in doctri- nal and practical issues. Regarding dent, Gordon B. Hinckley, was quoted our disagreements about Jesus in the LDS Church News as saying that Christ, President Hinckley, I would Latter-day Saints “do not believe in the be happy to meet with you for a respectful and personal conversa- traditional Christ. No I don’t. The tradi- tion in a private setting at any time tional Christ of whom they speak is not and place of your choosing. the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ Patterson concluded with an invitation of whom I speak has been revealed in this for Hinckley and his counselors to be his the of the Fullness of Times. guests at Southeastern Seminary if they He, together with His Father, appeared wished. To the date of the writing of this to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, column, Dr. Patterson has not received a and when Joseph Smith left the grove reply from President Hinckley. that day, he knew more of the nature of 75 In my opinion, Hinckley’s response, phen Robinson, hold to a “minimalist” or lack thereof, to Patterson’s open-ended position on , insisting invitation says far more about the state of that only what is contained in their stan- substantive meaningful dialogue between dard works (KJV Bible, Book of Mormon, Mormons and evangelicals than anything , and Pearl of currently going on in Salt Lake City. Great Price) and/or signed by the or the SBJT: In sharing the gospel with Mor- Apostles collectively is official LDS doc- mon friends, what should we as evan- trine. One problem with such a minimal- gelicals do when, after discussing the ist restriction is that it cannot pass its differences between Mormonism and own test. By its own standard it is not an Christianity, they insist that statements “official” definition of Mormon doctrine. by Mormon presidents and apostles are A further difficulty is that even Robinson not “official” Mormon doctrine? admits that some acknowledged beliefs Robert Stewart: More and more Latter- and practices in Mormonism—such as the day Saints are distancing themselves from couplet, “As man is, God once was; as God statements made by earlier authorities is, man may become”—cannot be consid- such as Joseph Smith or . ered “official” according to his criteria. They insist that many statements, par- Nevertheless, he insists, they have in effect ticularly nineteenth or early twentieth become normative.” Given his criteria, century sermons, are merely speculation, how can this be? Moreover, a brief perusal or polemic and/or hyperbole meant to of official LDS teaching manuals reveals a inspire the saints to greater obedience, further difficulty. In these writings Mor- or that they relate to tangential or minor mon leaders cite “non-official” statements issues of the faith, upon which the saints by past leaders in the same way that critics are free to differ, rather than to core of Mormonism do. Those statements of doctrines. This complicates the task for which the current leadership approves Christians trying to witness to Mormons are taken as normative while those of or answer unique LDS truth claims. I hope which they do not approve are treated to explain briefly why these situations as musings, speculations, or anomalies. arise and how we can share effectively To put it charitably, their practice seems with Mormons today. inconsistent at this point. Never assume that Mormons are being BYU professor Robert Millet sug- disingenuous when they claim not to gests four somewhat broader criteria for believe what you have good reason to establishing whether or not a particular think is Mormon doctrine. Mormonism is is in fact part of Mormon doctrine: not monolithic, not all Mormons believe (1) Is it found within the four standard Robert Stewart is Assistant Profes- all the same things. In fact, Mormons do works? (2) Is it contained within official sor of Philosophy and Theology and not all agree on exactly what is Mormon LDS declarations or proclamations? (3) Is occupies the Greer-Heard Chair of Faith doctrine. Hence, distinguishing official it taught or discussed in General Confer- and Culture at New Orleans Baptist Mormon doctrine from non-official Mor- ence by general Church leaders today? Theological Seminary in Louisiana. Dr. mon doctrine is difficult. (4) Is it found in the general handbooks Stewart has written and spoken on Some LDS writers, such as Brigham or approved curriculum of the Church evangelical responses to Mormonism. Young University (BYU) professor Ste- today? (see Robert Millet, Getting at the 76 Truth: Responding to Difficult Questions actually wrong, preferring instead to say, about LDS Beliefs [Salt Lake City: “That’s only his opinion, but not official Book Company, 2004] 49). While one may Church teaching.” When confronted with reasonably reject Millet’s criteria, they do this sort of statement, I often reply, “My give evangelical Christians a good idea of question is not, ‘is it official, but is it true?’ what sources are most readily accepted Was he right or wrong?” While this may by Mormons and thus most easily used seem to be nitpicking, it matters a great by evangelicals in witnessing encounters deal if Mormon leaders, even past leaders, and apologetic endeavors. in the exercise of their office, proclaimed We should keep several things in mind false doctrines, whatever their motivation. when confronting Mormon doctrine. Preaching false doctrine is wrong for any First, Mormon doctrine is a moving tar- or apostle at any time. get. Because Latter-day Saints believe in Other helpful questions are, “Do you continual revelation, Mormon doctrine agree with Joseph Smith (or whomever) on can change. Some teachings that were this point?” “In your opinion, is he right or official doctrine in the past no longer are wrong?” “Do you believe this?” Force them today. One example is the -God doc- to take a position. Truth, after all, is the trine. Although there is little doubt that crucial issue. If they disagree with the Brigham Young believed and taught that authority cited, ask, “Why accept him as Adam was the god of this earth, no Mor- a prophet if you disagree with his theol- mon authority today affirms this doctrine. ogy?” or “If his unofficial beliefs are false, One must stay up to date. Second, some how can we be certain that his official statements cited by critics of Mormonism beliefs are true?” were never widely taught. Although past A final question that must be asked is, Mormon leaders have held some bizarre “Can you support this biblically?” The opinions, such as men living on the moon, Bible is the one source that Mormons and not all of these were taught as doctrine. Christians agree is God’s word (although Bringing up such statements will not Mormons insist contemporary transla- help one reach a Mormon friend. In fact, tions are corrupted). Appeals to uniquely it may anger him and make evangelistic LDS scriptures to support LDS theology efforts more difficult. Third, virtually simply beg the question. all of the core doctrines of Mormonism What matters most in evangelistic or can be identified as such using Millet’s apologetic encounters with Mormons is criteria—if one knows where to look and what the individual Mormon to whom documents his sources. you are speaking . In other More importantly, the question of what words, we should be concerned to speak is “official” Mormon doctrine is some- as knowledgeably as possible, and to cite times merely a smokescreen intended to sources that our Mormon friends will divert attention away from problematic likely accept as authoritative. We must be Mormon beliefs. What matters most is not careful, however, that we do not become whether or not a statement is official but if it is so consumed with answering a question true. A statement can be unofficial but sig- that not even all Mormons agree upon nificant. Mormons are justifiably hesitant that we lose sight of the goal—sharing to say that their and apostles are our faith with our Mormon friends in an 77 effective and meaningful way. was a true prophet of God! Are they all In conclusion, Christians sharing with wrong?” I struggled with trusting both LDS friends should do their best to use the the pastor of my church and the campus most widely-accepted sources available, minister. “On what authority can he say make the individual Mormon speak for these things? He’s not a prophet of God! himself, and insist on logical consistency How can I trust him?” Worst of all, I felt and biblical support. Patient fair-minded alone. Others in the church did not seem dialogue of this sort, bathed in , and to have the problems I was having. based on biblical teaching is the best way At the same time, I knew I could not go to share with Mormons. back to Mormonism. I knew it was false. Yet my struggle raged. Over time, through SBJT: As a former Mormon, what advice Bible study and the patient discipleship can you give to others who are successful of the campus minister along with other in bringing a Latter-day Saint into a true Christians, I eventually became firmly relationship with Christ? rooted in my beliefs. No longer did I John Divito: Unfortunately, this is a ques- struggle with the legitimacy of Joseph tion that, all too often, Christians do not Smith, but it took a lot of time and much think about or address. For some reason, doubting. At some points, I wondered if many evangelicals think that when a I was even truly saved. former Mormon or other cultist comes By God’s grace, I am saved. However, to Christ, all of his or her former beliefs the most difficult part of this trial was my and attachments simply disappear. This sense of aloneness and not feeling like I is simply not the case. Maybe a personal could talk to others about the issues with example would be helpful. which I was struggling. How could I, I came out of Mormonism through per- when they seemed to have it all together sonal study. In an attempt to win my girl- and treated me as if I was “over” my friend (now my wife) to the “true” faith, involvement with Mormonism? I decided to read evangelical materials in Thankfully, God instilled in me a order to refute them. It was during this deep love for his Word and brought the time that I was confronted with a more campus minister into my life. I remember balanced and accurate history regarding spending hours in his office just talking Joseph Smith. Through my research, as to him about different things. Sadly, not well as the gospel proclamation of a local everybody is as fortunate as I was. It is campus ministry, I eventually repented of not uncommon to hear about former Mor- my sins and believed and trusted in Jesus mons struggling with these issues, and Christ as my and Savior. more, for years. Many continue to struggle Now this gets us to the point of the ques- over doctrinal differences. While I may tion. I quickly became involved with the not be able to deal with the minimum campus ministry and started attending a amount of doctrinal knowledge a person John Divito is a Master of stu- local church. Nevertheless, doubts began must believe in order to be saved, I can dent at The Southern Baptist Theological to creep in. “Could Joseph Smith really be say that it is not uncommon for former Seminary. He is also a former Mormon a false prophet?” I would wonder. “Maybe cult members to harbor some vestiges who serves as a research associate for I was hasty in my conclusions—after all, of errant doctrine after their conversion. Mormonism Research Ministry. so many people that I trust know that he For example, a former Mormon may still 78 believe that all humans preexisted before “Always be prepared to give an answer to we were physically born on earth. He or everyone who asks you to give the reason she may question the doctrine of creation for the hope that you have. But do this ex nihilo. There may even be more serious with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet 3:15 doctrinal differences that remain in an NIV). Sometimes I find it easier to follow individual’s thinking. the first part—giving an answer—rather I think that there are two solutions to than the second part—“with gentleness this problem. First, we must not water and respect.” May our conduct live up to down the gospel. While this should go the One whom we proclaim. without saying, it is always a temptation Finally, I highly recommend read- for those involved in evangelism. This ing Janis Hutchinson’s book Out of the becomes all the more important when Cults and into the Church: Understanding dealing with Mormons and other cult & Encouraging Ex-Cultists (Kregel, 1994). members. There are many differences that While I do not agree with all of her should not be glossed over when witness- analysis or conclusions, it is an excellent ing. As is often said about Mormons, they book in thinking through how to min- use the same vocabulary but different ister effectively to those who have come dictionary. They use words such as grace, out of Mormonism or other cults. I pray atonement, Jesus Christ, the Godhead, sal- that God will raise a generation that will vation, etc., but mean different things by passionately preach the good news to the them. A Mormon can actually say, “I am Mormon people, and that they will be saved by grace alone in Jesus Christ,” but able effectively to disciple those whom they do not mean what evangelicals mean the Lord draws to himself. by this statement. Effectively handling this language barrier and proclaiming the SBJT: Can you offer some advice on shar- gospel message so they can understand ing the gospel with Mormons? it is essential. Simple, formulaic, canned Richard Abanes: Christians are supposed presentations will not do. And the less to defend the faith (Jude 3), preserve the Mormons know up front, the more likely Gospel’s purity (Gal 1:6-9; 1 Pet 3:15), test they are to continue believing errors or to all things (1 Thess 5:21), and correct those even falsely profess faith in Christ. who have doctrinally erred (2 Tim 4:2). Second, we must be open, sympathetic, Equally relevant scriptures include Eph and patient. It takes time to work through 4:15, which mentions speaking the truth these issues. Gently working with and “in love,” and 2 Tim 2:24-26, which says counseling former Mormons will go to correct using “gentleness and respect.” Richard Abanes has served as a long way in helping them to mature Unfortunately, these latter two passages both a minister and the creative arts in their fledgling faith. We must never often take a backseat to what becomes director at Saddleback Church in Lake sacrifice the truth, but we should also the overriding aim of witnessing—that Forest, California, and has written or be sensitive to the issues and baggage is, make sure that someone realizes he is co-authored numerous books and that a former Mormon is dealing with. wrong. But this unbiblical approach never articles. He is the author of One Nation As the apostle Paul says, we need to be results in a person falling to his knees, Under Gods: A History of the Mormon “speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15 repenting, and shouting appreciation for Church (Four Walls Eight Windows, NIV). I also always try to keep in mind being shown the error of his doctrinal 2003) and Becoming Gods (Harvest one of my favorite verses: ways. Instead, emotional walls go up, House, 2004). 79 defensive arguments are launched (no grace), and individual, which is godhood matter how baseless or illogical they may (a reward secured by a grace/works syn- be), and a golden opportunity to show ergy). Obviously, there are many issues to Christ’s love is lost. discuss with Mormons. But this can lead One of the most obvious places where to many mistakes. some well-meaning Christians have failed First, a good approach certainly would to follow biblical mandates about sharing not include mocking Mormonism or the good news has been in the area of depicting as profane those things that witnessing to Mormons. I have myself, Mormons view as sacred (e.g., the under- truth be told, been guilty of speaking to garments that Mormons wear). Second, Mormons not so lovingly and not with so it does no good to accuse twenty-first much gentleness or respect. And I have century Mormons of believing certain seen similar mistakes made by others. teachings/opinions/doctrines that were Given the fact that the Bible says judg- taught in the nineteenth century (e.g., the ment begins in the church (1 Pet 4:17), I “Adam-God” doctrine taught by Brigham believe it is time for all of us to stop for a Young). Third, one should not instantly moment and consider why we do what we assume the worst about a Mormon’s do in the area of “cult” evangelism. This is motives and/or arguments. Mormons are especially relevant in connection to mem- not always “lying” or “dodging the issues” bers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Lat- or “seeking to deceive.” It is true that ter-day Saints (LDS), since we share with some Mormons resort to such tactics. But them a number of general concepts: so do some so-called “Christians” whose (1) There is a personal God who cares main concern is advancing a personal about us (as opposed to either no God at agenda or idolized doctrinal notion. The all or an impersonal force). average Mormon is very much like the (2) Jesus Christ was a real, historical average Christian in that they hold their person who lived, died, and physically faith dear, see things in a certain way, rose again from the dead. and voice arguments that to their minds (3) A Christian’s life in this world make sense. should be marked by holy living, pure To avoid mistakes, a few things should thoughts, and zeal for evangelism. be remembered. First, God is in control. The problem, of course, is that Mormons Those who are called by the Holy Spirit define doctrinal terms/concepts quite dif- will come to Him (John 17:9-10). We are ferently than evangelicals. For example, merely tools (Phil 2:3-7) that God chooses Mormons deny the traditional definition to use in the conversion process (Rom of the . “God” in Mormonism is an 10:15; 1 Cor 3:1-8). Second, every Mormon exalted man and is only one god among is a person, not just a representation of the many gods in the universe. Additionally, corporate “Mormons.” Acknowledging Jesus is a created being whose nature is this can help eradicate the “us vs. them” virtually the same as ours—the primary battle lines that are usually drawn during difference being that he has progressed most witnessing encounters. Sharing the to godhood. Mormons also teach that good news is not about winning a holy there are two —general, which war. It is about Christ touching a person’s is merely life (a gift given by heart via our interaction with them. Third, 80 witnessing should be an enjoyable time of talking—not a shouting match—about meaningful truths. Finally, the most important thing is to be Christ-like: show love; speak kindly; be patient; walk humbly; bear the burden of a broken heart. Nothing is more criti- cal. That is what witnessing is really all about—not conversions. Before, during, and after every Mormon encounter, we must ask: Am I just seeking another con- version badge? Do I want to hear “Uncle! Uncle!” more than “Jesus, I receive you”? What is the attitude of spirit that is moti- vating me? Witnessing to Mormons is in many ways just as much about us as it is about them. Hopefully evangelicals will be able to do better than the admirable sentiments expressed in 2003 by Mormon apologist and professor, Daniel C. Peterson, who happens to be a personal friend. In reference to discussing doctrinal differences, he said, “[Some] take this as just, ‘it’s a competition, you can score points.’ You know, you can ‘win on this’—gratify your ego by defeating somebody on that point or something. That’s not what it’s really about. Resist that temptation.” Is there any reason why evangelicals should not follow such coun- sel—especially since we claim to have the true gospel? Certainly our Lord demands nothing less.

81