Mormons and Evangelicals: Reasons for Faith 9781463216498

Citation preview

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Mormons and Evangelicals Reasons for Faith

DAVID E. SMITH

2009

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2009 Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN: 978-1-60724-027-3

An Imprint of

GORGIAS PRESS

180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Smith, David E., 1963Mormons and Evangelicals : reasons for faith / David E. Smith. -- 1st Gorgias Press ed. p. cm. ISBN 978-1-60724-027-3 (alk. paper) 1. Faith and reason--Christianity. 2. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--Doctrines. 3. Mormons. 4. Evangelicalism. I. Title. BT50.S625 2009 231'.042--dc22 2009012045

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards.

To Patricia and Jonathan, who understand

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface……………………………………………………………...vii Introduction: Foundations of Faith Described………………………1 Chapter 1: Christian History: A Brief Overview……………………..5 Chapter 2: Mormon and Evangelical Theology: A Comparison…….13 Chapter 3: Sociological Foundations of Faith………………………27 Chapter 4: Spiritual Foundations of Faith…………………………..43 Chapter 5: Rational Foundations of Faith…………………………..57 Chapter 6: Conversion Stories……………………………………...83 Conclusion: Foundations of Faith Prescribed……………………...111 Appendix 1: Beliefs and Volition…………………………………..129 Appendix 2: The Creeds…………………………………………...133 Appendix 3: The Questionnaire…………………………………....137

v

PREFACE The research behind this book represents the convergence of two major interests of mine. The first has to do with comparative religion, especially comparisons between religions that have clearly identifiable sacred texts. This interest gradually lead me to an investigation of Mormonism. Not only do Mormons have scriptures other than the Bible, they are also a relatively new religion and one whose sources are fairly accessible. Beyond this, Mormonism is a distinctively American religion that has become a global religious movement and that has experienced exponential growth over the past century. Religion scholars can no longer afford to ignore Mormonism as a subject of serious intellectual analysis. The second interest represented here is philosophical. The question of faith and reason is one that will not let me go. Why do I believe what I believe about religion? Why do others believe what they believe? Do we believe because we were raised to believe, because we have religious experience that we cannot ignore, or because of rational evidence? Why should we believe—or not? These questions are, properly speaking, the purview of (religious) epistemology, the study of (religious) knowledge. Early in 2006 I was offered some humanities grant money from the Eli Lilly Foundation, administered through and by the Center for Research and Innovation at Taylor University, to go to Utah and study Mormonism. I accepted the grant and carefully chose four Taylor University seniors to assist me with the research. These students (all Biblical Studies majors) were Christine Goslin, Andrew Jones, Kelly Biere, and Ben Taylor, all of whom did excellent work. They contributed to the project in three fundamental ways. First, they read and regularly discussed Mormon theology during the spring of 2006 along with me and my research assistant, Ian Church. Second, we all used an IRB-approved questionnaire that Ian and I created to interview both Mormons and Evangelicals during the summer of 2006 in different parts of the country about why they believed that their faith was true. Third, we all got back together during the fall of 2006 to interpret and organize the answers. Then, in October, the six of us presented our findings in a seminar on the campus of Taylor University. This book is a presentation of that research with scholarly commentary on my part. It is not just another book on Mormonism or Evangelicalism, and it is neither polemical nor apologetic. It is, rather, contemplative in nature. I use the answers provided by our Mormon and Evangelical subjects to reflect on the relationship between faith and reason and to suggest a particular model for interpreting the sociological, spiritual, vii

viii

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

and rational aspects of faith to the broader American populace. My target audience is any educated reader who wants to think both critically and sympathetically about reasons for faith—his or her own faith and the faith of others whose religious perspectives are different. Scholars tend to put intellectual effort into understanding what people believe, but often fail to reflect on why they believe. Understanding the rationale behind different belief systems fosters mutual understanding in ways that mere analysis of particular beliefs does not. I also offer this method as a model for other comparative religion research. Special thanks go to Steve Snyder and Don Takehara of Taylor University for securing the grant money, to Ian for his researching of recent publications on Mormonism and his creation of the rough draft of the questionnaire, and to Kelly for double-checking portions of our work and for contributing substantially to the rough draft of Chapter 3. I am also grateful to Leah White, Geoff Wiggins, Tere Foster, Darin Rohatinsky, Cynthia Hallen, and Sam Mikel for putting their conversion stories into writing for inclusion in the book. Without the contributions of all who worked on this project, the book would not have been possible. All of the interviews conducted with the questionnaire were confidential. Because of this, I report answers without identifying the names of the subjects interviewed. I also conducted a number of other, nonconfidential interviews with committed Mormons, ex-Mormons, and Evangelical missionaries to the Mormons (without the questionnaire), and I report the content of those interviews and/or the names of those interviewed where appropriate. And of course, I cite scholarly, published works throughout. A brief word of explanation is in order for the reader who cares about my own place in the religious universe. I was raised in the Evangelical world (Baptist). My first two degrees are from Evangelical institutions; my last two from a state university. After spending time in several different denominational churches, I became a high-church Protestant. Today I choose to live and work outside of the Evangelical world. Because of this, I feel like I have the perspective of both an insider and an outsider. While this is not always a comfortable experience, it does give me a unique perspective on contemporary Evangelicalism. On a related note, the conclusions I draw and the views I express here do not necessarily represent those of the people who worked with me; they are strictly my own. Finally, this project is a serious analysis of reasons for and influences on faith. For people who take their faith seriously, religion is the

PREFACE

ix

most important thing in the world. But religion can be and sometimes is funny as well. We encountered some things along the way that put smiles on our faces, and I have attempted to pass them on here and there throughout the book. Feel free to laugh when the script calls for it—and even when it does not.

INTRODUCTION FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH DESCRIBED In the philosophy of religion course that I teach, I suggest to students that there are four basic approaches to the question of faith and reason available to people today. These are fideism, presuppositionalism, the classical method, and evidentialism.1 It is possible to identify more than four, but other approaches appear to be derivatives and/or developments of these. Fideism is the view that faith and reason have virtually nothing to do with each other. Fideists believe that one should believe apart from, and even contrary to, rational evidence.2 Presuppositionalism is the view that one should believe first, and then one will see that the evidence supports the religious world view.3 Christian presuppositionalists believe that spiritual enlightenment and faith are necessary to see the evidence honestly because of the noetic effects of sin. According to them, sin so distorts our ability to reason properly that we must possess the Holy Spirit before we can honestly evaluate the evidence for Christian truth claims. Proponents of the classical method believe that Christian religious experience (i.e. the work of the Holy Spirit) enlightens the mind and inspires faith, but they also believe that non-Christians can evaluate evidence honestly. The noetic effects of sin are not as drastic as the presuppositionalists claim, according to classicists. One should balance spiritual experience and evidence in determining what is religiously true, but give a slight edge to the work of the Spirit within. Technically, the inner 1 For detailed explanations, defenses, and critiques of all of these except fideism, see Steven B. Cowan, ed., Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000). In this volume, presuppositionalism is defended by John M. Frame, the classical method by William Lane Craig, and evidentialism by Gary R. Habermas. Much of my description of these methods here is derived from this work. 2 Evidence in this project is defined as anything that is objective (or reasonably objective) that appears to support a religious truth claim and to which virtually all people have access. Examples include philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God and archaeological confirmations of persons and places in the Bible. 3 This approach was developed by a particular brand of Evangelicals, but people holding other religious beliefs—like some of the Mormons whom we interviewed—can and do believe in a similar approach to faith and reason from their own perspective. My impression is that different types of presuppositionalism show up in various religious traditions.

1

2

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

witness of the Spirit is sufficient for knowing the truth, but evidence can strengthen faith and demonstrate the rationality of faith to unbelievers. Finally, there is evidentialism. Evidentialists place more emphasis on objective evidence for faith than proponents of the other three views do. Christian evidentialists believe that Christianity can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that faith should have substantial evidence to back it up. It may not be possible for every believer to possess knowledge of the evidence, but the community of faith (i.e. the Church) should be aware of the case for Christianity and offer it to all who seek it. Religious evidentialists and atheists generally share the same assumption about the need for evidence, but disagree about the weight of the evidence for Christianity (and other world religions). Which is the correct view, and how do we incorporate the obvious truth that beyond religious experience and reason, upbringing significantly impacts our religious beliefs? There are three fundamental reasons why a person might believe that Mormonism, Evangelicalism, or any other belief system is true.4 First, they may have been raised to believe in it. Our upbringing does have a significant impact on our faith. In our interviews, we asked both Mormons and Evangelicals about how they were raised and how those around them influence their faith. I call these influences the sociological foundations of faith. Second, many people have internal, religious experiences that inspire and sustain faith. In Christianity, this is the work of the Holy Spirit who enlightens, convicts, regenerates, guides, and encourages. All devoted members of the major religions of the world claim internal, spiritual experiences that determine (at least in part) their religious beliefs. I call these the spiritual foundations of faith, and we asked people to put into words what these experiences were like for them. Although this is often difficult, we asked people to try and found that they did a much better

By “Mormonism” I mean the religion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and by “Mormon” I mean members of this Church. This is the dominant form of Mormonism in the world today. We did not interview members of other, smaller, “Mormon” groups. Also, for purposes of this project, “Evangelicals” are any and all theologically conservative Protestants, both denominational and nondenominational. For more nuanced definitions (or descriptions) of Evangelicalism, see Donald Bloesch, The Holy Spirit: Works and Gifts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 125-130; and David Harrington Watt, A Transforming Faith: Explorations of Twentieth-Century American Evangelicalism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1991) 1-4, 155157. 4

INTRODUCTION

3

job than expected in articulating these experiences.5 Finally, there is reason. People sometimes claim objective evidence for their faith. Occasionally people even claim to convert to a particular religion because of such evidence. We asked people questions related to rational evidence. Do Mormons and Evangelicals believe because of evidence, apart from evidence, or contrary to evidence? To the extent that people value evidence, to that extent they have a rational foundation for their faith. We also asked about doubt. Rational arguments can encourage or discourage faith. We wanted to know how Mormons and Evangelicals dealt with doubts about their faith. The questions on the questionnaire were designed to elicit what committed Mormons and Evangelicals believe about these foundational questions. In what follows, I identify and reflect on the four approaches to faith implied by the answers our subjects gave. Then, in the Conclusion, I recommend a revised version of one of these as the best approach. Too often, I think, religious people engage in polemics and apologetics without reflecting on the relevance of reason to faith. For example, if one critiques the belief system of another person using reason, and the person holding the beliefs denies the relevance of reason, then the critique may not be very meaningful. One may also believe incorrectly that one’s own religious beliefs have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, when in fact the evidence may not be that straightforward. Related to all of this is the issue of mystery. Virtually all persons of faith at some point must confess that they believe in things that are mysterious. Mysteries are things that people believe but only partially understand. There is a difference conceptually, it seems to me, between the mysterious and the irrational. A mystery is suprarational (above and beyond reason at certain points), whereas a true contradiction or inconsistency is irrational (contrary to reason). When pressed to explain and defend a belief that is partially suprarational, many people of faith will “play the mystery card” at that point; that is, they claim that the belief is beyond human understanding. Do Mormons and Evangelicals ever “play the card” to cover up irrationality? This project gives the thoughtful reader an opportunity to reflect on whether he or she is guilty of this as well. It is my hope that as a result of this project, the reader will be more understanding of why others believe things that to him or her may seem rationally

5

chapter.

I discuss psychological influences on faith in the Spiritual Foundations

4

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

unfounded, and will be motivated to show respect and tolerance as a result, without necessarily agreeing with the religious beliefs themselves. In what follows, I explore the sociological, spiritual, and rational foundations of faith evident in the lives of real Mormons and Evangelicals with the goal of shedding light on why people believe what they believe and why we should—or should not—adhere to any particular belief system. But first we look briefly at the history of Christianity and the two basic theologies that inform the answers our subjects gave.

CHAPTER 1 CHRISTIAN HISTORY: A BRIEF OVERVIEW I write this overview of Church history to help situate Mormonism and Evangelicalism in the broad flow of Western Christian development, and to help the reader understand some of my analysis in what follows. While the division of time into categories is always somewhat subjective, there are events and transitional points that help the historian to organize the data. With that in mind, it is probably best to divide Christian history into six main periods. They are the Apostolic Age, the Patristic Age, the Medieval Age, the Reformation/Counter-Reformation Age, the Modern Age, and the Postmodern Age.

THE APOSTOLIC AGE (CA. 30-100 CE) The Apostolic Period is essentially the first century. It is the age when the first followers of Jesus spread the Good News and when the New Testament documents were written. An analysis of this period is mostly beyond the scope of this project. However, I do include a sampling of Mormon and Evangelical interpretations of the New Testament in Chapter 2.

THE PATRISTIC AGE (CA. 100-500 CE) The Patristic Age was a period of Christian self-definition. The leaders of the Church (Church Fathers) laid the major theological foundations for all that would follow. Key leaders include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, and John Chrysostom. Mainstream Christians— often called “catholic” (universal) and “orthodox” (rightly-believing)— defined the “rule of faith” (summary of Christian beliefs) in the context of countless theological controversies and challenges. For example, secondand third-century Gnostics claimed that the authentic Christ and his most faithful apostle, Paul, had rejected the religion of ancient Israel and its creator-god, revealing the true and highest deity—the “Father of Christ”— for the first time in human history. They rejected the authority of the Jewish Scriptures which told of this god (the Old Testament), and argued for a Biblical canon comprised only of Christian writings. The Church Fathers countered with arguments designed to establish the identity of Yahweh as 5

6

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

the Father of Christ and to demonstrate continuity between the two testaments. Reflection on the shape of the Christian Bible was also related to another major accomplishment during this period: the canonization of the twenty-seven books that now comprise the Christian New Testament.1 Another major challenge to Christian consensus and self-definition in the Patristic Age came from the Arians (early fourth century). Arius, an elder in the church at Alexandria, began to preach that Christ, the preexistent Son of God, had been created by God the Father ex nihilo (out of nothing), and so did not share the substance of God. After a prolonged, bitter, and empire-wide dispute, the catholic Church rejected the teachings of Arius, affirming the eternal begottenness and full deity of the Son. The Nicene Creed was written to formally articulate the doctrine that has come to be called the doctrine of the Trinity—the belief that there is only one God who eternally exists in three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).2 The Trinitarian debate touched on several profound issues related not only to theological content, but to method as well. Controversies surrounding theological method continued after the fourth century, and are foundational to debates between Evangelicals and Mormons in our own day. Central to the issue in the Patristic Age was the question of the sufficiency of Scripture. Should all of the Church’s theological categories and language be derived directly from Scripture alone, or should the Church go outside of the Bible for help? When the proponents of Nicene Trinitarianism chose the Greek word homoousia (“of the same substance”) to describe the nature of Christ vis-à-vis God the Father, some participants were unhappy with the choice of an extra-Biblical word to define something so foundational to the faith. Proponents of the word eventually won the debate, however, arguing that an extra-Biblical word might capture the essence of Biblical teaching better than any alternatives. The other major aspect of theological method had to do with content. Many of the Church Fathers had some background in Greek philosophy. Most scholars today agree that certain aspects of Greek philosophy—particularly the philosophy of the Platonists and Stoics— helped to shape the Christian view of God. The Neo-Platonists, This historical truth—that the Church Fathers determined the contents of the New Testament canon—should be enough in and of itself to inspire both Evangelicals and Mormons to take the Church Fathers more seriously than they generally do on other matters of faith and practice. 2 See Appendix 2 for the English texts of the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the LDS Articles of Faith. The doctrine of the Trinity has been the subject of intense analysis and debate from the fourth century to the present day. 1

CHRISTIAN HISTORY

7

contemporaries of the Church Fathers, argued, for example, that God— called the One—had begotten Spirit (or Mind), who had in turn begotten Soul, who in turn had created the world.3 Did Neo-Platonism help to shape the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? It probably did. The Church Fathers, as a rule, believed that God had revealed himself outside of Israel through reason and human experience, as well as to prophets and apostles in Israel through various particular media (visions, dreams, angelic appearances, etc.). These two broad types of divine revelation have become the categories of general and special revelation in Christian theology, respectively, and are affirmed by most Evangelicals today. Mormons criticize traditional Christians for incorporating too much Greek thought into their theology. We will return to this later.

THE MEDIEVAL AGE (CA. 500-1500 CE) The Medieval Period of Church history saw both positive contributions to Christian belief and practice, as well as intense controversies and ecclesiastical low points. Thinkers like Anselm (early twelfth century) and Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) developed major Christian doctrines (like the atonement) and arguments for God’s existence (particularly the Ontological, Teleological, and Cosmological Arguments).4 The method of doing theology during this period is often called “Scholastic theology” for its emphasis on the role of reason. Often theological conclusions were drawn based on a sort of independent theologic apart from the clear teachings of Scripture. For example, Western Mariology was developed which added a number of claims surrounding the virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, not taught in Scripture, to the Church’s See the overview in Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1945/1972 reprint) 288-291. 4 The Ontological Argument, developed by Anselm, states that God must exist by definition. Since He is the greatest possible Being that we can imagine, and since beings which exist are greater than those that are purely imaginary, God must exist or He would not be the greatest possible Being that we could imagine. Under the influence of some ancient Greek philosophers, Thomas developed the Teleological Argument, which states that the existence of complexity and purpose in the world is evidence of a divine Designer, and the Cosmological Argument, which states that the phenomenon of cause and effect in the world demands an Uncaused or First Cause (God). These, and other, arguments for God’s existence continue to be debated by philosophers of all stripes today, some arguing for, and others against, their validity. 3

8

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

theology. These developments live on in dogmatic form in Roman Catholicism today, and include the Immaculate Conception (the belief that Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb without Original Sin), her perpetual virginity (even after giving birth to Jesus), and her bodily assumption into heaven. The practical ramifications of this are also significant, and include praying to her (and other saints). Theologians in the Medieval Period, while valuing Scripture, did not feel bound to the text in their development of Christian thought. If in their minds God could and should have done something (based on the reasoning of the theologians), then the leaders of the Church felt qualified to declare that God had, in fact, done it. For example, since God could have kept Mary from inheriting Original Sin (because of his omnipotence), and since it seemed right that God should have kept her from sin (to give Christ a sinless womb in which to incarnate himself), then God did keep her from sin. This entire method would be challenged and rejected by the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century, and both Evangelicals and Mormons have inherited this antipathy. The Medieval Period also saw the first major rift within orthodox/catholic Christianity. In 1054 CE, tensions between Eastern and Western Christians became so great, that a formal schism occurred when the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople excommunicated each other from the Church! Controversies over ecclesiastical authority (particular the papal claim to be head over the entire universal Church), theological fine points, culture, and language had been developing for quite some time, and finally came to a head during the eleventh century. Evangelicals and Mormons (and others) agree that something went terribly wrong here, but disagree on the remedy.

THE REFORMATION/COUNTER-REFORMATION AGE (CA. 1500-1750 CE) Discontent with ecclesiastical, theological, moral, and spiritual trends in the late Medieval Western Church led to the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation beginning in the sixteenth century. Martin Luther, often called the “father of the Protestant Reformation,” objected to the selling of indulgences for the obtaining of forgiveness, and called the Church back to Scripture as the standard for evaluating all Christian beliefs and practices. His personal reading of the Bible led him to conclude and boldly proclaim that: 1) salvation was entirely God’s gracious gift to all those who had genuine faith in Christ (apart from any personal

CHRISTIAN HISTORY

9

merit on the part of the believer), and 2) that all people should be able to hear and/or read the Bible in their own language. Other Reformers, like John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and Menno Simons agreed with Luther’s call to purify the Church by returning to Scripture. The work of these men was like a spark in a dry forest, leading many in the Western Church to break fellowship with Rome (or, as in the case of Luther, to be excommunicated by Rome). Protestant churches sprang up all across Europe, and eventually spread all around the world. Roman Catholic authorities dug in their heels and reaffirmed the theological and spiritual traditions of the Medieval Period at the Council of Trent (mid-sixteenth century). The Protestants made some attempts at formal unity during this period, but were unable to achieve it. Their own readings of Scripture produced too many different interpretations of various issues, particularly issues related to ecclesiastical structure and the sacraments. Protestantism is known for its countless denominational and nondenominational manifestations to this day. There are both strengths and weaknesses in this diversity. The advantages are related to freedom, choice, and conscience. Protestantism allows people the opportunity to find a church that agrees with their own theological, ecclesiastical, and spiritual convictions. However, interactions between Protestants have often been nothing short of un-Christian, and the multiplicity of denominations and doctrinal systems has created confusion for many. Mormonism was born, to a large extent, in reaction to these phenomena.

THE MODERN AGE (CA. 1750-1950 CE) It is difficult to identify the point at which the Reformation Age becomes the Age of Modernity.5 In the seventeenth century, Western culture experienced the Scientific Revolution and the rebirth of democratic political thinking, both of which affected the Church as well as the broader society. Protestantism continued to multiply denominationally and to spread around the world in its many forms (Fig. 1). It seems that Protestantism and political democracy were a match made in heaven, and it is no coincidence that both thrived in the newly-born United States of America. The 19th century, in particular, saw the multiplication of new Protestant denominations in America, as well as the creation of new religions like Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Science. Freedom was “in the air,” and people took advantage of it both religiously and politically. 5

Of course, the reformation of the Church never ends.

10

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Liberal Protestantism was also born during this time. Historicalcritical methods were developed and applied to Scripture during the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, and the success of modern science created a skeptical attitude toward Biblical (and other) miracles. A purely (or mostly) “natural” religion was promoted by some (like the Unitarians and Deists). Conservatives responded both theologically and homiletically, publishing new systematic theologies and apologetic works, and holding revival meetings in various forms throughout England and America. Key moderate and conservative Protestant leaders who helped to shape the modern Church include John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Karl Barth, and C. S. Lewis.

THE POSTMODERN AGE (CA. 1950-PRESENT) While modernism per se is still alive and well in particular areas of human thought and activity (like the physical sciences), most critical thinkers today describe the current climate as postmodern. Postmodernists reject what they feel is an overemphasis on reason, science, and other “Western” ways of thinking (including exclusivist Christian truth claims), and instead promote multiculturalism and diversity in matters religious and moral. While the birth of postmodernism cannot be pinpointed with precision, it seems to have its roots in the nineteenth century. However, for some, the First and Second World Wars shattered the modernist optimism that dominated public discourse during the nineteenth century, and so the twentieth century saw the full-blown development of postmodern thinking. The Church is never immune to significant cultural and philosophical trends, and so has been influenced by the postmodern spirit. Most contemporary Evangelicals, it seems to me, are a combination of traditional Christianity, modernism, and postmodernism (in that order). They are traditionally Christian in their foundational beliefs, but are deeply committed to modern medical science and political democracy (the modernist strand). The spirit of postmodernism can be seen in various contemporary Evangelical approaches to ministry and worship, many of which tend to follow current cultural trends.

Nazarenes

Congregationalists

Quakers

Baptists

Wesleyans Pentecostals Methodists

Christian Church Church of Christ

Restorationist Movement

Disciples of Christ

Methodism Presbyterians

Calvinists Lutherans

Modern Judaisms

Rabbinic Judaism

Reformed Churches

Puritans

Anglican Church

Protestantism

Roman Catholicism

Mennonites

Amish

Brethren

Anabaptists Eastern Christianity Eastern Orthodoxy Western Christianity Roman Catholicism

Christianity Second Temple Judaism (1st Cent.)

Figure 1: Judeo-Christian Family Tree1 This family tree is intentionally historical and only accidentally theological. For example, while all the denominations that come from the Methodist tradition have significant theological connections, the Restorationist Movement broke significantly with the Calvinist tradition and became Arminian. The Puritans likewise became very diverse theologically. Mormonism is a new religious tradition, with significant discontinuity with traditional Christianity. Mormons, as we will see, believe that Mormonism represents original, authentic Christianity. 1

CHAPTER 2 MORMON AND EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY: A COMPARISON In this chapter I aim to give a clear overview of basic Mormon and Evangelical beliefs. The goal is certainly not to be comprehensive; that would not be possible in the space of one chapter. Rather, I aim to give the reader a concise statement of the things which matter most to both groups, so that the material that follows in later chapters will be more meaningful and useful.1

SCRIPTURE AND REVELATION The Mormon story begins with Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844). As a child in upstate New York, Joseph was confused by the multiplicity of Protestant denominations. When he was fourteen years old, he prayed about which church to join. At this point, he began to have a series of religious experiences that he claimed were divine revelations. God reportedly told Joseph not to join any of the existing churches because they were all apostate. Joseph was to start a new church that would represent the restoration of true Christianity. In 1830, he and his followers founded what would eventually be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the mainstream version of Mormonism.2 Some readers will be disappointed to discover that I do not critique the beliefs of either Mormons or Evangelicals here, but that is not the purpose of this project. There are countless books in existence that do just that. My purpose is to identify the reasons why Mormons and Evangelicals believe, and to reflect critically on these foundations of faith. For good doctrinal explanations and critiques, see Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997); and Robert L. Millet and Gerald R. McDermott, Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007). 2 Information about Joseph’s experiences are taken from Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985); Richard Lyman Bush, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006); and Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000). After Joseph’s death, a number of smaller groups formed, all claiming to represent authentic Mormonism. The most significant is the Community of Christ, formerly called the 1

13

14

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Also in 1830, the Book of Mormon was printed for the first time.3 It is the story of some ancient Israelites who came to the Americas in the sixth century BCE and founded civilizations here. The story includes postresurrection appearances of Christ to these people. Joseph Smith claimed that the angel Moroni (one of the characters in the Book of Mormon) appeared to him and showed him some gold plates that had been buried in upstate New York in late antiquity, plates that contained these accounts. Mormons believe that Joseph translated these plates supernaturally from an ancient dialect into English, thus producing the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a Scripture for Mormons—the word of God—as is the Bible. In addition, Mormons acknowledge the Doctrine & Covenants (a collection of revelations received by Joseph Smith and other Mormon prophets) and the Pearl of Great Price (a collection of various Mormon materials) as Scriptures as well. Together, these four books function as the “Standard Works.” The Book of Mormon is considered “the most correct of any book on earth.”4 The Bible is acknowledged as the word of God to the extent that it has been transmitted and translated correctly. As a practical matter, the D&C seems to function as the primary authority for Mormons in matters of faith and practice due to the nature of its contents. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS), headquartered in Independence, Missouri. The LDS Church and Community of Christ differ theologically on some key points, particularly in their view of God. The latter are formally Trinitarian in theology, for example, whereas the LDS Church is not. The theology described here and assumed throughout this project as “Mormon” is LDS. 3 My sources for Mormon belief and practice include the following: Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966); Blomberg and Robinson, How Wide the Divide; Shipps, Mormonism; McKeever & Johnson, Mormonism 101; Marc Shindler, et al., Mormonism 201 (www.fairlds.org/apol/morm201, 2005); David Paulsen and Brett McDonald, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity: An Analysis and Defense of the Social Model of the Godhead” in Faith and Philosophy, 25:1 (January 2008): 47-74; and personal interviews with the following Brigham Young University professors: David Paulsen (Philosophy), Mary Jane Woodger (Religion), Robert Millet (Religion), and Royal Skousen (Literature). Unless otherwise noted, material on Evangelical faith and practice comes from my own background and education in the Evangelical world. 4 McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 99. The quotation is from Joseph Smith and is found in numerous Mormon sources.

COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY

15

Mormons also believe in ongoing revelation. The successors of Joseph Smith (the Church Presidents) function as prophets, who sometimes claim revelations that substantially change Mormon practice.5 In addition, the LDS Church is overseen by the Twelve Apostles who assist the President. They also receive revelation. Mormons consider Mormonism the restoration of true Christianity, and attempt to model their religious life on the patterns established in the New Testament. They believe that prophets and apostles should exist in every generation of the Church, as they did in the first, and that God desires to give personal and collective revelation to all of his people perpetually. Evangelicals, as heirs of traditional, orthodox Christianity, accept the Bible as their only Scripture. However, because of their diversity, they disagree about the value, authority, and function of post-Biblical creeds and confessions. Some Evangelicals—like the Baptists—are “noncreedal” in principle. “No creed but the Bible” is a common Baptist slogan. Others, like the Presbyterians and Lutherans, acknowledge the authority of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, formal statements of orthodox Christian doctrine created during the Patristic Age of the Church.6 These also add their own sectarian confessions of faith to their collections of authoritative documents, while in principle not regarding them as Scripture. Whether or not documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian), the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran), and the Thirty-Nine Articles (Anglican) actually function as Scripture for those who acknowledge their authority is a question worth asking. Even Baptists are well-known for “doctrinal statements” that function as highly authoritative documents in some contexts. Nevertheless, only the Bible is recognized as Scripture. The primary philosophical difference between Mormon and Evangelical perspectives on revelation and Scripture has to do with the concept of normative revelation and where, when, and by whom it is received. By “normative” I mean revelation that addresses basic religious beliefs and practices that apply to all Christians in every generation, or beliefs that define Christianity. Mormons believe that Joseph Smith received foundational revelation for the Church—perspectives on the nature of God and salvation that will be explicated below. They believe that this normative revelation is compatible with the Bible, but not necessarily taught by it explicitly. This belief serves to highlight Mormon theological method as well 5 Mormons believe that their basic doctrines have not changed and will not change. 6 See Appendix 2.

16

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

as content. LDS leaders start with the teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors to determine basic beliefs and practices. They then go back to the Bible and read it through the lens of LDS doctrine.7 Evangelicals, on the other hand, assume that the apostles and prophets of the first century received all of the Church’s normative revelation. They are informed here by texts like Acts 20:27, where Paul declares to the Ephesian elders that he had declared to them “the whole counsel of God” (NKJV), and Jude 3, where the author encourages his readers “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (NRSV).8 Evangelicals are divided on the nature of other forms of divine revelation. While acknowledging that the Holy Spirit enlightens and guides believers today, they generally refrain from calling this “revelation” in an effort to highlight the normative nature of Biblical teachings. Exceptions abound, however, in the Protestant Charismatic Movement, which for over a century now has claimed a revival of the New Testament “sign gifts” of prophecy, word of knowledge, miraculous healing, and speaking in tongues. Most of these Evangelicals, however, would not claim normative revelation outside of the Bible.9 The content of these revelations generally has to do with personal guidance (cf. Acts 21:10-12).

A great case can be made that the earliest Christians employed a similar method in their reading of the Old Testament. Although they certainly had Old Testament assumptions in mind when they encountered Jesus, it seems to me that the New Testament authors essentially started with the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ, and then read the Old Testament in light of him (i.e. Christologically/Christocentrically). 8 Unless otherwise noted, all Biblical passages in this work are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and are taken from The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). All quotations from the NKJV are taken from The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments: The New Kings James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983). Those from the ESV are taken from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001). 9 There are some exceptions even to this among some radical forms of Pentecostalism. For a helpful discussion and critique of the unity, diversity, assets, and liabilities of the modern Charismatic Movement, see Donald Bloesch, The Holy Spirit: Works & Gifts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 179-221. 7

COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY

17

GOD AND HUMANITY Evangelicals believe in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity which was developed during the Patristic Age.10 “One God eternally existing in three Persons” (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is the traditional interpretation of this doctrine. Although the meaning of both the oneness and the threeness of God have been debated throughout Church history, generally orthodox Christians confess that the substance of God is one (i.e. shared by the Three without separation) and that the distinctions are such that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can and actually do communicate with one another and with humanity.11 Evangelicals also confess creation ex nihilo, the belief that God called matter into being out of nothing, then shaped it by his power and wisdom. They also teach that humanity was created “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27). For Evangelicals, this means that humans share some divine attributes without actually being divine themselves. To be a divine imagebearer is to be a living picture of God in certain ways, but not a god. They uphold the distinction between God’s communicable and incommunicable attributes. The former include things like holiness and love, attributes that humans can and do share (to a lesser extent). God’s incommunicable attributes are things which are presumably true of God alone, like his selfexistence and omnipresence. Evangelicals believe that this distinction in attributes is essential to a proper understanding of both God and humanity. They ground this distinction in texts that affirm the uniqueness of Yahweh (the LORD). These include Numbers 23:19 (“God is not a human being, that he should lie, or…change his mind”), Isaiah 44:6 (“Thus says the LORD…I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god”), and Jude 25 (“to the only God…be glory, majesty, power, and authority before all time and now and forever”). Mormons, on the other hand, acknowledge the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but they reject the traditional doctrine of the

The United Pentecostals and Apostolic Pentecostals are the exceptions. They reject the doctrine of the Trinity in favor of ancient modalism, the belief that God is one Person, manifesting himself in three ways. 11 For a nice overview of the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity, including differences in how the Trinity has been conceived and articulated within orthodox Christianity, see Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002). 10

18

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Trinity.12 Mormons regard the three divine Persons as separate and eternally self-existent on their own, not just distinct. Their unity is one of purpose, not one of Being or substance—the “result of the willing and free choice of the divine persons to align their distinct wills”—and of shared attributes.13 In addition, all people are regarded by Mormons as eternal, self-existent entities (called “intelligences”), who existed in the spirit world before taking on flesh in this world.14 Our intelligences were somehow clothed by God the Father (Elohim) and the Divine Mother (his wife) with spirit bodies before the world was made (i.e. given spiritual birth in the pre-existence), then sent to earth to become incarnate and to prepare for a return to the spirit world. Joseph Smith and some of his successors taught that God used to be a man (in another world), and Mormons believe that God is embodied (has a physical body). Furthermore, men can become gods. We are all capable of becoming fully divine, since no distinction is made between the various divine attributes (communicable and incommunicable) and since God and humans are of the same basic species. Mormons believe that there are Biblical passages that support this. They include Psalm 82:1, 6-7 (“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment…. I say, ‘You are gods…nevertheless you shall die like mortals”),15 Luke 3:23, 38 (“Jesus…was the son…of Adam, son of God”), and Acts 17:29 (“we are God’s offspring”). To become fully divine in Mormonism, one must join the LDS Church and pursue the Mormon way of life. Most Mormons appear to believe that God the Father (Elohim) will always be ahead of us in his spiritual development. Because of this, he will always be “our God.”

12 Evangelicals and Mormons both use the terms “Holy Spirit” and “Holy Ghost” interchangeably, but Evangelicals usually prefer the former and Mormons the latter. 13 Paulsen and McDonald, Ibid., 54-55. 14 Mormons believe that orthodox Christians appropriated too much Greek philosophy in developing their theology during the Patristic period. Interestingly, the preexistence of the soul was one Greek doctrine that orthodox Christianity rejected but that Mormonism has embraced. 15 Quoted by Jesus in John 10:34. Can you solve the riddle?

COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY

19

CHURCH AND TEMPLE Mormons attend both local churches (called “chapels”) and temples. The former would be recognizable to most visitors who have spent any time in traditional Protestant churches. Sunday School, other classes, and worship services are held each Sunday morning in LDS chapels, and visitors are welcome. Services include the standard elements of singing, speaking, and weekly communion.16 There is no paid clergy, so members take turns giving testimonies and exhortations. All worthy and capable males are considered “priests,” and so can baptize and administer communion.17 Women are not considered priests in the LDS Church. Temples have been and are being built around the world, and are off-limits to visitors. Even Mormons need a “temple recommend” from their bishop (the head of the local “ward” which meets in a chapel). The recommend is a certificate indicating that the individual is a member of the Church in good standing. Special rites and ceremonies take place in the temple. Two of the most important are baptism for the dead and celestial marriage. In the former, living members of the LDS Church are baptized for friends and loved ones who have passed away. This practice is related to two distinctive Mormon beliefs: first, that people in hell receive opportunities for repentance and salvation, and second, that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Since Mormons believe that their marriages will continue into the next life, they get married in the temple and are sealed “for time and eternity.” Evangelicals, of course, believe in the institution of the local church. Most also recognize and utilize the process of formal ordination to the ministry. Ministers are people who have been set aside through the laying on of hands for professional ministry positions, and they are usually paid. Many (probably most) Evangelicals do not ordain women to pastoral ministry because of Biblical passages like 1 Timothy 2:12 (“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent”). Some, however, have begun to ordain women based on passages like

The first time I attended a Mormon chapel, I felt like I was attending a conservative Baptist church with occasional Mormon references. The adult Sunday School class was studying an Old Testament book, and the worship service felt fairly “normal.” 17 Until 1978, the LDS Church withheld the priesthood from black males. In that year, the President of the Church claimed a revelation that changed the policy. 16

20

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Galatians 3:28 (“…there is no longer male and female…”), considering contrary passages temporary, culture-based prohibitions. Evangelicals reject the notion that Christians should build temples, practice baptism for the dead, or plan for marriage in heaven. While it is true that Paul does refer to baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29), Evangelicals collectively do not agree on the meaning of the reference. From a historical point of view, we do not know who was engaging in the practice in the first century, what its significance was, or whether Paul even approved of it. Some Evangelicals believe that this merely refers to new converts taking the place (through baptism) of those believers who had already died. In any case, post-apostolic orthodox Christians have never practiced vicarious baptism, and do not have any reason theologically to do so. There are three forms of church government within Protestantism. They are episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational. Episcopal church government includes the office of bishop, essentially a pastor of pastors who exercises authority over many congregations within a geographical region (a diocese). The worldwide Anglican Communion is so structured (as is Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). Presbyterian and Reformed churches replaced bishops with committees (presbyteries). They practice presbyterian church government. Congregational church government has various manifestations, but the common denominator is the autonomy of the local church. Defenders and practitioners of these various forms all believe that their form is (the most) Biblical. Evangelicals reject the notion of heavenly marriage, based primarily on Christ’s statement in Luke 20:35 that those who rise from the dead “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Mormons believe that Christ was either accommodating the ignorance of the Sadducees (assuming their presuppositions about the afterlife for the sake of argument), or merely excluding the possibility of marriage after death. Evangelicals believe the text clearly teaches that marriage is an earthly institution only.

SALVATION AND THE AFTERLIFE Regarding the incarnation and saving work of Christ, Mormons and Evangelicals are substantially in agreement. Christ became man to live a sinless life, to die an atoning death, and to rise from the dead for the salvation of the world. Mormons believe that his work was essential for human salvation, as do Evangelicals.

COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY

21

“What must I do to be saved?” was the question asked by the jailer in Philippi who was keeping watch over Paul and Silas.18 Mormons and Evangelicals both agree with Paul’s answer— “Believe on the Lord Jesus”—but differ in their understanding about what faith involves and whether it is sufficient. Evangelicals, after centuries of debates with Roman Catholics over the means of salvation, tend to see saving faith in narrow terms: it is simple trust in the saving power of Christ, a trust that will lead to water baptism and will produce some spiritual fruit and good works in the life of the believer. Intentional growth and obedience are not pursued for salvation, but to demonstrate gratitude for God’s grace, to attract unbelievers to the faith, and to glorify God. Mormons believe that Evangelicals engage in hair-splitting when they divorce faith and works. Believing in Christ for a Mormon implies obedience and good works. The Evangelical believes that failure to make a distinction between saving faith and the works it produces, however, leads to the kinds of abuses and corruptions found in the late medieval Western Church. These included the selling of indulgences for forgiveness, and an excessive focus on the self, rather than a focus on the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death and resurrection. Most Mormons and Evangelicals agree, however, that genuine saving faith will produce positive changes in the life of the believer. We have already seen, however, that there is a difference in how Mormons and Evangelicals view Christ. The Christ of the Latter-day Saints is the firstborn of Elohim, the brother of all human beings who qualified himself in the pre-existence to be Savior. For Evangelicals, Christ is the eternal Son and Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity made flesh. As a rule, Evangelicals appear to consider the difference in understanding more important than Mormons do. “I don’t doubt that Mormonism is true, but I’m not sure I want to go to Celestial heaven with other Mormons. I don’t know whether I want to be around those boring, dull people! But if there’s a lot of ‘white trash’ in Terrestrial heaven, I don’t want to go there either!” -disgruntled Mormon Another difference between Mormons and Evangelicals on the topic of salvation has to do with the nature of heaven and hell. Evangelicals believe in one heaven and one hell, and people either go to one or the

18

Acts 16:30.

22

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

other.19 Mormons believe in three levels of heaven: the celestial, the terrestrial, and the telestial. The celestial is the highest level of heaven, reserved for faithful Mormons. The terrestrial kingdom is reserved for pious members of other religions. The telestial is for those who failed to repent and who did not take God seriously, but it is still considered a pleasant experience. Everlasting hell (Outer Darkness) is reserved for the worst among us, according to the LDS Church. Most people in hell will be delivered into the telestial kingdom automatically by the resurrection of Christ.20 Finally, most Evangelicals deny the possibility of a second chance at salvation after death. They, like most traditional Christians, believe that once a person dies, his or her eternal destiny is sealed (cf. Heb. 9:27). Mormons, on the other hand, believe that Christ does, in fact, give people in hell a chance to be saved by sending them missionaries from heaven (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18-20, 4:6). For them, this doctrine solves the problem of the apparent injustice (or cruelty) of condemning those who never heard the Gospel in this life.21 Evangelicals often respond by claiming that God is not obligated to save anyone. Mormons, however, believe that God’s love has led him to give people a chance in the afterlife. Historically, there have been some individual orthodox Christians who have espoused Christian universalism. This doctrine teaches that after serving their sentences in hell, all people there will be given another opportunity to repent and be saved and presumably will do so. However, this doctrine has never been officially endorsed or promoted by Roman Catholic or Evangelical authorities.

In Chapter 5 we will identify differences between Evangelicals on the issue of the duration of hell. 20 Some Evangelicals believe in what is sometimes called “degrees of glory” in heaven, based on spiritual growth and service in this life. It suggests that heaven will be more intensely wonderful for some than for others. An example of this is found in Randy Alcorn, The Law of Rewards: Giving What You Can’t Keep to Gain What You Can’t Lose (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2003). One difference even here, though, is that Evangelicals believe all people in heaven will be together forever, not separated into different “kingdoms.” 21 This is related to the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead. Since, in their view, those in hell cannot be baptized but need to be baptized to be saved, Mormons can assist in the salvation of those in the next world by being baptized on their behalf. 19

COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY

23

MORAL AND SOCIAL STANDARDS Evangelicals and Mormons share many moral and social convictions.22 Both groups believe that truth and morality are objective, and that believers are called to lives of honesty, purity, and selflessness. Both believe in pursuing the common good. Both reject the morality of abortion and homosexual relationships, and are generally conservative politically.23 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints used to endorse and practice polygamy. It formally changed its policy in 1890 and rejected the practice. “Mormon” groups that practice polygamy today are not a part of the LDS Church. Evangelicals, of course, have always criticized Mormons for both the practice and the abrupt change in policy during a time when Utah was in the process of becoming a state. Mormons believe that the change in policy was the result of a divine revelation.24 “That’s naughty pop!” -cute little Mormon kid, pointing at a Coke Mormons have a unique social code given to them by Joseph Smith called the “Word of Wisdom.” It forbids the use of tobacco and the consumption of alcohol and caffeine. Evangelicals differ in their attitudes toward alcohol and tobacco; many oppose these but some do not. Evangelicals generally love their coffee!

22 My descriptions represent these groups as a whole; there are always individual exceptions. 23 During a discussion with a BYU professor about the Mormon view of Christ, I declared, “The real question, though, is this: was Jesus was a Republican?” He grinned and replied, “Of course.” 24 Polygamy seems entirely foreign to American Evangelicals because it has never been a part of mainstream American culture. It was, of course, practiced in ancient Israel and was tolerated and regulated—and in some situations apparently prescribed—by the Law of Moses. While the New Testament does not address polygamy directly, discussions of marriage always assume monogamy, and orthodox Christianity has never endorsed plural marriage. Evangelicals do have to deal with the practice in non-Western cultures (like traditional African societies), and their Western missionaries have not always dealt with polygamous situations wisely. Grave damage has been done to people by forcing polygamous families to dissolve.

24

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

MORMONISM AND CHRISTIANITY “Latter-day Saints want to be different, but not completely different from their Christian brothers and sisters. They want to be ‘in Christianity, but not of it,’ to turn a biblical phrase.” -Reid L. Neilson25 Are Mormons “Christians”? They consider their faith the most authentic version of Christianity in the world, and plead for Evangelicals (and others) to regard them as Christians. Evangelicals generally refuse the request! This issue touches on the broader question of religious definition, a question that arises in every religious tradition. What does one have to believe or do to be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist—or Mormon—since there are varieties of all these (and other) world religions? How does one define a religion? In my judgment, the only fair and legitimate way to define a religion is to let the earliest generations of believers do it. If someone claims to be a Muslim, but rejects the prophethood of Muhammad and the authority of the Qur’an, can he or she honestly claim to be a Muslim? Clearly the answer is no. The earliest Muslims defined Islam in such a way that included these elements as foundational. What if someone claims to be Muslim but rejects the Shari’a (Islamic law)? Now the waters are slightly muddy. One could probably reject some of the Shari’a, but not all of it, and still be authentically Muslim. Jan Shipps, one of the world’s foremost non-Mormon scholars of Mormonism, has studied Mormonism for decades from the perspective of a historian. She has concluded that Mormonism is to (traditional) Christianity, what (traditional) Christianity is to Judaism.26 Christianity was born in the context of Judaism, but soon became something other than Judaism as the early Christians defined what it meant to be Christian. Today it would not be accurate to call Christianity “Jewish.” In a similar fashion, Mormonism was born in a Christian context (nineteenth century Protestant America) and its earliest followers affirmed some traditional Christian beliefs. However, because of its distinct teachings and its rejection of many orthodox Christian beliefs, Shipps concludes that Mormonism is not a part of Christianity. After analyzing the distinctives of Mormonism, she 25 In Rodney Stark, The Rise of Mormonism, Reid L. Neilson, ed., (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005) 16. 26 Shipps, Mormonism. While this paradigm is reflected throughout the book, a concise statement can be found on pages ix-x of the Preface.

COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY

25

concludes that Mormonism is a “new religious tradition.”27 This judgment has nothing directly to do with salvation or the Mormon’s spiritual status. It is made using historical and theological criteria in an effort to define a religion accurately. Her methods and conclusion appear to represent a consensus among non-Mormon scholars.28 It is important to affirm all of these principles in the context of Mormonism as well: Mormons get to define Mormonism theologically. If Mormons tell me that Mormonism is defined by the doctrines explicated above (which they do), then I accept that definition of Mormonism unless there is overwhelming evidence that today’s Mormons have misinterpreted Joseph Smith and/or his earliest followers in a serious way. If someone wants to accuse them of such misinterpretation, then the burden of proof is on him or her to prove that this is the case. Some Mormons seem baffled by the Evangelical’s refusal to regard Mormonism as Christian. However, in light of the fact that many Mormons continue to regard all forms of traditional Christianity as “apostate” and “abominable,” and their own Church as the “one true Church,” and in light of the distinctiveness and unorthodoxy (in historical terms) of Mormon doctrine, Mormons should not be surprised by the Evangelical’s recalcitrance.29 The Mormon expectation, it seems to me, is unrealistic—at least at this point in the history of Christianity. It is important again, however, to affirm that Mormons see themselves as authentically Christian. They see Mormonism as restored Christianity, and make a case for their Christian identity from the Bible itself, as we briefly saw above.30 They also believe that the theology of the Reflected in the subtitle of her book and affirmed within the book. Many other historians and sociologists of religion agree that Mormonism is a distinct religious tradition, possibly on its way toward becoming a new “world religion.” For a litany of scholars who agree with this assessment, see Stark, Rise of Mormonism, 5-6. Stark, himself a leading sociologist of religion and non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism, draws the following conclusion: “…the Latter-day Saints are a new religion” (140-141, emphasis his). 29 Mormon scholars tend to nuance the language of “abomination” and “apostasy,” language that comes from canonical Mormon sources. They assert that there have always been and continue to be genuinely pious and godly Christians in traditional churches, but that the leadership of those churches has distorted the truth and that the structures of Roman Catholic and Protestant churches are unbiblical. 30 We will return to the subject of Mormonism and the Bible in Chapter 5. For a nice debate between a Latter-day Saint and an Evangelical over the question of whether Mormonism is Christian, see Bruce D. Porter and Gerald R. 27 28

26

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

pre-Nicene Church fathers (those of the second and third centuries) was vague and diverse enough to challenge the use of Nicene Trinitarianism to define Christianity. So much for what Mormons and Evangelicals believe. The purpose of this very brief overview was to help the reader make sense out of the answers given to questions about why people believe. It is to this that we now turn.

McDermott, “Is Mormonism Christian?” in First Things (October 2008): 35-41. Porter says it is and McDermott says it is not.

CHAPTER 3 SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH “Honor your father and your mother….” -Exodus 20:12 (ESV) “…I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother…a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me….” -Matthew 10 35-37 (ESV) “People [in Utah] remember their ancestors and what [their pioneer heritage] means to their family. …My father used to say to me, ‘Remember who you are and what you stand for,’ and I can’t say my name without remembering who I am and what I stand for.” -Michael O. Leavitt 1

As human beings, we are all affected deeply by the relationships we have with others. We make decisions based on what other people have taught us and what they will think of us. This is the natural result of living, communicating, and forming relationships with others. Since religion is an integral part of a person’s social life, it is only natural that society would have an impact on our religious beliefs as well. In this chapter I document and analyze the answers that Mormons and Evangelical Christians gave to questions posed during our interviews in order to gain an understanding of how much our social groups affect our faith. I also interpret the data using the work of some influential, contemporary social scientists.

1 Taken from Trail of Hope, PBS documentary/a film by Lee B. Groberg, August 13, 1997. Leavitt has been both Governor of the State of Utah and U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.

27

28

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

QUESTION 9: “WHO WAS OR IS THE GREATEST INFLUENCE ON 2 YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?” Mormons Not surprisingly for members of a religion that is widely known for its emphasis on family, most Mormons listed their parents as the most influential on their religious beliefs. They speak of how well their parents lived out their faith and how, in all things, they taught their children to be “good people” and to believe in the basics of the faith. The most interesting aspect of this most prevalent answer is, however, the fact that it was given regardless of the faith their parents held. Many participants, in fact, as will be discussed in more detail later, had grown up in non-Mormon families. The next most common answer given is probably best categorized as “church figures.” Several participants mentioned various church leaders such as bishops, mission leaders, youth leaders, and the President of the LDS Church himself. Evangelicals The Evangelical answers for this question have much in common with the Mormon answers. The most prevalent answer was, again, a parent or family member. Admittedly, there are many more different family members mentioned in the Evangelical answers than in the Mormon answers. In fact, nearly as many Evangelicals mentioned their spouse as mentioned their parents. Yet family is still the overwhelming social influence for the average Evangelical just as it is for the average Mormon. The second most popular answer that Evangelicals gave for this question was a spiritual leader. Many people mentioned a pastor or Sunday school teacher as well as Christian authors and theological teachers. This answer also parallels the Mormon answers. In contrast to the Mormon responses, however, the Evangelicals provided a clear third category. Several participants answered that the most influential person on their faith was a close friend or co-worker. Analysis The top two answers for both groups seem to highlight some of the most basic and important values of Mormons and Evangelicals: the biological 2

See Appendix 3 for the entire questionnaire.

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

29

family and the church family. What exactly makes a person’s nature susceptible to depending on these two groups? A very plausible answer to this question may be found in the work of Rodney Stark, a highly influential Protestant sociologist and scholar of Mormonism. Stark explains that investments of time, emotion, energy and even material are defined as “capital.” This capital can be applied to relationships (social capital) and even religion (religious capital).3 For example, people in general invest huge amounts of time, energy, emotion and money into their family members. In fact, when a child is very young, immediate family members are the people who make it possible for the child to invest anything in anyone in the future. Family members are, with a few exceptions, the biggest objects of investment a person will make in a lifetime. Friends are also significant in this regard. Stark continues by pointing out that as a true investment, we expect to be able to make withdrawals. He states, “…we can draw upon this capital in times of need—our friends will rally to our support.”4 Those with whom we have spent time, and for whom we have sacrificed emotions and finances are expected to do the same for us when we are in need. It is a rare circumstance for a person to invest much into a relationship from which they expect to receive little. Thus, to give up these relationships is to give up a significant sense of stability and security. As relational people we must have these connections to be fully healthy emotionally. This idea can also be applied to church leaders. When a person makes the decision to invest their time, emotions, finances and energy in a particular faith, certain people are included in the package. By making an investment in the faith they are automatically investing in the people who have also made this same commitment.5 Thus, the investor has greater social and emotional access to pastors, teachers and other believers than people who have not made the same kinds of investments. Throughout the course of gathering this information, it was almost impossible to finish an interview with an LDS subject—especially those living outside of Utah—without detecting just how much he or she valued, cherished and leaned on biological and church families. It should not surprise us that Mormons, as religious minorities in most places, are inclined to depend very heavily on one another since they have a smaller 3 Rodney Stark, The Rise of Mormonism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005) 63. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., 64.

30

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

pool of people around them that have made the same investment of social capital in a religious context. Evangelicals appear to be more influenced religiously by people outside their family or church than Mormons. Evangelicals, being so numerous in the United States, would find it easier to make friends with people of a similar faith in various contexts (like work and the neighborhood) simply because there are more of them. Mormons, on the other hand, might be harder pressed to find people with beliefs similar enough to theirs that are not also family and church members. It is also possible that family and church are so important to Latter-day Saints and require so much investment of time that little time is left to develop significant relationships outside these circles. Nancy Ammerman, professor of sociology at Boston University, summarizing the work of many sociologists, concludes the following about the influence of personal relationships on religious faith: People can believe in the ‘objective truth’ of their version of the world so long as they have social relationships and interactions that tend to confirm more than deny that version. Some interactions count more than others, of course, so what my spouse believes to be real counts more than what a more remote or otherwise distrusted source believes to be true. Even more fundamentally, sociologists would point out that most people…get through life without much thinking about what they believe and why.6

QUESTION 10: “WHAT WERE THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF YOUR FAMILY WHEN YOU WERE GROWING UP?” Mormons The vast majority of Mormons that participated in our study grew up in religious households. “Religious” is used in a broad way here because the different answers mostly fall within this category. Whether their households were Mormon, Evangelical or Roman Catholic, the average Mormon grew up in a household with at least a basic knowledge of the Christian faith. Most Mormon participants grew up with Mormon parents. They describe their parents as being strong in the faith and active in the church. But many also talk about their parents’ conversions from various Protestant or Roman Catholic traditions. 6

permission.

Nancy Ammerman, email reply to me, 06/28/08.

Quoted with

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

31

This second category is no surprise to anyone who knows the story of Joseph Smith and the founding of the LDS Church. Just like that of their religion’s founder, about a quarter of the responses indicated a Protestant family background. While these backgrounds range from Lutheran to Pentecostal they all produced Mormon converts. With that in mind it is important to point out that many of these answers were given with a stipulation. Their families were Protestant but they attended church infrequently or irregularly, thus building up very little religious capital. Just as Joseph Smith felt that the Protestant churches of his day left something to be desired, the families of these participants had become dissatisfied with Protestant Christianity, so they turned to the LDS Church for answers. Evangelicals The Evangelical response, once again, is very similar. Nearly all of the participants grew up in some kind of “Christian” environment. Many of these families had participated strongly in the church while a few had been nominal in their commitment. The majority of the responses specified Protestant environments while only a very few indicated a Roman Catholic background. Analysis It appears from our interviews that the religious beliefs of one’s family play roughly the same role in influencing one’s religious beliefs whether those beliefs are of the Evangelical or LDS variety. Most of our Mormon and Evangelical participants had a solid base on which to build their beliefs. Even if their families had not adopted the same level of participation in the religion, very few objected to the participants’ current level of commitment. The social risk one takes to strengthen a weak faith is nothing compared to the risk of abandoning or radically changing an entire belief system. Once again, religious and social capital play into these phenomena. A person is going to be disinclined to abandon a faith in which he or she has invested years of time, money, and emotion.7 Thus, the faith in which they were brought up and taught to invest in is likely the faith that the person will continue to affirm. Christian Smith, another highly influential sociologist of religion at the University of Notre Dame, conducted a study of Protestant Christians that revealed a pattern. There was very little movement between 7

Stark, Ibid., 65-66.

32

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

denominations let alone from Protestant Christianity to another religion in the cases he studied. If a person had grown up as an Evangelical Christian they were most likely to remain an Evangelical Christian as an adult.8 The cost of leaving a religion in which one has established religious and social roots is just too great when compared to the benefits and ease of remaining in that religion and capitalizing on what has already been established. While it is true that many teenagers go through a period of questioning, many also reaffirm the faith of their family later on. To abandon the faith of your family is to say to them that what they believe and taught you to love is wrong. Such a move often severs or severely injures relationships. Thus, social capital is quickly and extensively diminished when a person abandons the faith of their family, whatever that faith may be. In a conversation that Smith and I had about why he thinks, from a sociological point of view, Evangelicals believe that their faith is true, he concluded the following: I know of no sociological works seeking to explain why evangelicals believe what they do. Some old psychologists have tried to connect it with authoritarian personality…but that is empirically unfounded. …Sociologists study many things about evangelicals, but explaining why different people believe what they do is a tricky one. The only really obvious explanation that all the studies confirm is this: People mostly believe what they were raised to believe.9

QUESTION 13: “HOW MUCH DO YOU ASSOCIATE WITH PEOPLE THAT HOLD TO OTHER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?” “All my friends share my religious beliefs because I am a pastor, but I am spending too much time with Christians!” -Evangelical subject Now we move away from the direct influence of family on religious belief to the question of interacting with religious outsiders. Both Mormon and Evangelical faiths emphasize the importance of interacting with people of other faiths in order to evangelize them. Therefore, in theory, all Evangelicals and Mormons should cultivate relationships with all people of 8 Christian Smith, American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998) 48. 9 Christian Smith, email reply to me, 05/17/2008. Quoted with permission.

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

33

all religions. Obviously, the rules, norms, and structure of today’s society put restrictions on all of us and often prevent or hinder this goal from being reached. This question seeks to find out whether Mormons or Evangelicals have better success in overcoming these obstacles and to what extent each group really understands the beliefs of others as a result of spending time with those of a different faith. Mormons This question produced a clear pattern among the Mormon participants. An overwhelming majority of them answered that they interact frequently with people of other faiths. Most of this interaction was with acquaintances and more often than not occurred in the work place. However, some of them mentioned that they also have friends of different faiths. Evangelicals The top answer that Evangelicals gave for this question was that they did not often interact with people of other faiths. However, the few Evangelicals whom we interviewed who live in Utah responded that they often interacted with people of other religions. Interestingly, the second most popular answer among Evangelicals (about half as frequent as the primary answer) was that they did frequently interact with people of other religions. Analysis The truth of the following sentence is crucial to understanding the responses to this question. Mormons are a minority in this country.10 One can hardly expect a Mormon to function as a minority and only come into contact with other Mormons.11 Thus, the results of this question may only indicate a numerical contrast rather than a Mormon/Evangelical one. 10 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 281,421,906 Americans in the year 2000 (www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html). In that same year about 20,000,000 Americans considered themselves Evangelical Christians (Smith, Ibid., 1) and just over 11,000,000 belonged to the worldwide LDS Church (Stark, Ibid., 141, 145), a slight majority residing outside the United States (Stark, Ibid., 11). The point here is that Evangelicals far outnumber Mormons in the U.S., making it easier for Mormons than for Evangelicals to associate with others. 11 There are basically two options for any religious minority: 1) interact frequently with people of other religions; 2) create isolated communities. Sects of

34

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

In order to shed more light on this subject we posed this same question to Mormons who existed in a majority setting. In Utah, the home base of Mormon culture, the tables are turned and it is the Evangelicals who fall into the minority. In this setting the Mormon answers took on a different tone. Most of them answered that as long as they had lived in (or around) Utah they had not interacted as much with people of other religions as they had when they had lived elsewhere. Many said that they just did not have the opportunity since they attended or taught at a Mormon school or spent most of their time at the church. Others mentioned that there was a fairly strong fear of persecution because of the historic relationship between the LDS Church and other churches (particularly the Protestant denominations). There is yet one aspect of this question that is left unanswered. In spending time and creating relationships with people of other religions, how well have Mormons and Evangelicals been able to understand them and their beliefs, and to what extent do they allow themselves to be influenced by them? Although more research would be needed to draw any firm conclusions, my suspicion is that overall, members of both groups really do not understand the beliefs of others or the rationale behind those beliefs very well because the relationships that do exist are fairly superficial and so much of the focus is on evangelistic strategy. There are exceptions, of course, but this seems to be the general rule. To the extent that this is true, it reinforces the common sense conclusions of social scientists that we are all, indeed, deeply influenced in our faith by those with whom we agree.12

all kinds have tried this second option. These communities, while at times successful in surviving the test of time, often do not grow to significant numbers. They are secluded and thus do not reach out for converts. Often this is the result of the fear of religious dilution. The LDS Church has chosen to interact with the broader culture but has been careful to maintain a certain amount of tension with the rest of society. For a more in-depth discussion, see Stark, Ibid., 135-136. Smith makes a similar claim for mainstream, American Evangelicalism (Smith, Ibid., 84-85). 12 Years ago I heard someone say that people go to church to be reassured that their beliefs are true. While there is probably more to church attendance than this, I think there is something profoundly true about the observation.

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

35

QUESTION 15: “WHAT WOULD BE THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR YOU IF YOU CONVERTED TO ANOTHER RELIGION?” “This is not a valid question; you can tell your professor that.” -Evangelical subject “…[In] Christianity…the possibility of social psychological coercion over time is real.” -Sara Savage13 Anne Townsend grew up as an Evangelical and was enthusiastic about her faith. But eventually she left the Evangelical world and became a liberal Protestant. She came to the conclusion that she had believed many things, in her words, “to fit in comfortably with the expectations of my family and…of evangelical culture.”14 She describes the social and psychological consequences of this change as follows: …I felt very isolated. …I knew that I would face criticism and longed to go on being loved and accepted by those people…who most of my life had been my ‘church family’. I risked ostracism and that was costly. I also had to come to terms with the guilt I felt for ‘defecting’ from the faith I had once shared with these others. Some of them would empathize with my predicament, but I also realized that I was cutting myself off from any of those whose capacity to understand was so limited that they would now be unable to accept me and might humiliatingly treat me like a ‘backslider to be won back to the fold’. …I had tried to share my despair and my crumbling beliefs with fellow evangelical Christian leaders. …[Most] to whom I talked gave me the impression that if only I prayed harder, read my Bible more, ‘claimed God’s promises’, had a prolonged holiday, or took a sabbatical, everything would be all right. But it wasn’t.15

Hugh Montefiore is Jewish by birth, but as an adult he became a Christian and eventually was ordained to the ministry. This caused serious social problems for him within his Jewish community. In his words,

13 Sara Savage, “A Psychology of Conversion—from All Angles” in Previous Convictions: Conversion in the Real World, Martyn Percy, ed. (London: SPCK, 2000) 9. 14 Anne Townsend, “Out of the Playpen” in Previous Convictions, 34. 15 Ibid., 41.

36

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS …[The] main problem is social and cultural…. To Jews I am a meshummad, a traitor, because I have been baptized and become a Christian. …Christianity, in the eyes of Jews…[is] the enemy. [Among] orthodox Jews there is a period of mourning (like mourning for the dead) when a member of the family is baptized, so great is the feeling. (Fortunately this did not happen in my case.) …Although I remained in good relations with my parents after my conversion, I found I no longer had contact with my uncles and aunts and cousins, or with Jewish friends and the Jewish community generally for many many years after I was baptized. Even my relations with my siblings were not easy.16

Robert Johnson left the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and became an Evangelical as a young adult.17 He once told me in a private conversation that the social consequences he suffered were “major.” His family was devastated. His Aunt was very angry, called him “apostate,” and refused to forgive him. His mother and sisters left him and while he still speaks to his father, the conversation is “superficial.” The fact is, many people experience terrible social and emotional conflict when they convert from anything to anything. We wondered whether our Mormon and Evangelical subjects had ever imagined what the consequences would be for them if they ever converted to another religion. We were trying to infer the extent to which social pressure might have influenced their faith as it currently stood. So we asked. Mormons The Mormon answers to this question will surprise most people who have read a fair amount of literature written about Mormon culture. According to our results, most LDS participants have very little fear of being “shunned” or of losing relationships. They mostly noted that their friends and family would be surprised but those closest relationships would remain intact. They did mention that some LDS members might stop talking to them but their important relationships would be unharmed. They may be pressured to “reconvert” but as long as they remained a “good person” they would be able to retain most relationships. In fact, a few actually said that nothing would happen and it would be no big deal socially.

16 Hugh Montefiore, “From Faith to Faith” in Previous Convictions, 21, 23. We will return to the stories of Townsend and Montefiore below. 17 This gentleman’s name has been changed to maintain confidentiality.

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

37

Evangelicals The Evangelical responses to this question were much more negative. The most common answer was that their friends and family would be very troubled. About half of these respondents noted that they would not be disowned and that they would be able to maintain their relationships. Some listed several very unfortunate consequences including ruined marriages and the loss of jobs and friendships. Most were confident that they would maintain most of their close relationships but it was impossible to miss their very pessimistic view of the situation. Some of the participants who said that they would be able to maintain their relationships also mentioned that these same people would (or they hoped they would) try to convert them back and that there would be a lot of heartache and sadness. In general, while a change like this does not mean abandonment to most Evangelicals, there is clearly a lot of distress involved in considering the situation. Analysis The Mormon responses to this question fly in the face of the impression many people have that Mormons are trapped in their religion and risk the pain of banishment if they choose to leave it. Clearly, LDS members do not believe that the consequences are nearly as dramatic as some have portrayed them. In reality, this response is really not surprising when one considers the answers that most LDS members gave to the first question in this category and even the most basic Mormon doctrine. Their ties to family are extremely important to them. I can see how it would be very difficult for a dedicated Mormon who has grown up in the faith to imagine being cut off from these deeply entrenched relationships as a result of any action— including leaving the faith. Whether or not they would, in reality, be “banished” is another question entirely. To attempt to answer this question we will rely on Stark’s discussion of Mormon socialization and social and religious capital as well as our own findings.18 Every religion has a socialization process meant to prime a believer to believe and act in a way that best benefits the needs of the community. The effectiveness of this process is judged by the participation rate of its members in areas like service, financial support, and outreach to nonmembers. The Mormon socialization process, as Stark notes, produces extremely high participation and dedication in its members.19 This can be 18 19

Stark, 114-138. Ibid., 122.

38

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

observed in the amount of time and energy Mormons give to their church on a regular basis. For example, LDS clergy are not paid. The bishop of a ward has many of the responsibilities of a paid, full-time Evangelical pastor. However, he must also work a full-time job and maintain a very active family life. This teaches younger Mormons that to be very faithful is to be very successful.20 Also, Latter-day Saints have an obligation to serve the Church in any way they can when they are called upon. It is not uncommon for Mormons to pick up their families and move to a different location when Church headquarters “calls” them. To add to all of the services that Mormons perform very willingly for their church at home, many Mormon young people dedicate eighteen months to two years of their young adulthood to the mission field. They are sent all over the world and their daily routine involves interacting with people and conversing about serious religious matters. They gain the experience of watching conversion in action as a result. As Stark notes, “…to gain converts greatly increases the missionary’s obligation to remain faithful—to then lapse from the church is, in a deeply emotional way, to break faith with those converts.”21 Clearly, average Mormons, especially those who have been Mormon from their birth, must build up an incredible amount of social and religious capital in order to fully participate in the religion. This fact makes conversion away from the faith very unlikely from a sociological point of view. To be specific, social scientists have found that conversion most often takes place when a person has either experienced a significant life change such as marriage, relocation, or divorce, or in the mid-adolescence time of life when people tend to search for freedom from parental control—or when their relationships with members of a particular religion outweigh their relationships with others.22 In other words, conversion takes place

Ibid., 137. Ibid., 129. 22 See, for example, Sara Savage, “A Psychology of Conversion – From All Angles” in Previous Convictions: Conversions in the Real World, Martyn Percy, ed. (London: SPCK, 2000) 4-5, on adolescent conversion. Savage is a psychologist at the University of Cambridge. Stark concludes the following: “To the extent that people have or develop stronger attachments to those committed to a religion in a different tradition than to those committed to their religion or a version of it, they will convert” (Stark, Ibid., 64). Finally, Smith found in his study that a significant number of people dropped out of church after getting married or divorced and that studies of religious conversion “repeatedly demonstrate the importance of positive, 20 21

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

39

when religious and social capital are in early developmental stages or in transition. It is hard to believe that the social consequences of conversion would be as minimal as the Mormon answers portray them.23 I met a number of ex-Mormons during the several years that I devoted to this research. There seems to be a consistency to their actual experience and their perceptions of the experiences of others who have left the LDS Church. They said that family relationships, while not completely broken, were significantly changed and strained. Neighbors, however—at least in Utah—were more likely to shun them completely. Evangelicals seem to have a real appreciation for the likely social consequences of conversion. The Evangelicals whom we interviewed foresaw a lot of pain and loss of closeness. This mirrors the experience of conservative religious people who convert from anything to anything. Christian Smith’s study of defections from Evangelical Christianity provides helpful insight. He noticed that often times, people who did leave the Evangelical world behind and who encountered little resistance from relatives came from families that were irregular church attendees or had stopped attending altogether. When the defector left, the family simply did not care.24 These people did not have to risk much at all socially in order to make the decision to stop attending church. Thus, the religious capital at stake for people who encounter little or no social consequences is very small. To conclude, while the answers to this question are a bit different for Mormons and Evangelicals, it is quite likely that the reality of the situation would be (and is) about the same for all conservative religious people whose families and friends are deeply committed. After all, while Mormons and Evangelicals believe different things, relationships are relationships and we are all human. It is probably impossible to quantify the influence of those around us on our faith, but clearly it is substantial.

affective network ties to religious groups in facilitating religious conversions” (Smith, Ibid., 171). 23 This question was one of only two on the entire questionnaire that called for respondents to speculate. 24 Smith, Ibid., 171. Defectors are people who simply drop out of church altogether.

40

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH: CONCLUSION The questions that we asked our participants in this section were meant to shed light on the fundamental issue of social influence on faith. Family is important in establishing the beliefs of both Mormons and Evangelicals. It may influence Mormons even more than Evangelicals since Mormons believe that the family unit will last forever. Associating with members of other religions is encouraged by both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints, though both groups seem to spend more time and energy in relationships with those of the same belief system. The consequences for leaving the faith seem to be the same, although Evangelicals seem to have a more realistic understanding of them. All of this leads us to ask some other fundamental questions. First, how much should society and personal relationships influence our faith? That is, how much should our relationships with other people and the benefits we receive personally from being part of a certain religious group affect our understanding about what is and is not true? Should relationships keep us from converting to another faith? Should we worry about hurting those relationships in determining what to believe and where to worship? Second, to what extent do spiritual experience and reason affect our faith? Is social pressure the main influence on the faith of adults? And finally, to what extent should spiritual experience and reason determine our beliefs? Why did Anne Townsend leave Evangelicalism and become a liberal Protestant? And what caused Hugh Montefiore, a Jew, to become a Christian? Were the reasons primarily sociological? That is, were old relationships ended or new ones formed that caused the conversions to take place? Townsend had been a medical missionary in Thailand along with several of her friends. While there, seven of these friends and five of their preschool-aged children were killed simultaneously in an accident.25 The ultimate result of this tragedy was that Townsend was led to question, reevaluate and eventually change her faith. How could an omnipotent and allgood God allow this? Why would He not protect His own children? She almost lost her faith completely. This experience—along with other rational challenges to her faith—led her into such deep despair that she eventually attempted suicide.26 However, she saw a hospital chaplain who convinced her to modify, rather than to reject, her faith. This she did, becoming a 25 26

Townsend, Ibid., 33-34. Ibid., 42.

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

41

liberal Protestant, content to live with uncertainty and committed to experiencing “the thrill of journeying through new territory.”27 Montefiore attributes his conversion to one overwhelming spiritual experience alone. He says, …I did not decide to convert: it was decided for me. To put it simply, when sitting alone in my study at school I had a vision of a figure in white accompanied by the words “Follow me’, and I instinctively knew it was Jesus—don’t ask me how, as I had never read the New Testament or been involved in any Christian worship or even discussed Christianity with anyone. The event was self-authenticating, and took over my life. It seemed to me that the only way I could obey such a call was to join with other followers of Jesus; and that meant being a member of the Christian Church. That was it. It was as clear cut as that.28

Clearly, spiritual experience and reason—along with social influences—are critical in determining the religious beliefs of some people. We will return to the sociological questions in the book Conclusion below. But now we turn to the question of spiritual experience in the lives of Mormons and Evangelicals, and the influence of that experience on their faith.

Ibid., 43. Hugh Montefiore, “From Faith to Faith” in Previous Convictions: Conversion in the Real World, Martyn Percy, ed. (London: SPCK, 200) 19. 27 28

CHAPTER 4

SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH “…the Spirit is the one that testifies…. Those who believe... have the testimony in their hearts.” -1 John 5:6b, 10a “…ask God, the Eternal Father…if these things are not true…he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” -Moroni 10:41 “It is by the inner work of the Spirit that we perceive the mysteries of Christ.” -Donald Bloesch2 Here I report and analyze answers to questions about religious (or spiritual) experience.3 To what extent does internal confirmation inspire and sustain faith among Mormons and Evangelicals, and why are believers in both groups confident that their inner assurance is from God? Since Mormons usually refer to the Holy Spirit as the “Holy Ghost,” I will use this designation to describe their religious experience, and “Holy Spirit,” the Evangelical preference, for Evangelical experience. This use of language is not only the preference of each group; it should also serve as a symbolic reminder that Mormons and Evangelicals differ in their understanding of this Being.4

1 From The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981). 2 Donald G. Bloesch, The Holy Spirit: Works & Gifts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 274. 3 Throughout this project, I use the phrases “religious experience” and “spiritual experience” synonymously. I also assume that the experience occurs internally (within the individual) unless there is reason to think otherwise. 4 See the discussion in Chapter 2 above.

43

44

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

QUESTION 4: “TO WHAT EXTENT HAS SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS 5 EXPERIENCE INSPIRED OR SUSTAINED YOUR FAITH?” Mormons Almost all the Mormons we interviewed told us that spiritual experience influenced their faith to a great extent. Prayer and Scripture reading were by far the most significant here. Beyond these, many different things were mentioned, like sacraments, Temple ordinances, preaching, LDS General Conferences, and missionary experiences. Evangelicals The vast majority of our Evangelical subjects also said that spiritual experiences were very important to their faith. These included Bible reading, church activities of various kinds, and prayer (in that order). However, many of them also said that these experiences were insufficient to sustain faith or that they were not the most crucial reasons for faith. Analysis Already in the answers to this question we see both common ground and difference in Mormon and Evangelical approaches to faith and religious knowledge. Both groups affirmed the importance of religious experience as a foundation for faith, but the Evangelicals qualified their answers in ways that were not typical of the Mormons. The reasons for this difference will become clear as the project unfolds and a pattern emerges.

QUESTION 6: “MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS CLAIM TO HAVE THE WITNESS OF THE HOLY GHOST/HOLY SPIRIT IN THEIR HEARTS CONFIRMING THE TRUTH OF THEIR FAITH. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE ASSURANCE YOU HAVE IN YOUR HEART IS FROM GOD?”

We thought that this would be a very difficult question for our subjects to answer, but given the importance of the “inner witness” to both groups, we

5 Subjects were told that spiritual or religious experience included things like prayer, preaching, reading Scripture, and rituals (like ordinances and sacraments).

SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS

45

felt it was one of the most important questions we could ask. How did our subjects do? Mormons By far, the most frequent answer given by Mormons was that the “testimony of the Holy Ghost” gave them a “good feeling.” The second most common answer was rather philosophical. These subjects reasoned that the witness was “good” and since all good things come from God, the witness must be from God. The third most common answer had to do with one particular aspect of the experience for some Mormons. These subjects described the witness in physical terms: it produced a physical burning or warmth, “goose bumps,” or some other physical sensation. Two more answers were tied for fourth in terms of frequency. A substantial number of Mormons claimed that they knew the testimony was from God because of the spiritual fruit that resulted from their faith.6 An equal number described the experience as unique; that is, no other experience could compare to it. This last answer is intriguing. Other answers attempted to describe what the experience was or was like. This answer describes the experience in terms of what it is not like. The experience must be from God because it is not like any other (natural) experiences that people have. Evangelicals For Evangelicals, the most frequently cited reason for believing that their inner assurance was from God was Scripture: the witness agrees with the Bible. The second most popular answer was similar to the dominant Mormon answer: “I know the inner witness is from God because it gives me feelings of peace and confidence.” Beyond these answers, Evangelicals told us that the witness was known to be reliable “by faith alone,” because it is the Holy Spirit testifying, because the witness is a “prompting,” because “I just know,” and because there is no reasonable explanation of the spiritual experience other than God.

This issue came up frequently in answers given to questions about faith and reason as well. See Chapter 5 below. 6

46

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Philosophical Analysis Overall, I was impressed with the Mormons’ ability to articulate their experience of the “testimony,” given the widespread assumption in our world that religious experience is fundamentally ineffable. Although “feeling” was emphasized, some of our subjects were able to go beyond this. For example, one whom I personally interviewed made it clear that the testimony of the Holy Ghost was “deeper than feelings,” and another knew it was from God because it was “imposed” on his soul, and had not “arisen” from within. On the other hand, our Evangelical subjects really struggled with this question. To say that the witness is from God because it agrees with Scripture is to beg the question, How do you know that Scripture can be trusted to tell you the truth about God? The same can be said for claiming that the witness is from God because it is the Holy Spirit. Those who said that God was the best explanation for the experience do seem to have thought about the nature of the experience in a reasonable way. It does not surprise me that Mormons did a better job of putting their spiritual experiences into words, given the great emphasis on existential (personal) revelation within Mormonism—including the experience of the “testimony.” Whether one reads Mormon literature or interacts with committed Mormons personally, one will soon realize how important this approach to religious knowledge is for them. They talk about it regularly and consistently affirm it as the primary approach to establishing spiritual truth. F. Enzio Busche, emeritus member of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the LDS Church, illustrates this point powerfully.7 Busche was raised in Germany and as a youth was drafted into the German army during World War II. The war inspired him to ask the typical questions of meaning. Eventually he encountered some LDS missionaries, who presented the “restored Gospel” to him. Slow to accept their message, Busche gave traditional Protestant and Roman Catholic varieties of Christianity a fair hearing in his German context. Both lacked the spiritual vitality and doctrinal certainty that he was seeking. As a result of his prayers for guidance, he experienced dreams, feelings, and promptings that directed him to read the Book of Mormon. This reading gave him the power to quit smoking, something that he had been unable to do before. Busche still did 7 F. Enzio Busche, Yearning for the Living God: Reflections from the Life of F. Enzio Busche, edited and compiled by Tracie A. Lamb (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004).

SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS

47

not convert easily; he had many questions that had to be answered. As he received answers from Church leaders, he continued to experience internal confirmations. Finally, he had a vision that overwhelmed him. In that vision he saw himself standing alone, confessing the truth of the LDS message. He was convinced. Soon after, he was baptized. Busche describes his testimony in the following terms: My testimony came neither from my brain nor from my own achievements or capabilities, but from a higher source that was so powerful and strong that ever since that time I have continued to grow in my testimony of the Prophet and the Book of Mormon. Today the Book of Mormon is, in some dimension, a much stronger element of my own testimony than the Bible, and the Prophet Joseph Smith holds for me, in some ways, a stronger place than any other prophet. He is the one through whom a dimension of understanding about human life was established, one that is absolutely refreshing and full of hope, especially when we take into account his lack of formal education, his having no mentor, and having no one to help him. The legacy he left had to come only from God. In it, we can find all answers to all challenges mankind is confronted with.8

Busche seems to have captured the quintessential Mormon approach to religious epistemology here. A recent work by Gerald N. Lund, member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, addresses this issue in the context of a broad, Mormon pneumatology.9 Among the many questions that Lund addresses are the following: Of all the “voices” in the world competing for our attention, how can we know which is the Lord’s? How do we come to recognize that voice? How can we distinguish between the Lord’s voice and our own natural faculties? And in what ways does the voice of the Lord come? He notes, “Almost always the questions boil down to one issue: How do I know for sure when it is the Lord speaking to me?”10 Before answering the questions, Lund tells a powerful story about a mistake that a Mormon bishop made when he was young. The bishop was called to the hospital to administer a blessing (healing) to a Mormon woman who had collapsed and was in a coma. The husband was desperate. Ibid., 91. Pneumatology is the doctrine of the person and work of the Holy Ghost/Spirit. 10 Gerald N. Lund, Hearing the Voice of the Lord: Principles and Patterns of Personal Revelation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007) 6-7. 8 9

48

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

As the bishop began to administer the blessing, he suddenly had an “overwhelming feeling of peace and light.” It was so powerful that he concluded it must have been the voice of the Lord assuring him that the woman would be healed. He then promised the woman that she would recover. He and the husband “wept for joy.” A few hours later, however, the woman died.11 In describing the “still, small voice” of the Holy Ghost, Lund, quoting both Scriptures and Church leaders, concludes that it involves both “thoughts and feelings.” He then asks the question, again, “If He speaks to us through thoughts and feelings, how are we to distinguish between His thoughts and feelings and our own?”12 Lund likens the constant flow of natural thoughts and feelings that humans have to a great river. The river never stops flowing. When the Holy Ghost speaks, it is like someone occasionally throwing a pebble into the river. His voice produces spiritual fruit, brings conviction, gives consolation, inspires, is deep, meaningful and penetrating, makes impressions on the mind, gives directions “from above,” produces positive or negative feelings that give direction, and is both simple and precise.13 Regarding the emotions, Lund recognizes that it is possible to mistake a natural feeling for the voice of the Holy Ghost.14 He claims, however, that one learns to discern the feelings that come from God through practice, even though this appears to be an example of circular reasoning. In other words, you just know when it is God. “But frustrating or not,” he says, “that is reality. This is part of the undefinable language of revelation.”15 Nevertheless, there are, according to Lund, certain characteristics that can be identified with the emotional aspect of the work of the Holy Ghost. These include a sense of inner peace that something is right or a sense of uneasiness that something is wrong, and the ability to “forget” (i.e. dismiss) something that at first seemed so important or desirable.16 Furthermore, the Holy Ghost often gives some kind of second confirming witness when he speaks, either through another internal impression or through positive or negative practical results.17 Lund clearly warns of the real possibility of confusing one’s own emotions with the work

Ibid., 8. Ibid., 52-53. 13 Ibid., 60-61. 14 Ibid., 92. 15 Ibid., 93. 16 Ibid., 94-104. 17 Ibid., 57-59, 76-77, 164-168, 256-257, 273. 11 12

SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS

49

of the Holy Ghost. In his experience, Latter-day Saints usually make this mistake when they want something too badly.18 Lund seems to associate the “testimony of the Holy Ghost” regarding the truth of Mormonism primarily with the mind. He suggests that the voice of the Holy Ghost brings understanding of the belief system, demonstrates the practical value of that system, produces spiritual fruit in the one who believes, and creates an assurance that grows over time.19 He warns against associating it with a physical sensation.20 Evangelicals, on the other hand, are divided on the nature of the Holy Spirit’s work in the Church today, and the fear of subjectivity seems to keep Evangelicals from developing the doctrine of the Spirit’s inner witness fully and consistently—although few would deny its reality or importance. Virtually all Evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit’s testifying, enlightening, and convicting ministry is essential for conversion. However, Evangelicals as a whole hesitate to rely too heavily on the inner witness—at least consciously. This ambiguity is probably a reflection of the diversity within Evangelical theology itself and a reaction against some dynamics within mainstream Christian history. A recent work on pneumatology by a leading Evangelical theologian, Donald Bloesch, is a case in point. While the book is excellent in many ways, Bloesch’s treatment of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit reinforces both the validity of that witness and the discomfort that comes along with it in the experiences of Evangelicals. For example, in his comments on 1 John 5:10 (“those who believe…have the testimony in their hearts”), he says, “To be sure John affirms that those who believe in the Son of God have the testimony in themselves…. [For] John, however…the apostolic testimony is irrevocably binding on us.”21 This appeal to apostolic testimony is a reference to 1 John 1:1-4, which grounds the Gospel in the eyewitness testimony of the apostolic author. Evangelicals generally associate this testimony with the New Testament itself. Bloesch concludes his analysis of the objective and subjective in 1 John as follows: The continuing witness and developing tradition of the apostolic church needs to be illumined by the Spirit if it is to have final or ultimate Ibid., 230-231, 243-246. Lund uses marriage as an example, telling the story of a young lady who attended BYU and was told by eight different young men that they had received a revelation that she should marry them! 19 Ibid., 86-90. 20 Ibid., 95-97. 21 Bloesch, Holy Spirit , 316. 18

50

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS authority for faith. At the same time, John is not espousing subjectivism, for the spirits must be tested (1 Jn 4:1-2). Inward commitment must be united with external allegiance: ‘Anyone who does not stand by the teaching about Christ, but goes beyond it, does not possess God; he who stands by it possesses both the Father and the Son (2 Jn 9 REB).22

Bloesch seems to be saying that while the inner witness of the Spirit is important—indeed essential to the “final authority” of the Gospel contained in Scripture—one must test this witness by Scripture. This kind of circular reasoning is fairly widespread in Evangelical approaches to religious knowledge.23 Garry Friesen, another Evangelical theologian, has documented the diversity within Evangelicalism on the nature of the Spirit’s internal work. Friesen critiques and rejects the “traditional view” that the Holy Spirit guides believers in their daily decision-making through internal impressions. He does, however, acknowledge the foundational testifying ministry of the Spirit vis-à-vis the truth of Christianity and the Christian’s personal salvation. Of this he says, ...the Spirit takes the objective Word of God and convinces our inner spirit that it is true. This gives a conviction and an assurance that the Gospel is 100 percent true and we are God’s children. …This work of the Spirit happens every time someone believes the Gospel and is given assurance that he is a child of God.24

In my experience, Evangelicals as a whole tend to assume the authority of Scripture most of the time. That is, Scripture functions as a sort of self-evident truth, a first principle from which everything else follows. When pushed to defend their confidence in the Bible, they vacillate between a reliance on the Spirit and an appeal to rational evidences Ibid., 316-317. I commend Bloesch’s attempt throughout the book to affirm and balance the subjective and the objective in theological and spiritual matters. My only point here is that in his attempt to be balanced, the reader’s own hesitations and reservations concerning the inner witness of the Spirit are reinforced. In other parts of the book, the testifying and enlightening ministries of the Holy Spirit are affirmed, but not developed. The words “enlightenment,” “illumination,” “testimony,” “inner,” and “witness” do not even appear in the index. 24 Garry Friesen with J. Robin Maxson, Decision Making and the Will of God, rev. ed. (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, Inc., 2004) 102. The book was first published in 1980 and has been widely debated within Evangelicalism ever since. 22 23

SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS

51

(apologetics), never quite sure which to emphasize. The practical treatment of the Bible as a first principle in the lives of Evangelicals, is, I think, the result of three reactions within mainstream, conservative Protestantism. These reactions involve Roman Catholicism, liberal Protestantism, and the Charismatic movement. The Evangelical focus on the Bible was forged over against the overemphasis on ecclesiastical authority in the late Medieval Church, the undermining of Scripture among the liberal Protestants of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the excesses of the contemporary Charismatic movement, with its overemphasis on personal revelation and subjective experience. There appear to be dangers in both Mormon and Evangelical thinking on the topic of the inner witness. Mormons are often accused of confusing emotion with the work of the Holy Spirit, and of relying too heavily on this emotion. While we discovered more substance to their experience than the stereotype acknowledges, it does seem to me that this danger remains for at least some Mormons. Even Busche, who connects the work of the Holy Ghost to other experiences and insights, at times calls it a feeling.25 We all know how unreliable emotion can be. On the other hand, a classic Protestant doctrinal statement, the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, also uses the word “feel” to describe our experience of the Spirit. Article XVII declares, “…godly persons…feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh….”26 It seems to me that if one perceives the work of the Spirit as a feeling alone, one is in danger of misperception. If a feeling is connected with spiritual fruit and a measure of reason, however, then one is probably justified in believing that the feeling is the result of genuine encounter with God—unless, of course, there is a really good reason to doubt it. As we have seen, inconsistency is a danger for Evangelicals. Furthermore, it seems to me that Evangelicals need to be careful how they critique the Mormon “testimony” experience, given their own belief in the Spirit’s inner witness. The Mormon experience is also called the “burning of the bosom,” a description that has support in passages like Jeremiah 20:9 (“within me there is something like a burning fire”) and Luke 24 (“Did not our hearts burn within us?”), and in the experience of some Evangelicals.27 Busch, Yearning 255, 270, and 295. Book of Common Prayer, 871. 27 The conversion experience of John Wesley, an Evangelical hero from the 18th century, is a classic example. Wesley described the experience as one in which his heart was “strangely warmed.” See John McManners, “Enlightenment: 25 26

52

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Of course, Evangelicals—especially ex-Mormon Evangelicals—can always question whether the Mormon experience is to be equated with the New Testament’s teaching about the inner witness. Psychological Analysis Psychology of religion is a relatively new field of study. In fact, it has only been within the past several decades that scholars have begun to study religion and religious experience systematically using psychological methods.28 During this time period, psychologists also have done much work on the nature of emotion, but very few have actually integrated the research on religion and the research on emotion.29 Is the inner witness of the Spirit merely an emotion, and can psychologists shed light on the nature of this religious experience? A significant social scientific study conducted in 1989 by C. Ullman concluded that conversion is “more based in emotion than it is on an intellectual search process.” In examining conversion among four different faith groups, Ullman found that the converts reported a greater degree of emotional distress in childhood than did nonconverts, and were more likely to say that emotional stress was a more important factor in their conversion than was a “cognitive quest.”30 Robert Emmons, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, has reviewed the work that has been done on religion and emotion and has continued the process of analyzing the relationship between them. In a recent publication, he summarizes the work that he and others are doing in this area, and suggests where future research should go. Emmons notes the “long and intimate” connection between religion and Secular and Christian (1600-1800)” in The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, J. McManners, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) 293. 28 Raymond F. Paloutzian and Crystal L. Park, “Integrative Themes in the Current Science of the Psychology of Religion” in Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Paloutzian and Park, eds. (New York: The Guilford Press, 2005) 3-5. Paloutzian and Park acknowledge the well-known fact, of course, that the founders of modern psychology (late 19th and early 20th centuries) analyzed religion, but they claim the field “abandoned…systematic scientific research in the psychology of religion” for the next forty years (4). 29 Robert A. Emmons, “Emotion and Religion” in Paloutzian and Park, Handbook, 235. 30 Robert A. Emmons, “Emotion and Religion” in Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Raymond F. Paloutzian and Crystal L. Park, eds. (New York: The Guilford Press, 2005) 247.

SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS

53

emotion, and is convinced that the former both generates and regulates the latter.31 The connection manifests itself in three major ways. First, religion prescribes certain emotions and prohibits others. Second, beliefs about God give rise to specific emotions. For example, if/when one sees God as loving, positive emotions may be felt, whereas if/when one sees God as vengeful, one may experience negative emotions. Third, religion allows people to feel close to God.32 Emmons then identifies and analyzes emotions that have a particularly close connection to religious beliefs and experiences—what he calls “specific sacred emotions.” These are awe, reverence, wonder, hope, and gratitude.33 According to Emmons, the few studies that have been done on these religious emotions have shown their positive benefits.34 The emotion that appears to have the most relevance to our question is gratitude. Emmons notes, “In the great monotheistic religions of the world, the concept of gratitude permeates texts, prayers, and teachings.”35 He then cites a social scientific study conducted in 2001 which suggested that the positive emotion of gratitude has three moral functions. It serves as a moral barometer, a moral motivator, and a moral reinforcer. That is, it gives us a sense of our moral condition, it prompts us to “behave prosocially” in the present, and it increases the likelihood of “future benevolent actions” on our part.36 Another study conducted in 2001 concluded that gratitude “creates the urge to creatively repay kindness.”37 A study conducted in 2002 showed that “spiritually or religiously inclined people have a stronger disposition to experience gratitude than do their less spiritual/religious counterparts.”38 Ibid., 237. Ibid. 33 Ibid., 239-242. Many other emotions—both positive and negative—are also involved in religious experience, but these “sacred emotions” appear to be particularly connected to religion. Other emotions—like love and fear, for example—are also highly significant outside of religious experience. 34 Emmons also identifies the positive benefits of the disposition and action of forgiveness, something which he calls a “religiously based technique that has been shown to be powerful in regulating negative emotions” (243). It should be noted, however, that religious experiences also can generate unhealthy emotions like excessive guilt and shame. 35 Ibid., 239. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., 245. 38 Ibid., 239-240, emphasis mine. 31 32

54

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

What does all this have to do with our question of identifying God as the source of one’s inner assurance? While the five “specific sacred emotions” are obviously not limited to the experience of the inner witness, they are certainly connected to it. I imagine that most spiritual people would agree that the deep conviction they feel is associated with the awe, reverence, wonder, hope, and gratitude that are a part of their religious experiences and the assurance that flows from those experiences. While no social scientist can connect a particular experience with God per se, the connection between gratitude—a particularly religious emotion—and morality may provide a meaningful link between one’s inner assurance and the ultimate source of that assurance. Theistic philosophers have made significant links between human morality and the existence, nature, and immanence of God. If human rights and duties are objectively real, then it may be that the existence of God is logically necessary to explain their objective reality. Experiences that reinforce commitment to those rights and duties (like those which inspire gratitude) can be interpreted reasonably as coming from God. This research also helps us to see the value of these emotions, even if a direct connection between sacred emotions and God cannot be made objectively.39

39 Psychologists tend to include under the rubric of “emotion” interior experiences that I would rather call “spiritual dispositions.” The five “specific sacred emotions” fall into this category in my judgment. To the average person, “emotion” is synonymous with “feeling,” and feelings come and go frequently. But awe, reverence, wonder, hope, and gratitude may be deeper than feeling and tend to be fairly constant for deeply religious people, even when feelings wane. Psychologists are studying other connections between the human psyche and religion as well. For an overview of possible genetic links to spirituality, see Jeffrey Kluger, et al., “Is God in Our Genes?” in Time 164:17 (October 25, 2004): 62-72. For a detailed explanation of observable brain function associated with religious experience, see Andrew B. Newberg and Stephanie K. Newberg, “The Neuropsychology of Religious and Spiritual Experience” in Handbook, Paloutzian and C. Park, eds., 199-215. For some interesting observations about personality types and religious affiliations, see Thomas G. Carskadon, “Psychological Type and Religious Preferences” in Research in Psychological Type 4 (1981): 73-78; and Ralph L. Piedmont, “The Role of Personality in Understanding Religious and Spiritual Constructs” in Paloutzian and Park, eds., Handbook 253-273. Carskadon and Piedmont both note the tentative nature of their conclusions, and urge further research. For connections between religious affiliation and psychological disorders, see Coval B. MacDonald and Jeffrey B. Luckett, “Religious Affiliation and Psychiatric Diagnoses” in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 22:1 (1983): 15-37.

SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS

55

In reality, the question before us is really about the justification of faith. There is probably no way to prove objectively that anyone’s inner witness is from God (even assuming God’s existence), but maybe we should ask ourselves whether or not we ought to believe that the inner witness is from God. One might conclude that its connection with gratitude and moral/spiritual growth leads to an affirmative answer. More about this later. QUESTION 8: “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES OF [PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION], ESPECIALLY THOSE WHICH SEEM TO CONFIRM THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO THEM?”

This question flows out of one of the great dilemmas of religion: the experience of internal confirmation of some kind in virtually every religious tradition. We wondered what committed Mormons and Evangelicals thought of competing religious experiences. Mormons Mormons overwhelmingly had good things to say about the spiritual experiences of non-Mormon religious people. Why? The dominant answer had to do with the goodness of God. Heavenly Father is fair, we were told; He does not play favorites. He is involved with everyone’s life and invites all people to pray to Him. The second most frequently given answer has to do with the nature of the world’s religions themselves, according to Mormons. These respondents told us that there is truth in all religions. The third and fourth most frequently given answers both have to do with the nature of humanity. Mormons told us that they do not discredit the experiences of others, implying that they are not capable of knowing what others experience. Furthermore, since all people are God’s children, we were told, God speaks to all people. Evangelicals Evangelical responses to the question of the confirming experiences of non-Evangelicals were amazingly diverse. The dominant response was negative: these experiences are not from God. Those who responded in this way were divided in their opinion about the nature of the experiences themselves. About half were willing to attribute non-Evangelical religious experience either to self-deception (i.e. purely psychological phenomena) or

56

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

to Satan. The other half were unwilling to make a judgment about the origin of these experiences except to say that they were not from God. The second most frequent explanation was mildly positive. These subjects said that God can work in peoples’ lives however He chooses, and that human beings should not judge the religious experiences of others (implying that we are unqualified to make such judgments). The third answer given was moderate. These Evangelicals thought that some religious experiences of non-Evangelicals could be from God; it depended on the nature of that experience. Experiences that confirm truths taught in the Bible or point people in the direction of Christ might be from God, even though the people having the religious experiences are not Evangelicals. Beyond these explanations, a fair number of Evangelicals told us that they simply could not answer the question or that experience of any kind is inadequate to validate religious truth claims. One person told us that all religious experience is unreliable. Analysis The differences in the Mormon and Evangelical responses are not terribly surprising. Because Mormons believe that the resurrection of Christ automatically delivers most people from everlasting hell, and that people in hell now have opportunities to repent, it seems reasonable to think that Latter-day Saints might have a positive view of other peoples’ religious experiences in this life. Evangelicals, on the other hand, tend to draw more stark contrasts between those who are “in” and those who are “out,” and so it is not surprising that they, as a whole, are more suspicious of the religious experiences of outsiders. The diversity of the Evangelical responses also seems to reflect the diversity of Protestantism itself on this and a host of other issues as well.

CHAPTER 5

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” -John 1:1 (my translation/transliteration) “…false teachers…[are] like irrational animals….” -2 Peter 2:1, 12 (ESV) "[The beliefs of men] . . . follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds." -Thomas Jefferson1 In this chapter I report answers to questions about faith, reason, and doubt that both Mormons and Evangelicals gave during the interviews, and I provide commentary on the issues raised.

QUESTION 16: “TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU HAVE FAITH BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT MORMONISM/EVANGELICALISM IS 2 REASONABLE?” Mormons When asked whether or not they thought their faith was “reasonable,” the vast majority of Mormons interviewed said they believed it was reasonable in the sense that is was internally coherent, helped them to understand the meaning of life, helped them to create functional families, and was compatible with the Bible. Virtually all of them said, however, that reason was not the basis for their faith. Only the Holy Ghost can confirm the truth of Mormonism in the heart of the believer. Once he does, the faith seems reasonable.

Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) 545. 2 As with all the questions, Mormons were asked about Mormonism, and Evangelicals about Evangelicalism. They were not asked about the other belief system; only their own. By “reasonable” we simply meant “appealing to the mind.” 1

57

58

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Analysis The Mormons were extremely consistent here. This is not surprising, given the constant focus on spiritual confirmation of religious truth within the LDS Church. Their collective response to this question leads one to believe that they are essentially presuppositionalists. Mormon answers to some of the other questions in this section create doubt about this conclusion, however, as I demonstrate below. Evangelicals Unlike the Mormon answers to this question, those provided by Evangelicals were quite diverse. The answers fell into four different categories, which correspond amazingly well to the four approaches to faith and reason described in the Introduction above.3 Most Evangelicals said that while their faith was reasonable, reason was not the foundation of their faith. They believe that faith is required to make sense out of the evidence. This is essentially presuppositionalism. The second most frequent answer given corresponded roughly to evidentialism. These subjects said the following things about rational evidence for faith: “Evangelical Christianity’s uniqueness is rationally foundational.” “The faith is true because of the evidence.” “I converted because of the evidence.” “The mind testifies to the truth of Evangelicalism.” The other two types of responses were tied for third among our subjects. An equal number said, on the one hand, that faith was reasonable but that one needed more than reason to believe (essentially the classical approach), and, on the other hand, that their faith was not reasonable at all but was still true (fideism). The fideistic answers included comments like “Christianity is outside the box and drastic,” “it goes against everything that human reason can grasp,” and “God sending His Son is not logical.” Analysis The diversity among Evangelicals, again, is not surprising, given the disagreement among Evangelical philosophers and theologians on the question of faith and reason—a disagreement which is reflected in 3 This was not in any way arranged on our part. The Evangelical answers to Question 16 naturally fell into four categories, and after so arranging them we discovered that the four basic approaches to faith and reason were reflected in them.

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

59

Evangelical institutions of higher learning, and which in turn affects the way Evangelicals, including ministers, are educated. These approaches are promulgated in the teaching and preaching to which lay people are regularly exposed in church, and in the popular publications which they read.

QUESTION 18: “WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE BEST PROOF 4 OR EVIDENCE FOR MORMONISM/EVANGELICALISM?” Mormons The number one answer given to this question by Mormons was spiritual fruit. Mormons believe that the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, etc.)5 and good works manifested in their lives as the result of their faith are strong evidences for the truth of Mormonism. They also mentioned the good works (charity) done by the LDS Church collectively. The second most common answer given—and a very close second at that—was the Book of Mormon itself. There are a number of phenomena related to the Book of Mormon that impress Mormons. They believe that the length and nature of the book point to divine inspiration. To them, the simple Joseph Smith could not have written the book by himself in such a short time.6 They believe that he was able to pick up the translation each day without repeating himself or asking where he had left off, and never had to correct himself during the dictation.7 Mormons also believe that the Book of Mormon has been changed less than the Bible has. By “evidence” we meant anything rational that seems to confirm religious truth claims; that is, things to which virtually all people have access and which seem to point in the direction of the claim. 5 See Matthew 7:16 and Galatians 5:22-23. Mormons referred to these passages frequently during the interviews, either explicitly or implicitly. 6 Presumably, the vast majority of the Book of Mormon was translated/written within a span of one year, but even within this period the transcription was often interrupted by circumstances and presumably took no more than four months of actual work. See the discussions in Shipps, Mormonism 20-23; Bushman, Joseph Smith 70-83; and Ensign (June 1994): 24 (available through the Gospel Library at www.lds.org). 7 He did correct the original manuscript before it went to the printer, but it is not clear whether he was correcting himself or his scribes. See the discussion in Royal Skousen, “History of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon” in Uncovering the Original Text of the Book of Mormon: History and Findings of the Critical Text Project, M. Bradford and A. Coutts, eds. (Provo, UT: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at BYU, 2002) 5-8. 4

60

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

They believe that it is doctrinally compatible with the Bible, has never been disproved, is historically accurate, and is literarily sophisticated.8 At least one Mormon thought that the story of the book of Mormon was commonsensical. “Why wouldn’t Jesus visit the Americas?” he asked.9 The third most common answer given to the question of evidence for Mormonism was God’s blessing on the Church. Subjects noted three major blessings: the perseverance of the LDS Church through times of suffering and persecution, the global growth of Mormonism, and improved personal circumstances—particularly financial increases, meaningful friendships, and strong family life. The fourth most common evidence for Mormonism identified by our subjects has to do with its perceived compatibility with the Bible, particularly in terms of ecclesiology. Mormons are convinced that the structure of the first-century Church described in the New Testament is a model for all churches in every generation. They believe that apostles and prophets should guide the Church now as they did 2000 years ago, and they regard their leaders as such. Furthermore, in their judgment these leaders should and do receive special revelation relevant to issues faced by the Church today. They are convinced that appealing to the Bible alone as a source of divine revelation is not possible because people interpret the Bible so differently.10 Their solution to this hermeneutical challenge is the revival of the apostolic and prophetic offices and the “sign gifts” (especially prophecy).11 A few Mormons told us that fulfilled prophecy, the life and influence of Joseph Smith, healing miracles that they had experienced, 8 Regarding the literary claim, see the discussion in Royal Skousen, “The Systematic Text of the Book of Mormon” in Uncovering the Original Text, 45-66. Apparent Hebraisms and chiasmus in the text are among the evidences identified by Skousen, BYU linguistics professor and the world’s leading textual scholar of the Book of Mormon. 9 I have heard Evangelicals make a similar casual argument for the divine origin of the Bible. “Why would God create us and then not speak to us?” they ask rhetorically. 10 Joseph Smith’s teenage confusion about which church to attend continues to reverberate throughout Mormonism to this day in the form of a hermeneutical critique: “Which denomination interprets the Bible correctly?” Mormons ask. 11 Mormonism is essentially an unorthodox, pre-Pentecostal, charismatic movement. Joseph Smith and his followers claimed to have experienced tonguesspeaking and divine revelations about seventy years before Protestant Pentecostalism was born.

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

61

answered prayer, the spiritual testimonies of other Mormons, nature, the fullness of the Mormon gospel, and communication from the dead all support Mormon truth claims. Analysis The Book of Mormon Mormons obviously believe that the Book of Mormon is a real historical account of people in the Americas from the sixth century BCE to the fifth century CE. Most critics of Mormonism point to the lack of archaeological and other historical evidence for the Book of Mormon to support their claim that the book is fiction, not history. The latest evidence presented against the historicity of the book comes from the recent DNA controversy. The Book of Mormon (implicitly) and the LDS Church (explicitly) teach that modern Native Americans are the descendents of the ancient Israelites who came to America. DNA testing of Native Americans reveals, however, that the ancestry of Native Americans is Asian, not Hebrew. As a result of this, a few Mormon scholars are having some “inhouse” debate about the historicity of the Book of Mormon narrative. Some of them are suggesting that the Book of Mormon is historically fictitious but theologically true. Most Mormon scholars reject this and continue to maintain the historicity of the story.12 12 Simon Southerton, in his book, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004), documents the issue. Some Mormon scholars claim that the Book of Mormon allows for the coming of Asian people groups to America and that the Book of Mormon Israelites may have intermarried with them. While Mormon scholars generally do not claim positive archaeological confirmation for the book of Mormon, they do believe that Mesoamerican geography and archaeology allow for the historicity of the Book of Mormon story, and even point in its direction. This is the conclusion of John L. Sorenson, former professor of anthropology at BYU, in his An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985; 1996 reprint). Rodney Stark, the influential sociologist of religion referenced in Chapter 3 above, is impressed by this evidence. He says that Sorenson’s map, created exclusively from Book of Mormon sources, turned out to be “a remarkable fit for the area surrounding the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico and northern Guatemala” (Rise of Mormonism, 120). On a related note, Robert L. Millet, BYU professor of religion, concludes that even the historical aspects of the faith must be established by spiritual means. “In the end,” he says, “the reality of golden plates and Cumorah and angels may be known only by an independent and individual revelation.” See “The Book of Mormon, Historicity, and Faith” in the Journal of

62

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

What about changes in the Book of Mormon over the past 200 years? Most of these appear to have been changes in spelling and grammar—efforts to clarify the original meaning of the text. The Mormons whom we interviewed clearly believe that these changes are no threat to the book’s integrity, and that the Bible has been changed more than the Book of Mormon. This is a very interesting perspective, given the fact that Evangelicals often cite changes in the Book of Mormon as evidence against its authenticity. Mormons think that the Biblical textual variants are more theologically challenging than are changes in the text of the Book of Mormon. Are they right? It is difficult to compare changes in the two books since there are so many differences in their makeup and transmission histories. The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible are ancient (and medieval) and the English manuscripts of the Book of Mormon are modern. The Bible was copied by hand for approximately 1400 years before the printing press was invented, whereas the Book of Mormon was printed almost immediately after its original dictation was recorded by hand. The Bible is multi-authored, and the Book of Mormon was written—or, according to Mormons, translated—by one person (Joseph Smith). In the end, it seems to me that in each case we know essentially what the original version of the book was, although in neither case will we ever be certain of every verse.13 Blessings on the Church Is there evidential value in the claimed blessings on the LDS Church? All of the “blessings” have a real basis in Mormon experience. Nineteenth-century Mormons certainly were mistreated by their neighbors at times, and pioneers suffered great loss on their way to Utah. Nevertheless, the community survived and built a thriving society in Utah.14 It is also true that Book of Mormon Studies 2:2 (1993): 1-13. This response is in keeping with the heavy reliance in Mormonism on internal confirmation of religious truth claims. 13 For discussions of Biblical textual criticism, see Mark R. Norton, “Texts and Manuscripts of the Old Testament” and Philip W. Comfort, “Texts and Manuscripts of the New Testament” in P. Comfort, ed., The Origin of the Bible (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992; 2003 reprint) 155-214; see also Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). No original manuscripts of the Bible have survived, and only 28% of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon is extant today. See the discussion in Skousen, “History,” 6. 14 I had the privilege of giving a lecture in a philosophy class at BYU during the fall of 2006 in which I introduced myself as a “friendly Protestant.” The

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

63

Mormonism did experience exponential growth throughout the twentieth century. In 1947, the Church had one million members. In 1997—just fifty years later—membership stood at ten million.15 Furthermore, there certainly do appear to be social and financial benefits to being Mormon. Members of the LDS Church are committed to the well-being of their fellow church members, and the Church is known for its financial security. Insiders view such phenomena as evidence of God’s blessing, whereas outsiders tend to provide alternative explanations.16 Defenders of the faith in all of the world’s religions can tell similar stories and can use them as evidence of God’s blessing on their particular religious tradition. Ecclesiastical Structure The issue of Mormonism’s compatibility with the Bible on the issue of ecclesiastical structure is very interesting. It seems to me that there are two issues at stake here. The first has to do with interpreting the New Testament description of the office of an “apostle.” The second has to do with doctrine. Are the results of modern prophetic Mormon experiences theologically compatible with the Bible? On this issue both sides assume the authority of the Bible and seek to demonstrate that their approach to church authority is “Biblical.” Simply put, Mormons believe that Christ is still appointing apostles in the Church, whereas most Evangelicals do not. In the New Testament, apostles are appointed by the resurrected Christ directly to preach the Gospel, and are granted revelation associated with that message. Traditional Christians of almost every variety believe that the apostolic age ended at the turn of the second century CE and that bishops professor jokingly told the students that that really was not an oxymoron. The collective Mormon memory to this day tends to associate Evangelicals with the persecutors of Mormons in the past, something that Evangelicals should keep in mind when interacting with members of the LDS Church. 15 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 283-284. Counting the number of adherents in any religious group is difficult for at least two reasons. First, how committed does one have to be in order to be considered a member? Second, different groups manage their numbers differently. I interviewed more than one ex-Mormon who claimed that the Church often baptizes people who never follow through on their presumed commitment but who are counted as members nonetheless. The same sorts of problems exist in counting Evangelicals too. Nevertheless, however one counts the members of the LDS Church, it is clear that the religion has experienced impressive growth throughout its history. 16 Benevolent critics tend to interpret these things sociologically, whereas “anti-cultists” often consider the entire Mormon experience demonically-inspired.

64

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

and pastors took their place, leaders who relied on the original apostolic revelation contained in Scripture (and in oral tradition) for their proclamation of the Gospel. Mormons believe that with Joseph Smith and the founding of the LDS Church, Christ restored the office of apostle and that he gives revelation to the Mormon apostles who lead the Church today. Even if one assumes the authority of the Bible, a simple dismissal of the claim that the apostolic office is in force today is problematic. In principle, if Paul can become an apostle after having encountered the resurrected Christ visually and audibly, then conceivably Christ could appear to someone today, impart revelation, and commission that person to preach and lead the community.17 Clearly this is not the historic Tradition of the Church. The Christian leaders of the second century and beyond did not consider themselves apostles. According to them, that office was reserved for the initial witnesses of Christ whose testimony was foundational to the Church, something which seems to be implied by Scripture itself (Eph. 2:20; Heb. 2:3-4), but is by no means affirmed explicitly.18 Communication from the Dead Some of the Mormons whom we interviewed claimed confirmation of their faith by means of communication from the dead. Mormons not only believe that Christ and angels can and do appear to people today, they also believe that sometimes their departed loved ones appear to them in this life. In my interviews with Mormon scholars at BYU, the definition of “apostle” was an issue. They point out that there is more than one understanding of “apostle” in the New Testament. To be a member of the original Twelve, one had to have followed Christ throughout his entire three-year ministry (Acts 1:2122). But Paul can claim the title simply by virtue of his encounter with Christ and the commission to preach associated with that experience (Gal. 1:11-17; 2 Cor. 11:5). On this basis, Mormons claim the right to recognize apostles in the Church today. I would remind Evangelicals that their own denominational scholars defend episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational forms of church government today, and they all think that their ecclesiology is Biblical. Of course, they agree with one another that the office of apostle was historically foundational and is no longer in force. 18 To complicate this issue further, it may be that the first-century apostles failed to address the question of long-term ecclesiastical structure in detail because they did not expect the world to continue past the first century. Paul, for example, seems to expect the end of the world within his own lifetime in passages like 1 Thess. 4:13-17 and 1 Cor. 7:25-32. 17

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

65

I heard some stories to this effect, but those telling them were not willing to elaborate because the stories were so personal. While this makes many outsiders (including me) uncomfortable, analysts of the religion should resist knee-jerk reactions to this phenomenon, remembering similar stories in the Bible. The most obvious is the story of the appearance of Moses and Elijah to Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-13). Mormon Prophecies Mormons believe that some Biblical prophecies were fulfilled with the founding of Mormonism and that some of Joseph Smith’s prophecies came true as well. Both function as evidence for Mormons. Regarding the former, Mormons believe that Ezekiel predicted the coming and authority of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in Ezekiel 37:16-19: “Son of man, take a stick and write on it, ‘For Judah…’; then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph….’ And join them…that they may become one…. I am about to take the stick of Joseph…and…the stick of Judah, and make them one…in my hand.” Mormons claim that the stick of Judah is the Bible and the stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon.19 Furthermore, they believe that Joseph accurately predicted things like the American civil war decades before they happened, and that this helps to authenticate his true prophetic nature. Mormon scholars acknowledge that some of Joseph’s prophecies were not fulfilled (like the imminent establishment of Christ’s kingdom in Independence, Missouri), but it is difficult to say whether most Mormon believers are aware of these apparent failures.20 Contemporary Mormons also claim to experience the gift of prophecy. F. Enzio Busche, emeritus member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, tells of a Mormon woman who made an amazing prediction that came true. [She] told me the Lord had told her that a big flood would come and there would be a river running down State Street in Salt Lake City. I thought she was a little deranged because we were in a desert. How could a river possibly run through the middle of the city? Of course, I was shocked when just a couple of months later, there was a river running

See the discussion in Shipps, Mormonism, 29-39. See McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 260-261; and Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987) 186-195, for other examples. 19 20

66

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS down State Street. It was the famous 1983 flood, which came practically without any warning.21

Busche claims that this woman predicted many other events that did, in fact, occur. He also tells of one of her predictions that did not come true.22 Interestingly, critics of orthodox Christianity often accuse either Jesus or his earliest followers of failed prophecy regarding the end of the world, particularly as it pertains to the famous “generation” saying in Matthew 24:34 and parallel passages ( “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”). The New Testament is full of the language of imminence, and for some, the question of the first-century skeptics remains: “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Pet. 3:4).23 Evangelicals tend to be quick to criticize Joseph Smith and Mormonism on this issue, but rarely seem to worry about the apologetic challenge of New Testament apocalypticism. One Mormon scholar whom I interviewed in Utah shared his conviction that to virtually all prophets who “see” the future, those events seem closer than they really are. Healing Stories The healing stories told by Mormons stand out because of their compelling nature. One deeply disgruntled but still-believing educated Mormon told a story of miraculous healing from his own childhood that continues to confirm the basic truth of Mormonism to him to this day, even though he no longer goes to church.24 When he was a child, he had severe bronchitis. He turned to his Mormon grandfather and asked for healing. His

21 F. Enzio Busche, Yearning for the Living God: Reflections from the Life of F. Enzio Busche, edited and compiled by Tracie A. Lamb (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004) 188. 22 Ibid., 189-90. 23 See the discussion in Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: First Complete Edition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001 reprint based on the 1913 edition). Also note the comments in the Preface by Marcus J. Borg regarding Schweitzer’s interpretation of Christ’s teachings: “[the ethics of] the Sermon on the Mount...were intended for the last few months of the world’s existence.” Evangelicals offer a variety of interpretations of the generation saying. My point here is not to resolve the questions which surround predictions, their fulfillments, and their apparent failures; I simply note the controversial nature of the issue. 24 He stopped attending after concluding that the LDS leadership would not interact honestly with rational evidence against Mormonism.

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

67

grandfather anointed him with oil and prayed for him. He was healed immediately. Busche tells of his own supernatural healing in his autobiography. Busche was raised in a secular home. Before he had even begun to investigate the claims of the LDS Church, he developed a severe liver disease. Doctors told him it was terminal. Busche describes his response to the news as follows: …I felt indescribable panic. …I could not escape being confronted with absolute truth. I felt unclean, completely unfinished, and unprepared to leave this life for the unknown. …My panic was so acute that I made…a covenant. ‘If [I recover], I will never be the same. …I promised myself that I would live differently.25

On the wall of the hospital hung a crucifix. Busche realized his need of someone beyond himself. He then had a vision. He saw a flash of light and heard a voice promising healing if he would pray. Then, he says, “I was miraculously healed. …[The] doctors had to admit that a complete miracle had transpired.”26 This was one of many experiences that led him to convert to Mormonism. Busche also tells many other stories from his life and the lives of other Mormons that one philosopher calls “configuration miracles.”27 These are stories of circumstances aligning in such a way that the one experiencing the series of events is strongly inclined to attribute the alignment to God directly. The following represents one of the many stories that Busche tells. In his own words, On 17 April 1990, I received a telephone call from a member of the Church in Pittsburgh. He asked if I would be available to meet Joseph Schultz, a man from Germany with whom he had been working on a business project.…Mr. Schultz wanted to come to Salt Lake City…to find out more about the Church. …Wednesday evening I picked up Mr. Schultz at his hotel, and we spent the evening in our home. It was a wonderful evening as I shared the events that led to my conversion…. He soaked in the message of the restoration with the humble, open heart of an innocent child. …Mr. Shultz reported that during the night in his hotel room, he [smoked a cigarette]. [He] said a voice told him, ‘Enjoy this one Busche, Yearning, 50-51. Ibid., 55. 27 Winfried Corduan, No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997) 154. 25 26

68

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS because it will be the last.’ …I continued to explain the plan of salvation…. As we continued to talk…Mr. Schultz mentioned his desire to spend one more day with me in order to get a better understanding…. I had to tell him that early the next morning, I had to leave to preside over a stake conference somewhere in the east…. He mentioned that he also had a business meeting in…New Brunswick [Canada]. …When I checked my calendar…I nearly fainted when I realized that I was going to…New Brunswick…. For a moment, we were both stunned. …[In New Brunswick] we continued to talk about the gospel under the influence of the Holy Ghost. …He bore a powerful testimony of the restored gospel…. [He returned to Germany.] I contacted the appropriate German mission president…and told him about Joseph Schultz. [The president met with Schultz and his wife to answer their questions. Both Schultz and his wife decided to get baptized.] …When I talked with Brother Schultz later, he said that…his wife had broken her foot…. Her doctor had recommended that the cast not get wet for six weeks. He said, ‘We do not understand what this means. Doesn’t the Lord want us to be baptized?’ Upon which I said, ‘I know exactly what that means. [My wife] and I are planning to be in Germany over the holidays. This delay will allow us to attend the baptism.’ Again we were both stunned over the flow of events as Brother Schultz said that he had hoped and prayed that I could be there for their baptism. The baptism took place on Sunday afternoon, December 30 that same year. …[The] behavior of [Brother Schultz] so completely changed that it seemed unbelievable.28

Stories such as these remind us that miracle stories (and stories of divine providence) are not restricted to the Bible nor are they the exclusive possession of traditional Christians.29 Religious people of every stripe tell of divine interventions of all kinds. They also experience failures to receive the interventions for which they pray, but rarely talk about these experiences.

Busche, Ibid., 249-255. Protestant Charismatics also tell stories of prophecies, healings, and tongues-speaking. I simply do not know what to make of these phenomena in either a Charismatic or a Mormon context. Some Evangelicals are antiCharismatic, believing that these “sign gifts” ceased after the Apostolic Age, never again to be revived. I do not share this conviction, but neither do I experience these gifts (as far as I know!). This makes me non-Charismatic. I am open to the possibility that some of these manifestations are from the Holy Spirit, but am skeptical about a lot of the reports. 28 29

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

69

Evangelicals The top three answers given to the question of evidence by Evangelicals were spiritual fruit, the positive characteristics of the Bible, and creation (in that order). The first two answers are especially interesting because of the parallel with Mormon answers. Mormons also had identified spiritual fruit in their lives as the number one evidence for their faith, and the Book of Mormon was second. For Evangelicals, it was spiritual fruit and the Bible. Regarding the latter, Evangelicals mentioned the value of Scripture for living, archaeological confirmation, and fulfilled prophecy as reasons to trust it. Beyond these, a few Evangelicals mentioned the following evidences for faith: the life of Christ, the findings of science, general life experience, the Church’s historical perseverance, modern-day miracles, and the rise of Western (Christian) civilization. Analysis The Bible Clearly, for both the Mormons and the Evangelicals whom we interviewed, the virtues inspired within them because of their faith were the dominant evidence for the truth of their respective belief systems. Beyond this, Evangelicals are impressed with evidence for the Bible. This, of course, is no surprise. Unlike the Book of Mormon, some aspects of the Biblical narrative have been confirmed explicitly by archaeological and ancient documentary evidence, confirmations accepted by non-Evangelicals as well as believers. While plenty of controversy about the historical reliability of some parts of the Bible remains, there is no question that at least some of the Biblical storyline is grounded in real history.30 Of course, archaeology and other historical evidences generally cannot confirm the theological claims of Scripture. For example, archaeology might confirm the existence of someone like King David, but it cannot confirm the claim that God spoke to him. Historical sources might confirm the existence of the apostle Peter, but it cannot confirm that the vision he experienced in Acts 10 was from Christ. Nevertheless, historical confirmation is important since Christianity is a “historical religion.” This is most clearly seen in the theological 30 For examples, see John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991); James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006); and Ben Witherington III, New Testament History: A Narrative Account (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).

70

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

significance of the historical crucifixion of Christ. Regarding this, there is ancient non-Christian documentary evidence which confirms the event. For example, Tacitus, the early second century Roman historian who considered Christianity a “superstition,” documented the crucifixion of Christ at the hands of Pontius Pilate in the early first century.31 Evangelicals are also impressed with fulfilled prophecies within the Bible. However, there has always been controversy surrounding the fulfillment of Old Testament texts in the life of Christ. Many of them appear to be typological fulfillments, not predictive ones, something which many Evangelicals have failed to recognize.32 For example, Matthew tells us that the exodus of the baby Jesus from Egypt “fulfills” Hosea 11:2 (“Out of Egypt I called my son.”). In context, however, Hosea 11 clearly refers to the historical Exodus of the Israelites (a past event) and not to a future exodus of the Messiah. Matthew apparently sees an illustration (type) in Hosea 11 which has theological value, but this fulfillment—and others like it—may not have much apologetic value. Evangelicals also confess that many Old Testament Messianic prophecies await fulfillment in the future. The apologetic question is whether or not enough clear and direct Messianic predictions were fulfilled at Christ’s first coming to prove his messianic nature, something which Jewish people have always denied.33

See the discussion and commentary in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co., 1996) 187-190. There are two possible exceptions to my claim that theology cannot be verified by historical evidence, both related to the resurrection of Christ. Some Christian apologists—like Habermas—make a case for the resurrection using historical evidence, and then claim that this verifies the deity of Christ. Habermas also believes that the image on the Shroud of Turin, the apparent burial cloth of Christ, is best explained by the resurrection. If this is so, then we have an example of an artifact pointing in the direction of the supernatural. 32 A “type” in Biblical interpretation is a picture or symbol of Christ in the Old Testament. For example, the animal sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus have always been seen as “types” of the sacrificial, atoning death of Christ by Christians. Note the declaration of John the Baptizer in the Gospel of John: “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). 33 See, for example, the treatment of Christ’s virgin birth and its fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 in Samuel Tobias Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, 1987) 7. 31

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

71

QUESTION 19: “WOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT MORMONISM/ EVANGELICALISM IS TRUE EVEN IF MOST OF THE EVIDENCE WERE AGAINST IT?” Mormons Do Mormons believe because of the evidence, apart from the evidence, or in spite of the evidence? Their answers reveal a very consistent pattern: An overwhelming majority said that they would believe even if they were convinced that the evidence seemed to undermine Mormonism. We heard the following explanations: “The testimony of the Holy Ghost overrides everything.” “Since faith cannot be proven, it cannot be disproved.” “Human theories and interpretations constantly change.”34 “Evidence against Mormonism flows from an anti-Mormon bias.” “Mormon scholars always provide alternative possibilities for interpreting the evidence.”35 A handful of subjects said that they would probably continue to believe contrary to evidence as long as the works of the LDS Church remained good and the book of Mormon itself was not proven to be a hoax. A couple said that they were unsure about whether they would believe contrary to evidence. One said that he would have believed no matter what when he was younger, but would not believe contrary to evidence today. Only one Mormon boldly proclaimed that faith requires rational evidence. A few Mormons refused to answer the question because they said that it was illegitimate. They simply stated that the Holy Ghost and the evidence could not contradict each other since all truths are compatible with each other. Analysis This almost exclusive dependence on internal confirmation is not at all surprising given the consistent and constant emphasis in Mormonism on the inner witness of the Holy Ghost. The Book of Mormon itself ends with the admonition to pray for such a “testimony,” and Mormons talk about it regularly. In fact, the first Sunday of each month at each local Mormon chapel (church) is called “Testimony Meeting.” It is dedicated to the public declaration of the believer’s inner “testimony” to the truth of Mormonism. 34 One likened the reliability of evidence to the FDA telling us not to drink milk, and then telling us to drink it. 35 This latter response sounded very familiar to me as someone raised Protestant, with “Evangelical scholars” substituted for “Mormon scholars.”

72

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

These testimonies actually replace the sermon for that day. Some Mormons whom we interviewed were aware of some evidence against their faith—like the character problems of Joseph Smith—and they still believed. The notion that one would believe regardless of the evidence is classic fideism— the idea that faith and reason have virtually nothing to do with each other.36 It seems that Mormons embrace evidences that support their faith, but tend to dismiss evidence that appears to be contrary to it. Are nonMormons—including Evangelicals—any different? I remember a conversation that I had years ago with a former professor of mine, a strong Evangelical evidentialist philosopher, about this very issue. I told him that if someone could provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt to me that a particular Christian doctrine (which I will not identify here) was not true, then I would deny that doctrine. His response was, “Really?” I said, “Sure—would that not be what I should do?” To that he replied, “Well, yes, I am just surprised to hear you say that.” Evangelicals Almost two-thirds of the Evangelicals who were asked whether or not they would believe contrary to evidence responded with an unqualified “yes.” While the percentage is not as high as that of Mormons who answered similarly, it is still substantial. These subjects claimed that the Holy Spirit would sustain their faith. They said that since their faith was not based on reason, reason could not destroy it. They were also convinced that personal experience was more compelling than reason. And while they admitted that their faith might be weakened if they thought that the evidence were mostly against their faith, they were convinced that their faith would not die. Interestingly, the second most common answer was an unqualified “no,” although this answer only represented about one-fifth of those interviewed. These subjects believe that one should not have an irrational faith. They claim that they would stop believing if they ever became convinced that the evidence contradicted Evangelical Christianity.37 Beyond this, a few said that they would probably continue to believe, some were unsure whether or not they would believe, and a couple said that they probably would not believe. A couple of Evangelicals told us 36 Compare the dominant answer here to the pattern observed in the answers to Question 16 above, where Mormons sounded like presuppositionalists. 37 An Evangelical philosopher whom I know once made a comment to me along these lines. He said, “If they ever found the body of Jesus, I would become a general theist.”

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

73

that the question was illegitimate because the scenario was impossible, just as a couple of Mormons had suggested. Analysis The diversity of answers here also reflects the different attitudes about faith and reason present in the Evangelical world. Fideists, presuppositionalists, classicists, and evidentialists presumably do respond differently to the challenge of evidence that seems to undermine their faith.38 One Evangelical whom we interviewed seems to personify the tension felt between faith and reason within the Evangelical world as a whole. His initial answer to the question of believing contrary to evidence was “no.” But a couple of days after the interview he called me to change his answer. He said that he in fact would continue to believe regardless of the evidence against his faith because the work of the Holy Spirit in his heart would be sufficient to counteract the impact of the evidence.39 Both groups (Mormons and Evangelicals) have collective experience responding to evidences presented against their faith. Mormons have been listening to anti-Mormon evidences from Evangelicals for most of their 200-year history, and Evangelicals having been responding to criticisms from many different types of skeptics for centuries. This should motivate members of both communities to go beyond offering and responding to specific criticisms and to reflect more on the fundamental question of the relationship between faith and reason.40 I say presumably because I am not convinced that evidentialists really base their faith on evidence. While I am sure that they believe they can prove Christianity to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, I suspect that their own spiritual experience is really the foundation of their faith. I will return to this in the Conclusion below. 39 I think that conservative Protestants as individuals have an inconsistent relationship with reason (as do most religious people, as far as I can tell). This is not a criticism, just the reality. It is as if people of faith look reason in the eye and ask, “Are you my friend or not?” They appeal to it when it helps, but tend to dismiss it when it does not. I will return to this and make some suggestions in the book Conclusion below. 38

40 There seems to be a direct connection between one’s degree of conservatism and one’s attitude toward reason and evidence—at least in religious matters. Social scientific (quantitative) studies have shown that Protestant fundamentalists (the most conservative types of Evangelicals) place little to no confidence in reason or evidence in spiritual matters. See the overview in Bob

74

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

QUESTION 20: “HOW HAS YOUR ASSURANCE CHANGED OVER TIME?” QUESTION 21: “WHAT HAS CAUSED YOUR FAITH TO BECOME STRONGER OR WEAKER OVER TIME?” Mormons The vast majority of Mormons who were asked these questions told us that their faith had grown stronger over the years. A couple said that it had remained the same, and no one indicated that it had become weaker. To what do they attribute this increase in conviction? The dominant answer by far was experience. Living out their faith had confirmed its truth to them. The trials of life, the moral decay of the world, the test of time, trips to the Temple, going on a mission—these and other things were mentioned as examples of the confirming power of experience. Beyond this, prayer, Scripture study, general study, conference speeches, and miracles were mentioned as well. Analysis The kinds of things offered by Mormons as reasons for increases in conviction over the years are not hard-core rational evidences (for the most part), but the types of experiences that tend to confirm whatever is working for the person. Of course, some of these same things—along with more direct evidences against the claims of Mormonism—have caused others to leave the Mormon Church.41

Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger, “Fundamentalism and Authoritarianism” in Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, R. Paloutzian and C. Park, eds. (New York: The Guilford Press, 2005) 382-383. For the sake of fairness, I know that people who are very liberal are reluctant to consider evidence against their beliefs as well. Perhaps we should say that the more intensely one believes something, the harder it is to honestly consider counterevidence. 41 Some of these ex-Mormons have formed the Ex-Mormon Foundation, and they continue to study and promote evidences against Mormonism. They also hold an annual conference to celebrate their departure from the LDS Church. Information regarding the Foundation and its work can be found at exmormonfoundation.org.

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

75

Evangelicals Evangelical answers to these questions were almost identical to the answers provided by Mormons. Most of the subjects who were asked this indicated that their faith had grown stronger over the years, and that life experience, Scripture reading, prayer, and fellowship with other believers were the causes. Analysis The lack of objective philosophical and historical evidences in this list is conspicuous. While Evangelicals as a whole seem to value reason in matters of faith more than Mormons do, they apparently turn to spiritual and social activities almost exclusively to strengthen their faith.

QUESTION 22: “TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU EVER DOUBT THAT MORMONISM/EVANGELICALISM IS TRUE?” QUESTION 23: “IF YOU SOMETIMES DOUBT THAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE TRUE, WHAT CAUSES YOU TO DOUBT?” QUESTION 24: “HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO OR DEAL WITH DOUBTS ABOUT THE TRUTH OF MORMONISM/ EVANGELICALISM?” Mormons “There have been times in my life when I wished I didn’t know that Mormonism is true!” -Mormon subject “I don’t doubt that Mormonism is true, but I’m not crazy enough to go read anti-Mormon literature. That would not be wise!” -another Mormon subject Most of the Mormons interviewed told us that they never doubted their faith at all. Ian Church, my research assistant, reports the following as an example of the strength of faith among committed Mormons: While conducting my interviews for the project, one particular Mormon family [stood] out to me. I was in their home to interview the father of the

76

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS household, his wife sitting nearby to offer additional input if need be. Before long, I had learned that this family was still in the midst of grieving. Less than a year before the interview, their son had died in a car accident. They were noticeably still shaken by the loss, and I thought this family, more so than any of my other interviewees, would be justified in having doubts about their religious beliefs. However, when I got to the question addressing this, both the husband and wife said firmly that they never doubt. …[Here] was a Mormon family who had clearly seen the evil in this world and they never doubt.42

Several of our subjects said that they had doubted when they were younger but that they no longer did. A few said that they doubted a little or sometimes. No one admitted to having significant doubts.43 Of the few who admitted to having some doubts, the reasons given were diverse. Among the answers were the following: rational evidence against Mormonism, hypocrisy in the Church, the doctrine of the priesthood,44 supposed contradictions in Scripture, polygamy in the Church’s past, and the character of Joseph Smith. The solution to doubt, according to the vast majority, was prayer and Scripture reading. Analysis These answers indicate that the perceived cause of doubt—and its solution—is fundamentally spiritual, not rational, even when rational evidence is an issue. Interestingly, while doubts about the objective truth of Mormonism were few and far between among our subjects, personal doubt about their own ability to live up to the standards of Mormonism was common. This is not surprising given the emphasis in the LDS Church on the necessity of holiness and good works (the pursuit of perfection) for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom in the afterlife. Evangelicals While a large majority of Mormons denied having any doubts at all about their faith, a slight majority of our Evangelical subjects actually said that Email report, 06/05/07. This was even true of a couple of educated, disgruntled Mormons who were not active because of their frustration with the Church; they still had no real doubt about Mormon doctrine per se. 44 This included the change in policy in 1978 and the exclusion of women. See Chapter 2 above. 42 43

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

77

they did have a little bit of doubt or that they doubted sometimes. Those who claimed never to doubt were a close second. A few admitted to doubting regularly, and a few others said that they had doubted when they were younger but that they no longer did. When asked about the causes of doubt, Evangelicals responded with a number of answers, like sin, demonic forces, ignorance, and the influence of culture. But the number one reason given was the problem of evil. Suffering in this life—and the doctrine of everlasting punishment in the next life—was the greatest challenge for our Evangelical subjects. Interestingly, the solutions to doubt identified by Evangelicals were almost identical to those recommended by Mormons. Prayer, Bible study, and fellowship with other believers topped the list. General study was tied for third with fellowship. Analysis Since Evangelicals as a whole do seem to place more emphasis on reason in matters of faith than Mormons do, it is not terribly surprising to learn that Evangelicals struggle more with rational challenges than those who place little to no emphasis on objective evidence for faith. But what about the problem of evil? Why is this an issue for Evangelicals, but apparently not for most Mormons? There seems to be a direct connection between the intellectual processing of suffering and the two different theologies. Evangelicals confess the existence of a unique, omnipotent God who created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing) and who is sovereign over it. Mormons, on the other hand, believe that humans are also eternal, selfexistent intelligences who were simply clothed by Elohim with spirit bodies, and then sent to earth to receive physical bodies, and some believe that Elohim himself became what he is today by undergoing the same type of growth through suffering that humans experience. Furthermore, because of our self-existent nature, God must respect human choice to an extent not recognized by most Evangelicals (including the Arminians).45 This seems to 45 It is possible to understand Mormonism as a radical, unorthodox Arminianism. Human freedom is foundational in both Arminianism and Mormonism, and its emphasis has led to theological modifications for all Mormons and a few Arminians. For example, while orthodox Arminianism rejects Open Theism—the view that God does not know everything about the future because humans must make choices to help determine that future—it is no coincidence that Open Theism was born in an Arminian context. See, for example, the comment of Clark H. Pinnock, a proponent of Open Theism, in his Most Moved Mover: A

78

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

enable Mormons to blame humans for evil without being tempted to blame God, whereas Evangelicals sometimes wonder why God created a world that He knew would go astray and why He does not prevent more evil than He does.46 In addition, Mormons believe that most people will not spend eternity in hell, whereas the dominant understanding of hell among Evangelicals involves endless suffering, presumably for a lot of people. This also contributes to the rational challenge. How can the cosmic story have such an unhappy ending for so many people? The typical answers provided appear not to fully satisfy many Evangelicals.47

Theology of God’s Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) 106: “The open view of God grows out of the ideological…soil of Wesleyan-Arminianism. It belongs to traditions that affirm human freedom and deny total divine control. At the same time, the open view differs from them…. Wesley and Arminius, for example, held to traditional definitions of…unchangeability…and omniscience….” Of all the versions of Christianity present in early 19th century America, in Joseph Smith’s judgment Methodism (Arminianism) was the closest to the truth. See the discussion in James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1890/1960 reprint) 8-9. This is by no means an indictment of Arminianism or even of Open Theism, a critique of which is beyond the scope of this work. It is merely an observation based on historical and theological connections. 46 For an explication and defense of the Mormon approach to the problem of evil, see David L. Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil” in BYU Studies 39: 1 (2000): 53-65. From an Evangelical perspective, the Mormon view of God—and humanity—creates more problems than it solves. To Evangelicals, the notion that God was once a man who somehow evolved into God is not just mysterious, it is unintelligible—and it even sounds sacrilegious. They respond the same way to the claim that each of us can become a God. The claim that humans are self-existent—but not infinite—intelligences is also theologically and rationally inconceivable to Evangelicals. They are convinced that Mormons make a grave mistake in not distinguishing between God’s communicable and incommunicable attributes. That goodness is not grounded in the nature of an eternal God Himself, but is, rather, one of the eternal principles of the universe—the dominant Mormon understanding of goodness—also seems to render morality unintelligible to Evangelicals. (Some Mormon scholars are disputing this traditional Mormon view and are adopting a more orthodox Christian understanding of the ultimate source of morality.) Evangelicals should keep in mind, however, that Mormons find the doctrine of the Trinity unintelligible. 47 Proponents of everlasting punishment usually argue that since no one deserves salvation, everyone who goes to hell gets what they deserve, or that God

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

79

There have always been people in the historic Church who have rejected the dominant view of hell (particularly its unending nature), although their interpretations have generally been rejected. Some of these leaders have suggested a universal salvation after hell, and others have promoted Christian annihilationism—the view that after spending some time in hell, its inhabitants will be utterly annihilated. A few Evangelical leaders suggest this latter possibility today. 48 The Evangelical solutions to doubt were mostly spiritual in nature. This does seem surprising, given the struggle among Evangelicals with rational challenges to their faith. Why did not more of them indicate general (intellectual) study as the solution? It may be that they are afraid that more study will only aggravate the problem, or it may simply be a matter of access. The spiritual disciplines are available to all believers virtually all of the time. One can easily pick up a Bible and read it at home, and prayer can be practiced anywhere. Serious investigation of evidences for and against religious truth claims takes time and energy that many Christians cannot afford to give. Also, it could be that spiritual solutions are sought even for rational challenges because faith is still primarily a spiritual matter for most Evangelicals, even for those who value objective evidence. Trusting God with unanswered questions is constantly promoted among Evangelicals, and it appears that this message is being heard by those who struggle with doubt. 49 Should the greater struggle with doubt among Evangelicals than among Mormons alarm Evangelicals? I do not believe so, for two reasons. First, this struggle may indicate a greater willingness among Evangelicals to deal honestly with rational evidence against their faith. To the extent that would have sent a missionary to those who did not have a chance to hear the Gospel if they had really desired Truth. 48 See, for example, John Stott, “Taking a Closer Look at Eternal Torture” in World Christian (May 1989): 31-37, for a defense of Christian annihilationism (also called “conditional immortality”). Stott argues for this on the basis of both the language and imagery of Scripture (i.e. the “destruction” of sinners) and the doctrine (logic) of divine justice. He does not believe that unending punishment is just. Interested readers should know that the word translated eternal/everlasting in the New Testament (aiōnios) literally means “related to an age” (i.e. a long period of time that eventually ends). It can mean unending. 49 For stories of ex-fundamentalist Protestants who lost their faith because of rational evidence against the Bible and Christianity, see Edward T. Babinski, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003).

80

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

this is true, it is virtuous. Second, a major recent quantitative (statistical) analysis of Evangelicals by a leading sociologist of religion has shown three things about the faith of American Evangelicals. It reveals that most Evangelicals claim never to doubt their faith, that Evangelicals doubt less than liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics, and that Evangelical faith has shown itself to be “robust” in spite of diverse types of challenges that come against it.50 Rational Foundations of Faith: Conclusion Mormons straddle the fence between presuppositionalism and fideism. Sometimes they seem to believe that faith causes a person to see the evidence honestly and that the evidence supports their faith. At other times—and this seems to be the dominant attitude—they (as a whole) seem totally uninterested in the rationality of religious belief and are perfectly willing to believe on the basis of internal confirmation alone, regardless of the evidence. They claim not to struggle with intellectual doubt, a claim which seems consistent with their fideistic tendencies. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are radically diverse in their approach to faith and reason. Overall, however, they collectively place more emphasis on reason in matters of faith than Mormons do. Because of this, they struggle more with doubt. Of particular concern to them is the problem of human suffering, both in this life and the next. Their view of God seems to suggest that God could do more to reduce this suffering, even while they confess that God is righteous in all of His ways and that humans have brought suffering on themselves through sin. These observations demonstrate that there are identifiable consistencies within Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity on matters of faith and reason. On the other hand, our analysis reveals a number of rational challenges related to both religious traditions. For Mormonism, the apparently fictitious nature of the Book of Mormon is problematic. To the best of my knowledge, Mormons have not been able to convince any non50 Christian Smith, American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998) 26-32. There are several possible reasons why Christian Smith’s study and ours yielded differences in the numbers of Evangelicals who claim to doubt. The most obvious is that his was quantitative (statistical) and ours qualitative (philosophical), but there could be a host of other explanations as well. What is clear here is that Evangelicals seem to doubt more than Mormons do but appear to maintain faith and commitment in spite of that doubt.

RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

81

Mormons that the story is historical. The integrity of Joseph Smith is also an open question for the honest outside observer. His insistence that the story was historical, his questionable sexual practices, and his failed prophecies remain barriers for many who are looking in at the tradition, and for many who have left it. In matters theological, the lack of a First Cause who is ontologically (essentially) unique still seems unintelligible to many non-Mormons, including Evangelicals. There remain rational challenges for Evangelicalism as well. The problem of evil, the delay of the parousia (second coming of Christ), and the denominational dividedness of those claiming that the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice all remain obstacles to faith for skeptics. Evangelicals need to address these issues in ways that connect their conclusions to a fundamental approach to faith and reason that is persuasive to both insiders and outsiders if real progress is to be made in removing the obstacles to faith.51 In the end, members of both groups turn to the spiritual disciplines to sustain faith and to combat whatever doubts they may be experiencing. This seems to reveal a fundamental agreement about the ultimate foundation of faith, namely spiritual experience. We will return to this observation in the Conclusion below.

51 I do not mean to imply that Evangelical scholars have not addressed these issues. They have. But not everyone is satisfied with the proposed solutions, including some Evangelicals themselves. More work needs to be done.

CHAPTER 6 CONVERSION STORIES What follows are some of the interesting conversion stories that I encountered during the course of this research. These include conversions from Evangelicalism to Mormonism and vice versa. They are written by those who converted, in their own words, and they help us to see how social, spiritual, and rational influences sometimes lead to conversions. They also demonstrate how people can draw such radically different conclusions about the same religious traditions. From Evangelical to Latter-day Saint by Leah White Brigham Young University Student Provo, Utah I was raised in an active, church-going Protestant family. When I went to college I got involved with Campus Crusade for Christ. This organization helped define me spiritually and socially as an Evangelical Christian. Campus Crusade for Christ taught me how to witness to people and help them accept Jesus into their hearts and become born-again. Because I was actively helping people come to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I ended up witnessing to a woman who was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rebecca Stay was her name, and she was my math tutor at my college. She invited me to her LDS institute class, where I had planned on witnessing to her and “her people” about Jesus and praying with them so that her entire class could be saved. After attending the Bible study on Abraham and Isaac, I decided to talk with Rebecca about the LDS Church’s doctrine. That night we stayed up until about 3:30 in the morning discussing the differences between my Evangelical and her Latter-day Saint beliefs. The doctrine she was teaching resonated with me. I believed what she said. I understood it. I loved the fact that there was a prophet today. I can see and have experienced the effects of what she called “the Great Apostasy” and why there are so many divisions in the body of Christ and the need for “the Restoration.” God calling Joseph Smith as a prophet and through him organizing Jesus’ Church with the Apostles and the Seventy was amazingly beautiful and exciting to me! If there is a prophet and 83

84

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Church organization like in Biblical times then I can know more assuredly what God wants me to do in my life to serve Him more. This does not take away from my own agency or need for personal revelation by the Spirit, but knowing that a prophet receives doctrine for the entire body of God’s people like in the Bible is truly remarkable! Another concept that touched me in that discussion is the nature of God. I had stopped believing in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity that I had been taught prior to meeting Rebecca. Rebecca explained the concept of “the Godhead” to me and I just fell in love with that doctrine! Of course God the Father has a body and Jesus is His Son and has a body too! Without a body we are like Satan—a spirit forever who is damned and cannot progress. This is why Satan and his angels try to possess our bodies and make us hurt our bodies; he is upset that he didn’t keep his first estate and we did! We followed Jesus in the pre-mortal existence and got to come here to mortality to gain a body, be tested, and progress to be more like our Father in Heaven by keeping our second estate! This is all Biblical. Without a body we cannot create. A body does not limit God or us; it frees us to continue glorifying God and His eternal work! This is one of the reasons why Paul stresses that our bodies are temples; they are holy like God. We are literally offspring of God. We are different than all the other creatures God has created on this earth because we are like Him. We are made in His image. We look like Him. We are His children. I could go on and on about the reasons why I joined the Church but I will give just one more example from that night that touched my heart. I had been reading the Bible and had been pondering where we went when we died, before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, when we are all resurrected and get to be taken to heaven with Him. I thought if we all die and go to heaven before Jesus comes again, then why would the living and the dead be resurrected at his coming? We don’t just die and go to heaven and when Jesus comes are resurrected and then go to heaven again. The LDS Church teaches that when we die, we go to Paradise, a place of waiting between now and when Jesus comes to take us to our heavenly home. Also, people who didn’t have an opportunity to hear the Gospel during their earthly lives are given a chance after death. Those who have accepted the gospel in this life are spiritually ministering and teaching the people who haven’t heard or accepted it. God’s work still continues for all to have eternal joy and happiness! Praise God! I love the rational aspects of my conversion but what touches me the most is my spiritual experience in joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. God really did have His hand in my life! When I was

CONVERSION STORIES

85

driving to the Cleveland Institute of Religion class on October 9, 2002, I received an impression from the Lord that said “Do not teach, but listen.” I had been accustomed to sharing my knowledge with others, but this time the impression that I had was a still small voice and was very clear to me. I had been communing with God, telling Him that I just wanted to teach these people about Jesus, and the impression came again, “Do not teach, but listen.” Again, while in prayer I said, "I will do what you ask" and the impression came for the last time, “Do not teach, but listen.” Because of this impression which was clearly from the Lord, I went to this Bible study with a different agenda than what I had originally intended. While in class, Rebecca was teaching about Abraham and Isaac from the Old Testament and then said “Turn to Jacob 4:5, from the Book of Mormon,” which reads: Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

This verse helped me gain a stronger relationship with God. By understanding the story of Abraham and Isaac I received greater insight in understanding the relationship that God the Father has with His Son Jesus. I felt the Spirit so strongly then. Shortly after we read that verse of Scripture I received a second impression from God that evening and it was to go and talk to Rebecca Stay about the doctrine of the LDS Church, which I did. I also received a Book of Mormon and began reading it. All the doctrines I had learned from that discussion that evening tugged on my heart even more and by Sunday I couldn’t take it anymore. I knew I had to do something about how I was feeling, so I went to Rebecca’s home and asked her how I could be baptized. We prayed together, and I received confirmation from God. I was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on November 16, 2002, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost on November 17, 2002, by the laying on of hands by those who were called of God after the order of Melchizedek. I can truly say there is a difference between the Holy Spirit as a witness of God’s truth and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Having the Holy Spirit as my constant companion has been

86

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

one continual spiritual conversion and journey in glorifying God and strengthening my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I was very happy with my friends who were fellow believers in Jesus prior to joining the LDS Church. My Evangelical Christian friends and I would go to Christian concerts and praise and worship services together. It was all wonderful. When I decided to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I can say I didn’t have any friends in my new church. Rebecca Stay has become my friend as a result of my joining the church, but she wasn’t my friend prior to my conversion. She was just my math tutor. She was a wife and mother of six children, and we really had nothing in common besides our love for and dedication to Jesus. When I joined the LDS Church, my family cried. They were disappointed in my choice and I think in some respects felt as if they had failed in raising me in the Protestant faith. I lost or weakened all my friendships except one, my Evangelical friend, Amy Hlavsa, who to this day has remained my best friend. Socially, I am still VERY much an Evangelical Christian. My language, dress, music, and understanding are slowly becoming more like those of my Latter-day Saint friends, but at times I am reluctant to make these changes. I feel, at times, as if I am forgetting what was “me” prior to my conversion and I want so much not to lose what was so good about my background. But I also see that I need to progress in my faith in Jesus Christ and everything will be fine as long as I don’t lose my focus on Jesus. Pursued by Grace Geoff Wiggins Sales Representative Roswell, GA I wasn’t like the other kids. Being born into an LDS family in Little Rock, AR in the early 50’s meant that I was almost automatically the ‘weird kid’. My dad was older than any of the other fathers in my neighborhood. I am left-handed, my first name has a funny spelling, and I was tall for my age. I wanted to be like the other kids. It’s typical of most children. The last thing I wanted was to be different. I went to a church that no one had ever heard of. My father’s family converted to “Mormonism” in the early 1900’s. Many members of the family moved west. I have cousins and extended family all over Arizona, Utah and Idaho. My Mormon faith was like that of most kids from religious homes. I inherited it. There was no room for any belief other than a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and the LDS church was the true

CONVERSION STORIES

87

restored church. I remember my years in Primary and my teen years attending M.I.A., an LDS youth program. Being Mormon isn’t just what you believe it’s a major part of who you are. It’s your heritage. It’s a birthright. The love found in a Mormon family is similar to the love that the Mormon “Heavenly Father” has for his children. You are loved if you’re good. If you keep the rules, get your Temple Recommend, make your mom and dad proud—it’s that kind of good. Mercy was present but Grace was a foreign concept. At twelve I lied my way through my interview to become a Deacon in the Aaronic Priesthood. If I had been honest I never would have made it! Based upon the hypocrisy I saw no one in the local Ward would have gotten a Temple Recommend. Many Mormons will read of my lack of integrity as a twelve year old and assume that I never had a “testimony of the truth of the LDS Gospel.” Nothing could be further from the truth. When you know nothing but an inherited truth that runs so counter to the world view of your friends and neighbors, and you mix in a touch of persecution and a dash of “weird,” you either believe it to your core or you run from it as fast as you can. My lack of integrity was my only option. I had to measure up or no one would love me! I knew that God knew that I was telling a fib but I’d pray hard and promised to do better and I’d make Him happy! I knew I could! I had memorized the Articles of Faith! I could rattle them off better than anyone else. I had been baptized at the age of eight and confirmed as a member of the True Church! I wasn’t going to fall behind and not be good enough! Not me! I tried hard. I read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover. I tackled the Doctrine and Covenants and I even read the Pearl of Great Price! I didn’t understand much of it but by golly as sure as Joseph Smith is a true prophet I was going to be good! Amazingly, I was good. I was a good kid. I prayed. I tithed. I studied. I didn’t act out in Sunday School or Priesthood meeting. If they needed a volunteer I was their man! I wrote, memorized and delivered my Two and Half Minute Talks better than anyone. I actually volunteered for Two and Half Minute Talks. I fasted on the first Sunday of each month. During Fast and Testimony Meeting I was the first one up and I would share my testimony as fervently as anyone in the Ward. I had a “burning in my bosom” that told me that the Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that the LDS church was the true church. I knew it. I believed it. I lived it. I was also wrestling with some inconsistencies. I was taught from an early age that I should pity those who didn’t have the “fullness of the restored gospel.” I was taught that those Methodists, Baptists,

88

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Presbyterians, Lutherans and Episcopalians that I went to school with and who were on my Little League team weren’t really happy. They sure looked happy to me. As a matter of fact they appeared to be happier than I was! They even liked their God. If the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom I should have been up there with King Solomon! I wasn’t very wise but I was sure afraid of God. I wanted him happy and I was going to be good enough to make sure that he was happy! No more fibs and lies during my next interview. Besides, I was getting a lot of positive re-enforcement from the good Mormon folks in my Ward and I liked it! So why were these non-Mormon Christians happy and hopeful? I just prayed harder and decided they were faking it. By the way, we didn’t consider Catholics in the mix. I had been told that Catholicism was the Whore of Babylon. I wasn’t sure what was meant by that but by gosh and golly I knew for a fact that a whore wasn’t something that nice people talked about! So puberty hit and I was not prepared for the guilt and the confusion that came with it. No one prepared me for the butterflies and heart palpitations that came with seeing the smile of a sweet girl named Jean. Not only did I go weak in the knees when she talked to me but I wanted to kiss her. By the time I was sixteen there was a beautiful girl named Kathy. She had dark hair and I wanted to do more than hold her hand. I don’t want you to think that I abandoned Mormonism because of teenaged lust. I did start lying again. The Bishop asked me in my next interview if I ever looked at the girls with impure thoughts. I responded by asking him what he was talking about! I had to deny it! I had to be better. Raging hormones were not going to interfere with righteousness. I’d lie about it if I had to! At about this time I started what the Mormon church called their seminary. It wasn’t a graduate degree. It was a class I attended every day before school at 6:00 in the morning. It started in the ninth grade and was for all four years of high school. If school was in session we were there. We studied the Bible, the Book of Mormon, LDS Church History, and the prophecies of Joseph Smith. I was like a lot of teenagers in that we were trying to find some degree of individuality. This was the late 60’s and the youth culture even hit the Mormon kids. I expressed my individuality by carrying an old Doctrine and Covenants that had been in my family since the early 1900’s. One morning we were reading along and my text didn’t read like the others in the room. It wasn’t that there were wholesale changes in meaning but the grammar and sentence structure were different. I can explain it by stating that it was similar to having an NASB Bible when everyone else had an ESV Bible. It was close, but different. Close wasn’t

CONVERSION STORIES

89

good enough for me. This book was God’s words directly from God’s mouth to Joseph Smith’s pen! No one edits God! I was outraged. I asked the teacher of the class about it. He suggested that I leave the book with him. He promised to send it to Salt Lake and see if it might be a “valuable old misprint.” Something didn’t ring true in the conversation and offer. I made an appointment with the Bishop and showed him the discrepancies. He suggested that I leave it with him. He promised to send it to Salt Lake and see if it might be a “valuable old misprint.” I knew something was wrong. I’d begun to research LDS church history using sources other than those officially sanctioned by the LDS church. I’d found an incredibly different story. I’d wondered why all of these non-Mormon historians had wanted to tell all of these lies about God’s true church. I was stunned when I realized that the leaders of my local congregation were trying to participate in what I believed was a “cover up”! My parents took the old copy out of my hands and it was “sent to Salt Lake” or somewhere never to see the light of day again. I was seventeen and that pretty much ruined it for me. I decided that if the Mormons were lying then everyone was lying. I decided I was an agnostic and I found an entire culture that was willing to tell me that I couldn’t trust anyone. Within a week I had enjoyed a beer and smoked a cigarette. I had become my own man! It would be easy to say that I wandered in the desert for years. In actuality I wasn’t content to just settle in as an agnostic. When I finished high school I enrolled at Methodist College and majored in philosophy and religion. I wanted answers. It wasn’t a good place for answers. I then fell into the typical American dream life. I married a sweet girl that I’d met in high school. I began a career and started a family. I enjoyed some success. The girl I married was a born again Christian. She wanted me to have a relationship with Jesus but I was resistant and I wanted to encounter and enjoy God on my terms. No one was going to tell me anymore good news. I’d had enough of good. I was going to be cautious and careful. I wanted to believe that there were many ways to know and love God. I refused to believe that the Christians were the only ones who were right. I didn’t plan on God drawing me to Jesus. Jesus said that no one comes to him unless the Father draws them. It happened to me. My fatherin-law was a good and devout man. He always proclaimed the Gospel. He even used words when it was necessary. I’d heard too many times that all you needed to do was believe in your heart and confess with your mouth

90

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

and you would be saved. Frankly, I didn’t want to be saved. I would figure it out on my own and handle it myself thank-you-very–much! One day the work of the Holy Spirit just kept drawing me to Jesus through the Father and it became too much for me to resist. I had a burning discontent deep inside of me. I look back and that “burning in my bosom” in my Mormon youth was a cheap imitation when compared to the work of the Spirit. I now know I had a God-shaped hole in my soul and only Jesus could fill it. I sat at my desk and compared my life to that of my father-in-law. I literally made a list comparing our lives. The only significant difference was that he claimed a relationship with Jesus and I was on my own. I left my office to go visit a client and I couldn’t get the list off of my mind. I pulled my car over at a rest stop off of I-40 outside of Conway, AR and asked Jesus to take over. I literally surrendered. My life has not been the same since that moment. I have that hope and happiness that my friends had. I wouldn’t believe them back in Jr. High and High School. I believe them today. We all have a sin issue that only God can fix. I know that Jesus came and died in my place. Because I have trusted him with my life and my eternity I know that I have eternal life. I close with Romans 10:8-10: “But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” From Born Again Christian to Latter-day Saint by Tere Foster Motivational Speaker St. George, Utah When I was nine years old, my father became a Born Again Christian and went on to become a pastor and a missionary to forty-two countries around the world. When I was seventeen years old, ten years after my father’s conversion, Jesus Christ made himself known to me in such a profound way that I turned my life over to him from that day forward. As a young adult born again Christian, I went on to serve a mission to “convert Mormons” to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Twenty years later, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, I had another conversion that was baffling

CONVERSION STORIES

91

and life changing. I became a Mormon, or a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as it is properly called. It was spring of 1998 when my son, Michael, was fourteen years old. He was coming home on the bus and was approached by the Mormon missionaries. He gave them our address and phone number. When he came home he told me to expect a visit from “the guys in white shirts and ties.” I couldn’t believe he gave them our address when I had raised him to understand that Mormons were a cult! The word cult to us meant “a group that didn’t believe in Christ and followed false doctrine straight to hell and deceived others to do the same.” Since Michael had already invited the missionaries, I told my three teenagers that there was no reason to get into a Bible-bash with them. We would just listen to the deception they tell people and it would be “educational” for us. I told them that rather than argue with them we would wink at each other when we heard false doctrine. Then we would discuss it later after they left. When the Mormon missionaries arrived at our door, they seemed to be bewildered when I threw the door open and invited them in. The first thing the missionaries told us was that they had “a message of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ about his love for us.” I figured that my son must have mentioned to them that we were Born Again Christians and they were trying to act like they believed in Jesus to create a common ground to get us to let down our guard. I broke my own rule and interrupted them. I asked them if they were trying to say that they were Christians. They smiled and pointed to their name tags. It said in bold letters, “THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.” I questioned them for hours about their doctrine on the atonement and faith versus works and their relationship with Christ. I rephrased my questions over and over again, only to hear them say again and again, in many different ways that Jesus was their Lord and Savior, the only means to salvation, the name above all names, the only begotten Son of the our Heavenly Father! The Holy Spirit flooded my mind with scriptures throughout the whole conversation with them. BELOVED, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. (New Testament | 1 John 4:1-2)

I was amazed as I came to understand that these young men were confessing with their mouths that Jesus came in the flesh and was Christ

92

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

the Lord. According to the scriptures coming to my mind, these men were “of God!” They told us that this is the teaching they learned from the Book of Mormon and from their prophet Joseph Smith, the one that I had always believed was a false prophet! This scripture in 1 John is very clear how we, as believers, are to “test the spirits” and determine if a prophet is true or false. It all comes down to what he says about Jesus Christ. By this test, I was able to see that Joseph Smith was not a false prophet because he confessed that Jesus Christ was Lord! Joseph Smith testified that Christ was alive and that he appeared to him and instructed him to restore his Church. Every step he took toward fulfilling that calling caused him much loss, grief and pain to the point that he was shot and killed, along with his brother and many other committed followers. But 2 Peter teaches us that false prophets deny Christ. BUT there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (New Testament | 2 Peter 2:12)

If the definition of a false prophet is one who denies Christ, what did Joseph Smith publish concerning Jesus Christ? Here is a quote from the Book of Mormon: …apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men. (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 4:2)

Here are other examples of the words Joseph Smith published in the Book of Mormon: Behold, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I have been called of him to declare his word among his people, that they might have everlasting life.…then shall they know their Redeemer, who is Jesus Christ, the Son of God…. (Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 5:13 & 26)1 1

Tere’s.

All emphases in quotations from the Bible and the Book of Mormon are

CONVERSION STORIES

93

I went through the free copy of the book of Mormon that the missionaries gave me. I intended to highlight every passage I found that contradicted the Bible in one color and every passage that referred to Jesus Christ in another color so that I could help the missionaries see where their doctrine went wrong. With highlighters in my hand, I found that every chapter proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ and the only way to salvation! I was unable to find even one passage to highlight that contradicted the Bible or caused any kind of discomfort in my soul—quite the opposite. The Book of Mormon brought me peace and increased my faith. In the weeks that followed our discussions with the Elders, my three teenagers and I experienced the kind of love that I had read about in scripture but had never experienced in the Christian Church. My children and I could feel the Spirit coming into our home as we read the scriptures together with the Elders. Like magic, the problems I mentioned in passing conversation with the Elders would mysteriously be solved. I laughed that my dog needed a bath, so they snuck into the back yard and bathed him while I was at work. I lamented that my back yard had become over grown and the deck was falling in and it was getting too far ahead of me to ever catch up. The Elders brought over seventeen other missionaries and several members of their church with trucks. They all had shovels and picks and hammers and started working like crazy. They got so much done in a day it was hard to imagine how I could have ever solved this problem on my own. I was so amazed and thankful and blessed as I saw these young men as some of the most important people that have ever come into my life in all my years on this Earth. One of the missionaries dug down and busted a sprinkler and a pillar of water shot fifteen feet in the air. Instead of fixing it, all the missionaries put down their tools and danced around in the water. Even the sister missionaries got soaked. I laughed and cried and couldn’t believe the spirit that we felt from these beautiful, wonderful people. In one day they tore down the deck, weeded the yard and hauled away the mess. And of course they fixed the broken sprinkler before they left. The next time the missionaries visited and asked if I would be willing to pray, seek God, and ask with a sincere heart if Joseph Smith was a prophet and whether the Book of Mormon was true, I agreed. As Pentecostal believers, my children and I reached for each others’ hands and made a prayer circle. The missionaries joined hands with us. They asked, “Could we kneel?” We all began to sink humbly to our knees. With a sincere prayer in my heart, before my knees reached the floor I knew it was

94

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

all true with all of my heart. Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is true! Christians would argue with me saying, “That’s how they lure you in. They’re very kind to you at first, just to get you to commit.” I would say back to them, “Well, it’s working!” I told my Christian friends of the marvelous way that the Elders had helped me and served me and cared about me and about my children. Then one friend who was raised Mormon, and had later become an anti-Mormon Christian accused me saying, “So, you choose which church to join based upon how much they give to you?” I thought about that for a long minute before I answered. The scripture that came to my mind was the story of “The Good Samaritan” in Luke. At this time in the history of the Jews, Samaritans were not believed to be true believers, just as today Christians feel that Mormons are not true believers. This passage could easily be a story about “The Good Mormon.” “Yes. I think that’s exactly how you choose a church; by how kind they are to you. When an individual or a group of people show kindness to you, according to the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is evidence that they belong to God,” I explained. “It’s not enough to preach a sermon to a large group and then leave them neglected and alone when they have needs in their individual lives at home. These Mormons came to my home! They made sure I was okay during a tough time in my life. My Born Again Church didn’t help at all. They don’t even believe that is their role.” The missionaries were very patient with me and I was very patient with them as it became clear that I was more familiar with scripture than they were. They were just young boys away from home for the first time. It seemed silly to argue with them, like beating up on a teddy bear. If they had tried to put up a good scriptural debate we’d probably be still arguing today, ten years later. But they didn’t. They just loved us. They were kind to us. They poured love and attention on us like a healing salve. The Holy Spirit did the rest. When I first joined the church, as soon as the Elders and our new home teacher found out that we were having financial problems, they told the Bishop. The Bishop sent the Relief Society President to visit me to assess my financial needs. They took care of everything; food, past due bills, utilities turned back on, and even a mortgage payment! The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is financially secure and has no need to have “fund raisers” or to “take up collections.” They help rather than ask for help. They give to charities rather than considering themselves a charity that needs your money. They helped me when no one else did and got me through a very difficult time.

CONVERSION STORIES

95

I will be forever grateful and will never doubt whether this organization is the Lord’s government on this earth. I know that Jesus Christ called Joseph Smith to set up this church that will stand strong when all other organizational systems are unable to. I look forward to His coming and I know that Joseph Smith will be one of those that return with him to reign and rule in the millennium and throughout all eternity. My Mormon Exodus Story By Darin Rohatinsky IT Professional Vancouver, Washington I grew up in the Mormon Church, with a Mom and Dad who were very active in it. When I was six years of age, my parents divorced, and later I found out it was because my Dad was becoming what’s called inactive, and my Mom’s family didn’t want him to “bring her down.” So eventually my Mom married a bishop. Come to find out he was also divorced, and soon enough, he and my Mom were sealed in the temple. Note that my Mom and Dad had been sealed in the temple, as well as my step-Dad and his ex-wife. To this day, my Mom and step-Dad are still very active in the LDS church. He is first counselor to the bishop, while she is the stake relief society president. Because my siblings and I maintained a close relationship with my real Dad, we visited him each weekend. He taught us the kinds of things that Joseph Smith did, such as practice witchcraft, which were really surprising to us and hard to believe. One thing he pointed out to me that became very obvious was the whole facade that most Mormons put on. When things are really going badly, you put on a smile and make sure it appears as if things are good. I think my Dad was eventually just tired of that. When I was eight I was baptized by my step-Grandpa. He messed up in one area or another in the process of baptizing me, and on the thirteenth time, he got it right. The biggest problem was not every hair on my head got fully submerged. It was humiliating as a young boy. So as a child, my view became very skeptical, until the first part of high school. Certain things bothered me about the church. Two main problems I had were: First, while eleven years old, during a tithing settlement, the bishop asked me if I had paid a full and honest tithe. When I told him no, and that the next year I would try to, he told me, “you either will or you won’t, but don’t tell me you will try, as that leaves room for failure.” The second problem I had was during fast and testimony meetings,

96

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

the first Sunday of every month. It seemed that adults who were really hurting in life would reach out and say how desperate they were for friends and that this church provided them with a social network that met that need. The reason this was a problem to me is that this “true gospel” seemed more like a friend club. Those people didn’t talk about God; they didn’t even talk about their own scriptures. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with having close friends at church, but I do believe first and foremost, your relationship should be focused on God, and that you should get your identity from him, not by what calling you have in your church or what group you are friends with there. During the first part of high school, I was dating a convert to the LDS church and she was very serious about me going on a mission if our relationship was to continue. At the same time, I had an elder in their church tell me if I went on a mission, I would get a new car for $100 a month. For a while I tried to force myself into their beliefs once again. My Dad was not happy with my decision, but I really felt I needed to give the LDS religion another try. This lasted until I was at Boy Scout camp. One night while we were all sitting around the campfire, some of the men and boys bore their testimonies. Then one of the adult leaders asked every boy to get up and do it. Because of this pressure, I took a stand. I told them I did believe in God and the Bible, but wasn’t so sure about Joseph Smith. I told them I would not be serving an LDS mission. When that happened, it made it pretty clear where I stood. It embarrassed my step-Dad. Another very difficult circumstance for me occurred during my senior year of high school, while in seminary. The bishop’s wife was teaching my seminary class at the time, and the bishop himself came and pulled me out of class to meet with him in his office. He asked me about visiting other churches, and told me I had pretty special parents who would let me attend another church with different beliefs. I asked him if he would let his kids do the same (they were friends of mine), to which he responded no. I told him that if he were so secure in this “truth” he had, it shouldn’t matter, and I remember feeling extremely dark and cold in his office at that point. I was relieved when I was able to go back into class. So at that point I was seventeen years old, and I formally sat my Mom and step-Dad down to talk about it. I told them I no longer believed their church doctrine. I was very worried about being disowned, and they assured me they wouldn’t even consider that. I just told them there were doctrines I was confused about. The first one was the belief that as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become. This is called eternal progression, and leads to

CONVERSION STORIES

97

believing that you can become a god after this life. The reason I said that it’s impossible to have more than one God, is this: There is no first in an infinite line, and if there’s no first, there’s no beginning. If you are to tell me that there was a first God somewhere, there are a few things unanswered. First, the infinite lineage of gods is simply reduced to a very large but finite number. Next, the god at the beginning of a finite line of gods would be unique in this succession of gods, and in fact greater in his existence, since he did not come from a line of gods. The first god in this large number of gods did not derive his source from another, and he would have existed always without a cause. They had no answer. Also, there are certain materials that the Smithsonian Institute has claimed didn’t exist in America at the time the Book of Mormon says they did. These examples are: Silk - Alma 4:6, Nephi 13:7, Alma 1:29; Horses Enos 1:21, Alma 18:9, 3 Nephi 3: 1, Nephi 18:25; Steel - Jarom 1:8, 2 Nephi 5:15,16, 1 Nephi 4:9, 16:18; Iron - 2 Nephi 5:15, 20:34, Jarom 1:8, Mosiah 11:8; Coins - Alma 11:5-19; Donkeys - 1 Nephi 18:25, Mosiah 5:14, 12:5; Cattle, Cows, and Oxen - Enos 1:21, 3 Nephi 3:22, 1 Nephi 18:25; Pigs - 3 Nephi 7:8; Grain and Wheat - Mosiah 9:9; Helaman 11:17. The last thing I mentioned to my parents was the part about their need for a prophet. They said they needed a prophet as a “living oracle.” As far as a "living oracle" is concerned, I asked them about Jesus. They stated that the beliefs of the people will become generally flawed without a “living oracle.” I told them that when Christ was on the earth, the Pharisees’ views became even more flawed than ever, leading to Christ's death! Surely no prophet was a better teacher or could be, than Christ. Indeed the Bible is valuable, and it does lead people to the truth because it IS truth as it states. In a fallen world, people are always going to fall away, and in these days, more and more so than ever. We're seeing so much corruption, with gay marriages and other immoral things becoming acceptable. Generations throughout the Bible became corrupt, but also came out of corruption. There was still only one truth, as there is today. God has spoken through prophets in the past, but that doesn't mean He will continue to do so. Sometimes God works in His people in certain ways, and then ceases when His purpose is fulfilled. Examples include the Noahic flood, the manna from heaven, the Ark of the Covenant, the Jerusalem temple, the ceremonial sacrifices, and the OT prophets. God shows us in several NT verses that the role of the prophet was consummated in Jesus Christ and his forerunner, John the Baptist (Matthew 11:13, Ephesians 2:20, Hebrews 1:12). Jesus, as head of the church, is our only prophet, thus ending the succession of OT prophets. In Acts 3:22-23 Peter preached the living and

98

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

resurrected Christ as the fulfillment of a Mosaic prophecy. The gift of prophecy that was exercised in the early church is not to be confused with the prophets of the OT. Ephesians 4:8-11 distinguishes the "gift of prophecy" from the prophets who were the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). The gift of prophecy differs from the prophets in the OT in that it was part of the NT worship service (1 Corinthians 14:26), both men and women prophesied (11:4-5), it was for the believers, not unbelievers (14:22), it was to be judged (14:29), it was exercised by regular members (14:31), and it was given for edification, exhortation, and comfort (14:3). God has provided heavenly guidance for us today through means other than a prophet. Jesus, as a prophet, priest, and king of the church, sent the Holy Spirit to His people (John 16:13). The purpose of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer is to "guide you into all truth." Also, in John 14:16-18, Jesus promised to provide believers with guidance from the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, and not to leave us "as orphans." So they told me that I should talk to Bishop Draney, who was a family friend and a bishop at the time. They also told me I would need to continue attending their church on Sundays, to which I responded that I would, but that I intended to keep reading my NIV Student Bible as well. I still was able to attend Laurelwood Baptist Church in Vancouver, WA, where my friends went, friends who had encouraged me to tell my parents what I believed. Sometime later I was baptized as a born again Christian and I actually wrote a letter to LDS headquarters to have my name removed from their membership list. They refused to do it that way, and insisted on meeting with me. So they came to my work place, which was, incidentally, full of LDS church members who worked there (about ten other employees or so). The bishop asked me if he could do anything to change my mind, so I asked him if he could change their doctrine, and he declined, so I signed the papers and went on my way. I ended up leaving that job because my Mormon boss, who was someone I had known since I was a boy, really treated me differently after that. He changed my invoices, writing flirty comments about female clients of ours, only made me sign the noncompete clause (no one else was required to do this), and just overall seemed to make my work environment difficult. This was a computer shop, so I worked with about five other technicians, all of whom were just as capable as I, to compete directly with this company. The non-compete clause was to ensure none of us could compete or take clients away. I still stay in touch with old Mormon friends who know I’m a Protestant now. We often have an open dialogue about our beliefs and have

CONVERSION STORIES

99

for years. I influence them to have a better relationship with Jesus. My Mom and step-Dad also see a change in me, and when I can, I take the time to pray with them so that they see what it is like to talk to God as a Christian. When I see Mormons now (including friends and family), this topic won’t come up unless I know they’re comfortable talking about it. Most of them are not, because doing so would mean the risk of questioning their faith and losing most of their relationships with friends and family, and they hang on to those tightly. Conversion Reflections Cynthia L. Hallen, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Linguistics & English Language Brigham Young University It seems that all my life I was led to find the gospel of Jesus Christ. When I was in high school, my friends and I were looking for truth. We were looking for the love and peace and brotherhood that we had heard about from songs on the radio, but as with many people of that generation, we were often looking in the wrong places. We did find goodness in a few popular books and songs and in the friendship of our youth, but the evil we found sometimes out-weighed the good. The BLOCK was a community service organization for teenagers in the Phoenix metropolitan area. It was sponsored by the Valley National Bank in downtown Phoenix. It was based on the idea of being friends with people who live in your neighborhood, so they had a Valley BLOCK arts and crafts fair once a year. And they had inner-city outreach to disadvantaged youth, and they had energy conservation programs like recycling, and so forth. A friend in my junior-year drama class named “Cat” invited me to go to Tijuana with the BLOCK for two weeks in July 1972 to work at a poor children’s hospital called “Casa de Todos.” We made a playground, painted railings, helped medical personnel on immunization visits, and so forth. I went on a moonlight hike with a BLOCK member who was a few years older than me. When we stopped at a little graveyard filled with colorful pastel crosses, I asked him why the graves looked so bright and cheerful instead of sad. He said, “Because the people know that their children have gone back to Heavenly Father.” Later we stopped on a hilltop, looking at the lights glimmering up the coast north into California. I said, “It feels like the whole world is waiting for something.” He said, “It is.” When I became a BLOCK volunteer after that summer, I learned that his mother had been converted to the LDS faith, and that he had been

100

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

ordained in the Aaronic priesthood with some of his younger brothers. But he and his mother and some of the brothers had fallen away from the LDS Church. When I got back home to Phoenix, Arizona, I wanted to continue in something constructive, so I got more involved with the BLOCK, downtown at the Valley National Bank. I was dissatisfied with the party life of my friends, and slowly but surely I stopped going with them. I had met people who tried to tell me that there was no such thing as love, and no such thing as God, that those were just things that someone made up in order to sell a lot of books, but I knew that was not true. By the time I was a senior at Maryvale High School, I came to the conclusion that if there was anything good or true in the world, if there was such a thing as love, it must have to do with Jesus Christ. I got into the habit of sitting in empty churches to pray and sing the songs that I had learned in Sunday School and Bible School when I was little. I used to get off the bus early and sit in an old Baptist Church on Central Avenue before I went to the BLOCK office. My Lutheran background was a good foundation for learning about the Bible and for developing faith in Jesus Christ. After exploring other religions and philosophies, my Lutheran roots took me back to the Savior in my senior year. But we had never lived in one place long enough, because of my father’s Air Force career, for me to be committed to a long-term lifelong Lutheran congregation. We had already been exposed to a diversity of Christian denominations as we traveled and attended different Sunday schools and Bible schools. My mother took me to catechism classes every Saturday morning during the 7th and 8th grades. Pastor Volkmann took us through the doctrines and theological principles of the Lutheran faith according to the American synod. The Confirmation lessons were informative, but they were not intellectually stimulating or spiritually inspiring. It was like the plain food of the village folks in “Babette’s Feast.” It was life-sustaining but not delicious. It kept me going, but it didn’t generate much light or energy or hope or joy. It was like eating vegetables all the time. The Lutheran teachings had vitamins and minerals that were good for me, but it was not a full menu in a balanced diet. Where were the fruits, and meats, and desserts, and dairy products? The Sunday Worship Service was meaningful, but it seemed rather stiff. The formality of the sermons and the hierarchy of the paid clergy seemed austere. I did enjoy certain parts of the liturgy, such as “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me ....”, but I liked the Bible School classes much more. The ladies in charge of the Bible School were very good to me when I served as a teacher in my high school years. I loved the sweet

CONVERSION STORIES

101

fun little songs, the Bible stories, and the sweet little children. I developed some good friendships through my Confirmation class. I attended a few of the Luther League activities for the youth, but once a young man made a seriously unkind remark to me, and I knew that I would never find a sweetheart in that environment. My high school friends and I had already moved on to more interesting cultural and intellectual quests, in a social circle that seemed “cool” and “open-minded,” with seemingly higher ideals. I finally decided that when Easter came on April 22, 1973, I was going to dedicate my life to God. I bought a long white dress to symbolize the new clean life that I wanted to have. I wore it to the nondenominational sunrise service that my mother and her friend Donna took us to at the Greyhound race track that Sunday morning. Easter came, but nothing happened. I didn’t feel any change in my life. I still felt the same. Easter went, and I kept searching. One day, after a discouraging hour of Chemistry class, I wanted to be alone. I didn’t know where to go, but looking across the street from our high school, I saw a big yellow building. I decided to see if the doors were open so that I could go in and pray as I had done in other churches. All the doors were locked, and there were only two cars in the parking lot, so it seemed hopeless, but I went around to the back of the building and found one door that opened. I went in, followed a long waxed hall and tried to find the chapel. I entered a big dark room and stumbled over a few folding chairs until I found a space between two sliding walls that led into the chapel. I sat there in my blue jeans in the dim light and pondered and prayed for help. Two “glorious personages” appeared to me: a custodian and the First Counselor in a Bishopric! Brother Eddie Holland and Brother Morgan Hanks had heard me crash into the chairs of the Cultural Hall. They wanted to know what I was doing there, and I told them I had come to pray. They asked me the “Golden Question”: “What do you know about the Mormon Church?” “Wasn’t there a boy named Joseph Smith who went to the forest and saw God and Jesus?” I replied. When I was in fifth grade at Kadena Elementary on Okinawa, my friend Jamie Cross and her family were Latterday Saints. One day at their house, I saw a book lying open on their couch with a picture of a boy praying. “Who is that?” I asked. Jamie told me the story of Joseph Smith, and I believed her because I hoped that I could see God and Jesus someday also. Brother Holland and Brother Hanks asked me if I knew any Mormons, and I told them I had met a girl named Nancy Miner in a Bible

102

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

as Literature course when I was a sophomore and she was a freshman. Then the men invited me to come and learn about their church at an Open House later that week. I was not able to attend the Open House. The two LDS men did not forget about me though. They called Nancy Miner’s Bishop, a lawyer named Dan Morris. Bishop Morris called Nancy. Nancy found me between classes at high school and invited me to take the missionary discussions in her home. The missionaries were young, clean-cut, and polite. They didn’t try to force anything on me. They just explained what they believed to be true and testified of it with a sincerity and conviction that impressed me. They answered many questions that I had wondered about as a little girl, such as “What happens to the people who do not have a chance to hear about Jesus in this life?” While I was listening to the missionary discussions about twice a week, I saw a movie at the Camelback Theater. The film “Brother Sun, Sister Moon” was about the life of St. Francis of Assisi. It told the story of how he had experienced a change of heart and lifestyle. He left the rowdy life of his friends and the false rich trappings of the established church society of his time in Italy. He had a beautiful gentle friend named Clare who joined him. She said, “I no longer want to receive, I want to give. I no longer want to seek to be loved; I want to love.” As a sign of her new life of pure desires, her long blond hair was shorn. The movie affected me deeply. I cried and cried, and my heart seemed to break with the desire to have that great change in my life. I knew that something had to happen, but I did not know how to do it on my own. I went home, pulled back my hair with a rubber band, and cut off the pony tail as a sign that my life had to change. As the missionaries continued to teach me, all the bits and pieces of truth that I had found here and there in my searching years seemed to fall together in a beautiful orderly system of truth which they called the Plan of Salvation. They invited me to be baptized all in white, a symbol of a new clean life in Christ; to be baptized by full immersion in water, a symbol of death to the old life and resurrection to a new life. The scheduled baptismal day was Saturday, June 2nd, the day after my eighteenth birthday on June 1st. It was almost irresistible to think of celebrating my birthday into the world on one day, and then to have a spiritual birthday the very next day. I wanted to change my life, but I was confused and not willing to commit myself to anything so definite and final, so strait and narrow. In the final discussion with Elder Bruce Clausen and Elder Dennis Brown, I refused the baptismal invitation, saying that I would think about it while I was on my wilderness scholarship for a month in Colorado. Maybe I

CONVERSION STORIES

103

would get baptized when I got back. It was just a nice way to say “No” because I knew that I probably would not bother. I had planned a big birthday party at home for Friday, June 1st, inviting friends and neighbors. As the day approached, I found myself getting more and more depressed. Thank goodness I will never have to live through such darkness again. Friday afternoon I was walking home from school after a stormy rainy day. As I reached the corner of Pierson and 59th Avenue, something stopped me. An inner voice said to me: “Why are you running away again, Cynthia Leah Hallen? You say you want love and brotherhood and a happy family someday. They’ve showed it to you and offered it to you, and now you’re just going to run away? If you really want to know the truth and be happy, why don’t you say Yes! Why don’t you turn around and say Yes!” I hurried home to call Chona Miner, Nancy’s sister, who was my age in school. Her mother Edith said that Chona was at the church. I ran all the way back to the church building across from school and found Chona. “I don’t know why, but I have to be baptized tomorrow,” I said. I knew it was now or never. She said that she would tell the Elders, and they would arrange everything. I went home and had a Happy Birthday party with my family and friends. After the party, at about 10:30 p.m., I felt impressed to call the missionaries in case Chona had not reached them. They were already asleep and a little surprised when I said, “I have to get baptized tomorrow.” The next afternoon, after a lot of work on the part of the missionaries and several interviews to see if I would be strong enough to come into the Church alone, I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the Holy Priesthood. The next day, on Sunday, June 3rd, I received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and by the same Priesthood authority, I was confirmed a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was not easy at first to adjust to the new way of life. I didn’t have any close friends or family to associate with in the Church, and many of my friends could not relate to the high standards expected of me as a member. I did not have a strong testimony, and I had a lot of doubts in my mind, but a testimony came “line upon line, and precept upon precept.” I saw things I had never seen before in any other church, organization, or group. I saw people who really loved each other, who called each other Brother and Sister like Francis and Clare, people trying to overcome their faults and weaknesses, trying to follow the Savior. I saw people who taught their children with love, people striving to make happy

104

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

homes. I saw big strong men break down and shed tears because of their love for the Savior. People like that reached out their hands to me and helped me until I was strong enough to stand on my own. No I am not afraid to tell anyone that this is the restored church of Jesus Christ. I know that God answers prayers. He answered Joseph Smith’s prayer, and He answered my prayers. He lives, and His Son is Jesus the Christ. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. I Didn’t Mean to Leave the Mormon Church By Sam Mikel Broker Vancouver, Washington Hi… Sam here, actually that’s a nickname. I grew up in Utah—my grandparents were given free passage from England to America if they joined the Mormon Church. I don’t remember any of them being active in the LDS Church when I was growing up. Perhaps they were before. My parents weren’t active…wonderful people, very honorable, BUT dad smoked and they both drank coffee. Those types were known as “Jack Mormons”—not as good as other Mormons. You see that even drinking coffee can have dire consequences—even if you obey all the other commands. Since my sister was a lot older than I was, I was pretty much raised as an only child. That was fairly unusual in Utah where it is believed by members of the Mormon Church that there are Spirit Babies waiting in heaven (born in the Pre-existence to Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother) and if they aren’t born into our Mormon families, who knows where they might be born; perhaps darkest Africa. I had hundreds of cousins but only one sibling. My folks insisted I go to church. I didn’t like going to church because it was really boring. Other parents kept chiding me to “get my dad to come to church.” Church was three hours long (three separate meetings) and way too long for kids (or adults for that matter—it was not unusual for the men to nod off during the meetings, sometimes even while they were on the podium waiting their turn to speak). As youth, we were always “earning” something to put on our “Bandelo.” The Bandelo was a piece of felt that went around your neck and we either sewed symbols on it or had plastic ones glued on indicating that we had performed the task required for that symbol. One of the scariest for me was giving a “2 ½ Minute Talk”

CONVERSION STORIES

105

before the congregation. The good thing was my folks came whenever I gave a talk. Another Bandelo requirement was to “bear our testimony,” which was to get up on Fast Sunday (the day you weren’t supposed to eat) and say: “I know the Church of Jesus Christ is the only true church on the face of the earth, I know that the Book of Mormon is true, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, I know that (insert current prophet’s name here) is a true prophet of God” and you might add something about loving your parents and your brothers and sisters. Some people went on and on but some just gave the basic testimony. This meeting lasted an hour and was an emotional time of people getting up and telling how much they loved the church and all the miraculous things that had happened to them because of the “gospel,” i.e. the Mormon gospel. My sister was older and I looked up to her. She was married in the temple (which I was supposed to strive to do), had five kids, and was very nice. I thought she was perfect. When she was married in the temple in Salt Lake City, her husband’s family was able to attend the wedding but my parents couldn’t see their daughter married because they weren’t worthy. It was very hard on them although not much was said. That would be devastating to me. As a youth I was a good student, stayed pretty active in church until I went to college, then started dating guys who weren’t active Mormons. I struggled and ended up at age thirty divorced with a two yearold daughter, Toni. Because of her I tried going back to church but there were only two single women in the Ward (you are assigned when and where you went to church based on where you reside in the community and that was called your Ward) and the other one got married. People were nice but it was pretty obvious that I didn’t fit in very well. I was selling real estate and my daughter was barely two years old. The interest rates were over 15% and I had a mortgage payment, day care and a car payment. I enrolled her in the day care of a large local Bible-based Christian church as I needed some place that would keep her long hours if necessary. My daughter loved it and they loved her. The people there were wonderful— almost as nice as the Mormons. When she was four, Toni asked me to come to church on Easter because they had something for Mommies. I couldn’t believe how beautiful the music was and how interesting the message was. I ended up at the altar crying and praying—but I didn’t understand why. I attended there some; Toni liked it and so did I. When Toni was five, I hired a Mormon nanny who took her to the LDS church. Toni hated going. By the time Toni was eight, Scott, my

106

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

husband, and I were married. I talked to him about going to church. He tried to tell me the Mormon Church wasn’t Christian but I knew better since I had been well indoctrinated so I just dismissed what he tried to tell me. My daughter didn’t want to go to the Mormon Church and asked if we could go to that “other” church. Finally we agreed to attend the “other church” where she had gone to day care. I figured God would rather have me in some church than in none at all. The words in a Christian Church are so similar to the words in Mormonism that I didn’t pick up on the differences between Mormonism and Christianity UNTIL one day in that church’s library I ran into a book called Mama, Mormonism and Me, by Thelma “Granny” Geer. I was so angry that any church would have a book against the LDS Church (we called that “anti-Mormon literature”—which we were never supposed to read). Many times in the past I felt I could not adequately defend my religion, so in my frustration I checked out the book to find out what “anti-Mormons” had to say. I was shocked by what I read; I cried the whole way through and then spent a year reading everything I could get my hands on to see if this author was telling the truth. After researching the history of the Mormon Church from every source I could find, including little known Mormon sources, I soon realized that I hadn’t been told the truth, particularly about the life of Joseph Smith. I didn’t know about the wives he had before he “had the revelation” on polygamy. I didn’t know that Emma Smith didn’t believe in polygamy. I didn’t know that Joseph Smith used a rock he found in a well to “translate” part of the Book of Mormon. I didn’t know that he had a gun in the Carthage Jail and that he shot back and killed two people. I didn’t know that the papyrus that was used to translate the Book of Abraham had been found and the Egyptian symbols on it didn’t say anything like Joseph translated them to say, and the list went on and on and on. A lot of this information was in Geer’s book, and when I read it, I had a sinking feeling that she had written the truth. After months of research, I found not only that what she had written was true, but I discovered many things that she did not cover. One day I heard the pastor (at the “other church”) say that you could be forgiven for any sin, no matter how grievous. I thought, “Even divorce?” Even though I had been sitting in a Christian church, I didn’t understand grace. It is pretty amazing to learn that it is by the grace of God you are saved, not through anything you can do to earn it—even though it is pretty clear in the Bible. In the Mormon Church, sins are in degrees…little white lies hardly count at all, gossiping isn’t too bad,

CONVERSION STORIES

107

coveting…well that’s not so good—but divorce is a great big one. As a Mormon, you are supposed to “repent” of your sin and never do it again. If you redo a sin that you repented of, all the “big ones” are piled on top, so I figured I was buried pretty deep and God was going to have to do with me what He would do. I knew, of course, that I wasn’t “worthy” to go to the Celestial Kingdom, where my sister and family would be. But I’d probably be in the Terrestrial Kingdom (where my parents would be). When you aren’t “forgiven” life can be rather hopeless. Learning about grace was for me indeed “Good News.” I eventually prayed and asked Jesus to be my personal savior. I began to feel peace…the nagging knot in my stomach is gone and I find myself oddly calm even in times of distress. The lifting of the guilt I had lived with gave me the drive to be there for others, particularly for people who had questions about the LDS Church and who needed a safe place to question. I believe God protected me by giving me a husband who loved God and a daughter who helped me find God. While I was loaded with guilt as a Mormon because I was never good, or good enough, today I have the peace of God—and it does pass all understanding. I’ve been asked to speak to a number of groups to try to help them understand their Mormon friends and family and have been there to support those Mormons who found out what they were never taught about the Mormon Church. A lot of the Mormon leaders know the true history— and I know from the internet that it tears a lot of them up. However, they don’t dare leave; they have to live with the lies in order to hold on to their job, their position in the community, their friends and their family. Many, like me, who leave the Mormon Church, have a passion to help others. Many don’t want anything to do with religion. They feel they have been lied to about “the only true church,” so why would they want to join another? As does almost everyone who finds out such things, I tried to talk to my sister and family. They didn’t want to hear any of it. I got online and found hundreds (now thousands) of others going through the same thing I was. At first my sister did not believe me, then I showed her some of the things from Mormon Church documents, and after some time of trying to talk, she told me that we couldn’t talk about it; so we don’t. I believe it is so wrong for the LDS Church to tell their people not to study anything against the church. A normal person would know to be suspicious of that rhetoric, but someone raised to be afraid of anything against your organization tends to think it is normal. Unless you can study both sides of anything, how can you make a wise decision? Mormons seldom have access to material that tells the true history of the Mormon

108

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

Church. Their own History of the Church (seven volumes) has a lot of it, as does the Journal of Discourses (twenty-seven volumes), but most Mormons don’t have access to these books and wouldn’t take the time to read them if they did. The Mormons only read the King James Version of the Bible. The Book of Mormon often agrees with the Bible—even about grace—but the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church disagree with both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. One example is the nature of God. The Bible says, “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2). The Book of Mormon says, “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" (Mormon 9:9). It also says, "For behold, GOD knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men" (Moroni 7:22), and "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but He is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18).2 However, Joseph Smith apparently wanted to set his followers straight when he proclaimed the following at the Mormon Church's General Conference in April, 1844: I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us....3

There are many, many more instances, but Mormons don’t know to look for the inconsistencies—they certainly aren’t brought up at church. Mormons are only being obedient to what they have been taught. If material is considered “anti-Mormon,” most Mormons dismiss it as “lies and information taken out of context.” We never considered that antiMormon literature could be true…besides, we didn’t have any idea what it said. Most Mormons would not dare raise questions or doubts to their family and definitely not to the Bishop or other church authorities. But today, on the internet, in the privacy of their own homes, thousands of

Emphasis in all quotations are Sam’s. “King Follett Discourse” in Journal of Discourses 6:3-4; also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-346, and History of the Church, vol. 6, 305-307. 2 3

CONVERSION STORIES

109

Mormons and aspiring Mormons are learning about a Mormon history they were never taught and it is rocking everything they know. Mormons generally do not understand Christianity nor do they understand the common beliefs among most Christian Churches. They do not understand how you would choose another church; how you would know which one to join. I was very surprised to learn that I could go to one of hundreds of different churches and the teachings would be very similar, although the style of worship may differ. Some traditions may also differ, like the mode of baptism, whether drinking alcohol is accepted, etc., but the core beliefs are the same. I was also surprised to learn that I loved going to church and hated to miss. If I do miss, I watch the service on the internet. It’s a far cry from the long, hum-drum, meetings I used to endure. My family, thankfully, are still very nice to me—just probably think I’m weird. I never really created many Mormon friends; most of them were from my life in Utah and they are now scattered. I count hundreds of friends among Christians. They love me just the way I am and would do anything for me—as I would for them. I also have many ex-Mormons I consider my good friends, some Christian, some not—but we have a rather unexplainable bond. I am so blessed.

CONCLUSION FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH PRESCRIBED “The Spirit…certifies the truth….” -Donald Bloesch1 “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason…is like administering medicine to the dead….” -Thomas Paine2 “By common consent, great is the mystery of religion….” -1 Timothy 3:16a3 Well, not prescribed, exactly; more like “recommended” or “suggested.” In this Conclusion I would like to revisit the four basic approaches to faith and reason identified in the Introduction above with the goal of recommending a qualified version of one of them. I want to suggest the benefits of this particular approach and incorporate some observations about social context into it that philosophers and theologians sometimes overlook. Approaches to Faith and Reason The four basic approaches are fideism, presuppositionalism, evidentialism, and the classical method.4 To review, fideists believe that faith has virtually nothing to do with reason. People should believe on the basis of spiritual experience alone, without—and even contrary to—evidence. Presuppositionalists believe that one must believe first, and then the believer will see that the evidence supports the belief system. Evidentialists believe that religious truth claims should not be treated differently than any 1 Donald Bloesch, The Holy Spirit: Works & Gifts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 279. 2 Thomas Paine, The American Crisis (Raleigh: Alex Catalogue, n.d.) 48; www.netlibrary.com. 3 My literal translation; emphasis mine. 4 As a reminder to the reader, these four views were developed and organized in their contemporary form by Evangelicals, but I believe that they have universal application among the world religions. That is, an adherent of any religion could adopt any one of these, and, in fact, I believe that people in all religions do hold to these even if they do not use this particular nomenclature.

111

112

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

other truth claims; they should be tested by the normal canons of reason and evidence. If they pass, they should be accepted; if they do not, then they should be rejected. Christian evidentialists believe that traditional Christianity can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, classicists try to balance spiritual experience and reason, giving an edge to the former. Technically, the work of the Spirit is enough to establish theological truth, but reason can help to confirm the beliefs and make them credible to skeptics. Fideism seems dangerous to me. Is reason really irrelevant to religious belief? There are some Biblical stories that seem to support fideism, and fideists have been perfectly willing to invoke them over the years. These include God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (which, although revoked in the end, seems to put Abraham in the position of having to do something that contradicts everything he already knows about morality), and the claim in Isaiah 55 that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and his ways are not our ways.5 There are other passages, however, that seem to support the religious relevance of reason. These include Genesis 1 (the image of God in humanity), John 1 (the identification of Christ with Logos, or universal reason), and 2 Peter 2, which likens false teachers to irrational animals. My goal here is not to offer interpretations of these and other passages that seem to support or denounce fideism. Rather, I would suggest, first of all, that the Bible as a whole legitimizes both spiritual experience and reason, and, second, that irrationality is dangerous. Anyone could justify any religious belief no matter how bizarre or hurtful if faith has nothing to do with rationality. Presuppositionalism is more balanced than fideism in its affirmation of both spirit and reason; nevertheless, it troubles me. The concern has to do with the presuppositionalist’s severe view of the “noetic effects of sin.” Presuppositionalists believe that sin has so damaged the human mind that evidence for spiritual truth claims simply cannot be evaluated honestly by the skeptic. According to them, one must experience spiritual enlightenment before the evidence for faith will make sense. I happen to think that all people are capable of analyzing rational evidence honestly if they want to do so. Humans have biases, but humans can identify and look past those biases as well. We expect people to do this every day when sitting on juries in courtrooms. Some skeptics have examined rational arguments for some religious beliefs and have found them compelling. I have heard countless Evangelicals quote this passage in response to aspects of their faith that seem irrational. 5

FOUNDATIONS PRESCRIBED

113

What about evidentialism? While I agree with the evidentialists that reason is relevant to religious truth claims, I find three problems with this approach. First, while evidentialists give lip-service to spiritual experience, they never seem to be able to articulate what the role of this experience actually is in establishing religious knowledge. Spiritual enlightenment and confirmation seem unnecessary in the evidentialist’s system. Second, I do not believe that Christianity or any other “revealed religion” (as the world religions are sometimes called) can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.6 I believe that Christian evidentialists have too much confidence in their evidences and arguments. There are gaps and leaps of faith in the evidentialist case for Christianity. For example, arguments for Luke’s reliability become claims of reliability for “the Bible” in general. Archaeological confirmations of particular people and places in the Bible evolve into claims that “archaeology has proved that the Bible is true.” Etc. Finally, the evidentialist unwittingly gives justification to unbelief for the person who examines the arguments for Christianity and finds them lacking. One cannot at this point appeal to the work of the Spirit since the presupposition is that faith should be based on “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” This leaves us with the classical method. Proponents use this nomenclature because in their view this has been the dominant approach to faith and reason throughout Western history. It is summarized and symbolized by Anselm’s now-famous claim that theology is essentially “faith seeking understanding.” In this approach, religious beliefs are established primarily by the work of the Spirit, but reason comes in “a close second” as a helpful tool. Classicists also recognize the relevance of reason both to the believer and to the skeptic. Since we humans are both spiritual and rational in our nature—that is, since we have both spiritual and rational faculties—it seems to them that we are responsible to use both in our quest for spiritual truth. In our day, one of the biggest proponents of the classical method is William Lane Craig. Craig claims that the Holy Spirit’s inner witness to the Gospel is self-authenticating, veridical, unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistable or indubitable), sufficient for knowing the truth, and more foundational than any arguments or evidences that seem to contradict 6 The use of reason alone to establish religious beliefs has led many thinking people to embrace Unitarianism, Deism, Agnosticism, and Atheism. This diversity may reflect the biases of the interpreters in some cases, but in others it reflects honest disagreement about the evidence.

114

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

it.7 Reason is particularly helpful, however, in showing unbelievers the truth, since they are not experiencing (fully) the work of the Spirit. The Classical Method Qualified While I agree generally with the classical approach to religious epistemology, I would qualify it in four important ways. First, I would suggest that it is the synergism of pneuma (spirit) and logos (reason) that provides the most solid foundation for faith, and whenever possible, it should be sought.8 That is, spiritual experience and evidence (broadly defined as anything objective, relevant, and accessible to virtually all people) should work together to establish belief.9 It seems to me that this dynamic is particularly evident in the most basic of all religious beliefs: the existence and nature of God. I think that most reflective theists believe in God (his existence and certain attributes) because the world as they know it (with cause and effect, complexity and purpose, rationality, and objective rights and duties) rationally implies a personal Creator to them. But their experience of God blends with reason in their psyche to create and maintain faith in his existence, especially in light of the problem of evil, a genuine, rational argument against the existence of God. As the influential Christian philosopher William Alston notes, “One does not learn to perceive God as a detached observer. One learns to pray to God, worship God, hear and respond to His voice, ask God for forgiveness, and see one’s life and the environing world in the light of its creation, sustenance, and providential

7 William Lane Craig, “Classical Apologetics” in Five Views on Apologetics, S. Cowan, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000) 29-30. 8 Interestingly, the most common answer given by Mormons and Evangelicals alike to Question 18 (“What do you consider to be the best proof or evidence for Mormonism/Evangelicalism?”) was “spiritual fruit” (i.e. character development in believers). This is a great example of the merging of the spiritual and the rational. Faith produces the impulse to pursue moral improvement, and moral improvement is one of the most rational things that a person can embrace if God exists and life is meaningful. Even within a purely secular framework, the pursuit of ethics is generally seen to be useful in producing a better world, and the creation of a better world is a rational goal. 9 I realize that there are countless debates today about the concept of objectivity. I use the word informally to denote things that are difficult for reasonable people to ignore, like archaeological confirmation of particular people and places in the Bible.

FOUNDATIONS PRESCRIBED

115

ordering by God.”10 It may be that some religious beliefs are (and must be) established on the basis of spiritual experience or reason alone, and if pushed to prioritize, I would give a very slight edge to spiritual experience in matters spiritual. This is due mostly to the nature of spiritual experience itself. As Hood suggests, it includes a “sensing of a ‘beyond’ that gradually is realized ‘within’” and involves “a response to a transcendent object experienced as real.”11 In Alston’s words, it causes the subject to have “a direct experiential awareness of the Ultimate.”12 In other words, if a sane person experiences something as God, it seems that this person ought to believe that he or she has, in fact, encountered God, unless there is a clear reason to doubt the divine origin of the experience. Alston uses the word “perception” (as opposed to alternatives like “feeling”) to describe an experience in which a person seems to be encountering God. He asserts that “experiential awareness of God, or…the perception of God, makes an important contribution to the grounds of religious belief. More specifically, a person can become justified in holding certain kinds of beliefs about God by virtue of perceiving God as being or doing [something].”13 The atoning nature of Christ’s death, it seems to me, is an example of a belief that is established almost exclusively by spiritual means. Spiritual experience causes Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and Mormons to believe that the death of Jesus is salvific. Can they prove rationally that the Roman crucifixion of a Jewish man in antiquity secures divine forgiveness? No, but reason may allow them to believe this. Some religious beliefs may be suprarational; that is, they may be above and beyond reason. This is not the same thing as irrational. That which is irrational contradicts reason; that which is suprarational merely transcends it. We can be perfectly rational in believing things that are too lofty for reason (i.e. mysteries) as long as they are not contrary to things that reason clearly establishes. Of course, what reason “clearly establishes” is often misunderstood by finite creatures. If someone says that science clearly 10 William Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991) 187. Alston is probably best described as a moderate Protestant. His impact on contemporary philosophy of religion has been enormous, and I use him throughout this Conclusion to help interpret the significance of spiritual experience for determining religious beliefs. 11 Ralph W. Hood, Jr., “Mystical, Spiritual, and Religious Experiences” in Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, R. Paloutzian and C. Park, eds. (New York: The Guilford Press, 2005) 356. 12 Alston, Ibid., 258. 13 Alston, Ibid., 1 (emphasis his).

116

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

establishes natural law, and that belief in miracles is, as a result, irrational, I would claim that they have misunderstood what reason has established. Natural law is our observation of the ways things normally work. If God exists, and if he created these patterns, he can easily supersede them should he so choose. Reason should make us slow to accept miracle claims, but it does not forbid faith in some of those claims should we discover good reasons for believing in them.14 I see spirituality and reason as parts of a system of checks and balances within the human person to help us discover truth.15 After all, do we not reject the “spiritual” experiences of the mentally ill on the basis of reason? If so, should we not check our own internal experiences and convictions in the same way?16 My second qualification of the classical method involves incorporating social context into the equation without making it the ultimate criterion. I cannot believe that one should automatically believe whatever the dominant religion of one’s primary social group (family, for most people) happens to be. To do so would be to legitimize radical religious relativism, making the content of faith virtually meaningless. It would also strip the individual of the right (and responsibility) to draw his or own conclusions about Ultimate Reality based on spiritual experience and/or reason. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge the incredible power of social context to determine our religious beliefs, at least initially. Even our 14 The classic example here is the resurrection of Christ. Christian apologists have made a case for it using historical evidence. For example, Gary Habermas argues that the resurrection is the best explanation of the crucifixion of Jesus, the ensuing despair of his disciples, the postresurrection experiences of those disciples which convinced them that Christ had been raised, and their willingness to die for their belief in the resurrection. See the discussion in idem, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co., 1996) 158-167. I think Habermas’ case allows for faith in the resurrection, without requiring it. 15 Differences in personality between people may lead us to expect that some people will lean more heavily on spiritual experience, others on reason, and still others on social context in determining their beliefs. Does it have to be the same for everyone? Possibly not, but I think that a qualified classical approach to religious knowledge provides us with the best overall framework for determining religious beliefs. Within this framework there is room for diversity of emphasis. 16 Hood also documents the similarities between some religious experiences and experiences that are chemically induced (i.e. the result of taking drugs). Ibid., 353-356. This phenomenon gives us another reason to use reason to test religious experiences.

FOUNDATIONS PRESCRIBED

117

understanding of how to experience God and how to reason about him is shaped by our social context. In a powerful, integrative statement, Alston declares that our spiritual perception of God is “socially transmitted by socially monitored learning and is socially shared.”17 As educated, thinking adults in a pluralistic world, however, we cannot continue to believe merely because of our upbringing. But does that mean that social context has no role to play in determining the religious beliefs of adults? I think that it has a role to play in connection with things that one may doubt but not deny. I first began to think about this years ago as a graduate student. During this time, I met another student in the program, a Roman Catholic, who doubted a traditional Christian doctrine. He had Arian tendencies; that is, he believed that it was possible that Arius had been right and that Christ was, in fact, a created being and not the eternal Son of God who shared the Father’s nature.18 I asked him whether he continued to recite the Nicene Creed in church, since it formally proclaims the doctrine of the Trinity. He told me that he did. His rationale? He was committed to Roman Catholicism and did not actually deny the doctrine of the Trinity. He was, in his own words, willing to “trust the wisdom” of past and present leaders of the Church on a matter which was not totally clear to him. I have thought about this conversation ever since. Is he being hypocritical, or is this a legitimate way to solve a problem? I believe that this is both legitimate and wise. It is difficult for thinking people to be part of a religious community without doubting something that the community teaches. Where they feel uncertainty about a particular belief or practice but affirming it does not violate their conscience, it seems to me that they ought to allow their social group to determine what they believe, at least at a certain level. This flows out of the simple fact that none of us determines truth solely on our own; we all depend on others for our understanding of reality to some extent. My third qualification of the classical approach to religious knowledge has to do with evidences and arguments that are troubling to the believer. I believe that counterevidences need to be fully acknowledged. By “counterevidences” I mean things that genuinely seem to contradict a belief or belief system. Fideists consider these irrelevant, and presuppositionalists seem to think that they are merely the result of the distortion of the human mind caused by sin (i.e. the individual’s perception of the evidence). And while evidentialists are theoretically open to evidence against their beliefs, 17 18

Alston, Ibid., 188. See Chapter 1 above.

118

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

they seem mighty quick to “explain away” these counterevidences by suggesting possible resolutions, even if these possibilities are not very compelling.19 Craig’s presentation of the classical method does not even seem to take these seriously. He says that the Spirit overcomes all counterevidences.20 It seems to me that at some point a person might be persuaded that there is so much evidence against his or her beliefs, that a change in belief systems would be in order.21 Craig’s claim that the Spirit’s witness is self-authenticating is not without its problems. While I do not deny the claim, there is a paradox here that can only be resolved partially. Even if the witness is self-authenticating, we are not infallible. That is, it is always possible for us to mistake a natural impulse for the voice of God. Always. I would prefer to say that if the inner witness seems to be the voice of God, one should believe it unless there is significant evidence against the truth claims supposedly being confirmed. As Alston says, “a claim to be perceiving God is prima facie acceptable on its own merits, pending any sufficient reasons to the contrary.22 My reasons for this particular qualification of the classical method are fourfold. First, to deny the wisdom of a change of mind based on evidence seems to make the human subject infallible in his or her discerning of the Spirit’s voice. Second, I know that what seems obviously true to us on one day can actually seem false on the next if new information is 19 One skeptic-turned-moderate-Christian calls some attempts to resolve apparent inconsistencies in Scripture by fundamentalist apologists “absurdly convoluted arguments.” See James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004) 194. 20 Craig, Ibid., 30-36. 21 One would be foolish to change belief systems too quickly, however. The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga offers a fictitious (but realistic) scenario where an individual is justified in believing contrary to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It has to do with a person who is falsely accused of stealing a letter. The accused has stolen in the past, a reliable witness claims that he saw the accused steal the letter, and the accused has no evidence to offer for his innocence. The problem? The accused is innocent; he did not steal the letter. (The witness is honestly mistaken.) Should the accused believe that he is guilty even though he knows that he is innocent? No. Similarly, an intelligent person could present what appears to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt against a belief system that someone holds. This does not mean that he or she should immediately give up those beliefs. I would suggest that the situation calls for more research. See the discussion in Alvin Plantinga, “The Foundations of Theism: A Reply” in Faith and Philosophy 3/3 (1986): 310-311. 22 Alston, Ibid., 67 (emphasis mine).

FOUNDATIONS PRESCRIBED

119

received. Third, our upbringing (social context) shapes us to believe that some things are obviously true, even if they are not. Finally, most religions claim spiritual confirmation for their beliefs. Craig acknowledges this, but then strongly implies that the Evangelical’s inner witness is obviously true, and the Mormon’s is obviously false.23 But he cannot explain how he knows this beyond his own internal experience. Could not the Mormon say the same thing about Craig’s experience? This leads me to my fourth qualification of the classical method. The “Everything or Nothing” Mentality “I don’t have a testimony about polygamy [in the Church’s past], and I don’t want one!” -Mormon scholar “If there’s one mistake in the Bible, then ‘eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!’” -Evangelical subject “The reflective Christian’s relationship to the church…is varied and complex. …[Many] wounded Christians have learned that revealing their thoughts compounds their difficulties, especially in the conservative church. Others…feel they must either… conform to expectations, or reject the entire package they have been offered and make do without God.” -Daniel Taylor24 One of the most important and profound issues that came to my attention during this project has to do with the notion of confusing the part for the whole. Sometimes religious people have spiritual, rational, or social confirmation of something in their belief system, and they mistakenly think that 23 Ibid., 35-36. He does claim that some non-Evangelical religious experience may be genuine experience of God, but does not develop the point. 24 The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian & the Risk of Commitment (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992) 42-43, emphasis mine. Taylor, himself an Evangelical, describes “reflective Christians” as those who have made a genuine commitment to Christ, but who at the same time have been “blessed and cursed with minds that never rest” (11), and who perpetually struggle with doubt. He encourages Christian commitment on the part of reflective Christians in spite of doubt because of the meaning that the Gospel brings into our lives.

120

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

the truth of the whole belief system has been confirmed as a result. This is a vital issue for all people of faith. If spiritual enlightenment confirms a connection between the death of Jesus and the virtue of love, for example, does that mean that one’s view of the end times is correct? If archaeology and extraBiblical historical sources have confirmed the historical reliability of something in the book of Acts, does that mean that the book of Jude is historically trustworthy? While few boldly answer these questions affirmatively, I am convinced that unconsciously these mistakes are made regularly, mistakes that have contributed unnecessarily to the dividedness of Protestantism and to theological confusion in the world. Western religions are inherently theological in nature, and theology by definition is systematic. That is, various beliefs fit together into a (somewhat) coherent whole. Furthermore, the human mind naturally seeks coherence in its attempt to make sense out of the world. When these two are combined with the “conservative mind”—the preference for certainty and comprehensiveness over ambiguity and partial knowledge—it becomes easy to mistake confirmation of parts with confirmation of whole systems (Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism, Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, etc.). If conservative religious people would develop the intellectual habit of discerning various levels and kinds of confirmations for different religious beliefs and practices, great progress would be made within and between religious groups in matters of understanding and interpersonal relationships. Remember Joseph Smith’s dilemma? Too many different types of Christians were all telling him to join their church because it was the right one. The failure of the Protestant Reformers and their theological descendants to distinguish between primary (the most important) and secondary (not so important) issues has led, in my judgment, to the creation of countless denominational and nondenominational churches, all convinced that their theological systems are airtight.25 This must change. People of faith must allow for more disagreement in their midst. As Weil suggests,

When pushed in private to distinguish between primary and secondary issues, many conservative Christians will consent. But the impression given in public often tends to be the “everything or nothing” mentality. Furthermore, before the rise of modern political democracy, the various conservative Protestants (and Roman Catholics) were literally persecuting each other over secondary issues (like the proper way to baptize and organize). 25

FOUNDATIONS PRESCRIBED

121

Denominationalism was the result of a failure within the various [Protestant] traditions to deal with diversity. The hostilities of debate reinforced by geographical distance made it all too easy to live as though the other traditions scarcely existed. We cannot look at questions of... faith and practice in this way any longer.26

We humans experience degrees of certainty in many areas of life. We may believe things lightly or with great conviction, depending on all sorts of relevant factors. Conservative religious people tend to seek certainty—or something close to it—in all matters theological. This is a part of the conservative impulse. I think, however, that the impulse needs to be counteracted by a greater embracing of the principle of degrees of certainty.27 Spirit and/or reason and/or social context may create ongoing assurance that one’s faith is true, but not everything should be believed with equal conviction. This will help people of faith to be intellectually honest, and might prevent some people from abandoning their faith altogether when they conclude that “everything or nothing” means nothing.28 “Cure Thy children’s warring madness; Bend our pride to Thy control….” -Harry Emerson Fosdick29 May I speak directly to “reflective” Evangelicals for a moment? Are you struggling with your faith because you cannot believe everything that those around you want you to believe? You are in good company. Some of Church history’s greatest heroes have not bought into the “everything” as 26 Louis Weil, “The Gospel in Anglicanism” in The Study of Anglicanism, S. Sykes and J. Booty, eds. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1988) 74. To this I would add the observation that being “nondenominational” is not a solution to the problem that I am describing here. Nondenominationalists often have the “everything or nothing” mindset too. 27 I would remind all my conservative readers that even the New Testament asserts that we “see in a mirror, dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12/NKJV). This may imply that spiritual enlightenment only confirms basic religious beliefs. 28 I am convinced that some people who have lost their faith altogether have been severely impacted psychologically and spiritually by the “everything or nothing” mentality. If people cannot believe everything that their community tells them to believe, they should be encouraged to believe as much as they can and should be affirmed in their intellectual struggles, assuming they are sincere. 29 Harry Emerson Fosdick, “God of Grace and God of Glory” in The Hymnal for Worship & Celebration (Waco: Word Music, 1986) 292.

122

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

defined by dominant, contemporary Evangelicalism. As examples, Augustine (fifth century), Martin Luther (sixteenth century), and C. S. Lewis (twentieth century) all violated some aspect of modern, Evangelical expectation. Augustine believed in the Scriptural status of the Apocrypha, those extra books in the Roman Catholic Old Testament, rejected by most Protestants.30 In fact, many Patristic and Medieval Church leaders regarded these writings as inspired and authoritative. On the other hand, Martin Luther, the “father of the Protestant Reformation,” who called the Church back to Scripture, rejected the canonicity of the epistle of James and actually ranked the books of the Bible according to “excellence” of content.31 C. S. Lewis, possibly the most influential Evangelical of the twentieth century, could not accept the inspiration of some of the imprecatory Psalms, like the well-known Psalm 137:9 (“Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”).32 In fact, in a number of passages, Lewis recognized the “human qualities” of Scripture and believed that it was in the “overall message” of the Bible that the “Word of God” was to be found.33 Lewis believed that God had allowed the human aspects of Scripture to color the conveyance of divine revelation for our benefit. In his view, we learn from both the divine and the human in Scripture. He urged Christians not to impose on the Bible a view of inspiration that suits them but not the evidence, and not to assume that God must have inspired these writings in a particular way.34 Were these three spiritual and theological giants to apply for jobs in many Evangelical institutions today, they presumably could not get hired because of these things.35 For spiritual and/or rational reasons, Luther and 30 See the discussion in F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988) 94-96. 31 See John Dillenberger, ed., Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings (New York: Doubleday, 1962) 19, 35-37. The standard for evaluating Biblical books for Luther was Christ and the Good News. For an excellent overview and interpretation of bibliological debates during the Reformation Age, see S. L. Greenslade, “The Bible in the Reformation” in The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, S. L. Greenslade, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963; 1978 reprint) 1-37. 32 ESV. 33 C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1958) 111-112, 114. 34 Ibid., 112. 35 There are many other examples of dissent among orthodox leaders throughout history beyond bibliology as well.

FOUNDATIONS PRESCRIBED

123

Lewis could not accept an “everything or nothing” approach to the Bible, and Augustine’s “everything” included more than the Protestant Bible. I believe that all three of these intellectuals used spiritual experience, reason, and consensus (Tradition and social context) to discern truth to the best of their ability, and Evangelicalism has inherited much from them without always realizing or acknowledging it. In a recent publication, Craig Evans surveys modern attempts to reconstruct the “historical Jesus” (as opposed to the “Christ of faith” that the Gospels present). He detects a reaction to the “everything or nothing” mentality in these unorthodox portrayals of Jesus. In a chapter entitled “Misplaced Faith and Misguided Suspicions,” Evans notes the overreaction to fundamentalism that some of these critics have demonstrated. He then concludes with the following: The message that runs throughout the New Testament writings and the earliest Christian communities was that God had raised Jesus…. It was the reality of the resurrection and its impact on those who heard and responded to it in faith that propelled the new movement forward…. [The] proofs adduced from [the Old Testament] are clearly subordinate to the message itself…. Nonexperts perhaps need to be told that in the first ten to fifteen years of the existence of the church, not one book of the New Testament was in existence. Nevertheless, the church grew fast and furious, without benefit of a New Testament….I repeat: The truth of the Christian message hinges…on the resurrection of Jesus.36

My point here is not to engage these issues at the level of doctrine. It is simply to underscore the reality that thinking people of faith need space to disagree (within reasonable boundaries) without fear of rejection. Within every world religion there are different perspectives on the nature of sacred texts, the details of the afterlife, the end of the world, community organization, rituals, worship styles, and other things. So, if one cannot believe the “everything” of their family, friends, or favorite house of worship, they should believe what they think is true. They may have to live with a measure of discomfort or criticism, but that is the price we pay for intellectual honesty and courage. If the discomfort becomes unbearable, one should change religious affiliations. I offer one more observation about the “everything or nothing” perspective. Remember that the disputes within conservative Protestantism Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006) 29-31. 36

124

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

about how to interpret the Bible on all sorts of doctrines were, to a large extent, what prompted Joseph Smith to look beyond the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy for answers. He could not figure out which “everything or nothing” denomination to join.37 The insistence on too much theological conformity can and sometimes does backfire. The Classical Approach and Religious Pluralism Is it not the case that all committed religious people have spiritual experience, rational arguments, and social support related to their beliefs about God? And do the foundational beliefs of the major world religions not contradict each other? The answer is yes to both questions. So how do we break the gridlock? In the words of the influential philosopher of religion, John Hick, “[the] problem can be posed very concretely in this way. If I had been born in India, I would probably be a Hindu; if in Egypt, probably a Muslim; if in Sri Lanka, probably a Buddhist; but I was born in England and am, predictably, a Christian.”38 Of course, if one thinks that he or she can prove his or her religion to be true beyond a reasonable doubt (the evidentialist’s claim), then I suppose one already has the answer. But if we agree that no religion can be proved to this extent, then where do we stand? Alston acknowledges the challenge of basing religious beliefs on religious experience given the competing theological claims of the world’s religions, all claiming religious experience in support of their beliefs. But he argues that I am justified in believing that my spiritual experience is a genuine encounter with God, and that beliefs flowing out of that experience are justified, if that experience and those beliefs “serve me…well in guiding my activity in the world,” and if the supposed promises of God to grant the fruit of the Spirit are actually fulfilled in my life.39 When this happens, he says, one is justified in believing that he or she has genuinely encountered God and that this encounter provides “at least a good approximation to the truth.”40 This is so “even if one can’t see how to solve the problem of 37 I remind my Mormon readers that in the wake of Joseph Smith’s death, the Mormons were deeply divided on questions of leadership, organization, and practice as well. Many did not follow Brigham Young west, and numerous small non-LDS Mormon groups can still be found throughout the United States to this day. 38 John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990) 109-110. 39 Alston, Ibid., 274-276. 40 Ibid., 276.

FOUNDATIONS PRESCRIBED

125

religious pluralism, even if one can’t show from a neutral standpoint that Christianity is right and the others are wrong on those points on which they disagree.”41 Nevertheless, Alston warns against the use of spiritual experience alone as the basis for determining religious truth, urging religious people to use reason as well. He says, I do not take this to imply that the proper procedure for the Christian, or the member of any religious community, is to shut herself up within the boundaries of her own community and ignore the rest of the world. On the contrary…[She] should do whatever seems feasible to search for common ground on which to adjudicate crucial differences between the world religions.”42

To this I would add the claim that my social group(s) should be allowed to fill in the gaps in my belief system where I cannot find my own way. I am not sure that we can improve on the conclusion drawn by Daniel Taylor related to this issue. He says, I am no longer bothered, as I once was, by the notion that if I were born in another place or at another time I would have been a Buddhist, or atheist, or animist. I was not born in another place or time, and I am accountable only for my response to what has been presented to me in the uniqueness of my life.43

This seems right to me. What else can finite and fallible creatures do? This appears to be the implication of Acts 17:26-27 as well: “From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us.”44 The Classical Approach and Orthodox Theology By drawing on the spiritual, rational, and social aspects of the human person, the classical approach to religious knowledge that I am recommending here is authentically human. I claim this because humans are Ibid. Ibid., 278, emphasis his. 43 Taylor, Ibid., 103, emphasis mine. 44 Emphasis mine, of course. 41 42

126

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

spiritual, rational, and social beings. But is this approach authentically Christian? That is, is it compatible with biblical and orthodox (traditional) theology? The doctrine of the Trinity has defined Christianity formally since the fourth century.45 It states that God the Father reaches out to humanity in two primary ways: through his Pneuma (Spirit) and through his Logos (Logic/Word). The Pneuma (Holy Spirit) comes internally, not accessible to the senses. The Logos (Christ) came in external form, wrapped in human flesh and accessible to the senses of those who witnessed his earthly life and ministry (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1-4).46 As divine image bearers, people discover something about God by looking at themselves (and others). Spiritual discernment should be used in the search for spiritual truth (1 Cor. 2:1-16, 12:3; 1 Thess. 5:23). However, since Christ is said to be the image of God (Heb. 1:3), since we are said to be created according to that image (Gen. 1:27), and since Christians are supposedly being transformed more fully into that image (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 4:22-24), orthodoxy must conclude that our rational capacity is also a gift from God—a dim reflection of God’s own mind—and that he expects us to use reason in the search for 45 As an Anglican Christian, I accept this definition. I remind the reader, however, that Mormons (and others) do not. See the discussion in Chapter 2 above. 46 Identifying Christ with reason as I do here may seem odd to some readers. I think the association is real in at least three ways. First, as the divine Logos (Jn. 1:1), Christ was the instrument by which God brought order out of chaos in his creation of the world (Gen. 1:1-2; Jn. 1:3), and the one who maintains the fine-tuning of the universe (Col. 1:17). Organization is rational. Second, in Christ God gave humanity empirical access to himself (Jn. 1:14;1 Jn. 1:1-3). Finally, Christ was clearly philosophical in his approach to moral exhortation. In the Gospels (especially the Synoptics), Christ calls his followers to engage in serious moral reflection and reasoning. He does not give them a new moral code with a list of rules designed to replace the Law of Moses. Rather, he gives them principles, proverbs, stories, and interpretations of the Old Testament that force them to think. For example, in Mark 2 Christ tells the Pharisees (in the presence of his disciples) that David was justified in eating bread that was unlawful for him to eat, presumably because there was a higher principle at stake than obeying the letter of the Law. He then says that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. This discourse naturally raises some very important ethical questions that Christ does not address. It by no means makes Christ a relativist, but it does indicate clearly that some exceptions to some moral rules are justified in some situations, and it requires reasoning and judgment on the part of his followers. On the other hand, Christ clearly identifies some things that are fundamentally defiling (Mk. 7).

FOUNDATIONS PRESCRIBED

127

theological truth. In other words, according to a Trinitarian understanding of God, God reveals himself spiritually, rationally, and, because of his own Trinitarian nature, socially (i.e. as a relational Being within himself and through more than one divine Person). Divine image bearers (humans) must, in turn, utilize spiritual, rational, and social means of discovering truth. Even if one does not embrace the doctrine of the Trinity literally, one might, with progressive Christians, see in it a symbolic representation of that which cannot be understood by humanity (the Father), that which can be accessed through reason and the senses (Christ), and that which comes only through spiritual enlightenment (the Spirit).

APPENDIX 1 BELIEFS AND VOLITION “…who were born, not of…the will of man but of God.” -John 1:13 "[The beliefs of men] depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds." -Thomas Jefferson1 “…I did not decide to convert: it was decided for me.” -Hugh Montefiore2 Do we choose our beliefs or do our beliefs choose us? Was Jefferson right? Do we automatically follow the evidence trail and believe whatever the evidence tells us to believe? Or do profound spiritual experiences leave us no choice but to believe? Did Paul choose to believe or did his encounter with Christ simply overwhelm him, leaving him with no choice? Many an evangelistic sermon has ended with the declaration, “It’s your choice whether to accept Christ or not.” Is “choice” the right way to conceptualize how people come to embrace religious beliefs? One way to answer the question is to ask about our predominant use of the words “choose” and “choice.” What image comes to mind? Generally we talk about choice in the context of behavior (actions), not beliefs. Will I choose to eat lunch at restaurant A or restaurant B today? Will I choose to marry that person or not? “I chose the path less traveled.” How often do we say, “I choose to believe that it’s hot today” or “I sat on the jury and chose to believe that the accused was guilty”? Virtually never. If we believe that it is hot today, it is because the temperature and our physical response to it convince us that it is hot. Can I choose to believe that it is cold if it is 105° and I am perspiring like never before, just like I can choose between two restarurants? No. If I am ever charged with a crime and you sit on my jury, I hope that you do not choose to call me guilty if the evidence does not prove me so! Actions and beliefs seem to have very 1 Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) 545. 2 Hugh Montefiore, “From Faith to Faith” in Previous Convictions: Conversion in the Real World, Martyn Percy, ed. (London: SPCK, 2000) 19.

129

130

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

different relationships with human volition (choice). I would suggest that we choose to act, and we become convinced that things are true (or false).3 People who sit on juries are either convinced by the evidence that the accused is guilty or they are not (assuming they are doing their job properly). They should not have to “choose” what to believe. Generally, we do not choose our beliefs; our beliefs choose us. In other words, we become convinced that things are true as we experience life. There might be some exceptions to this rule. In ordinary, everyday experience, for example, we might choose to believe that someone is innocent even though evidences have been presented against them (i.e. we hear gossip). Presumably we would do this out of our commitment to follow the Golden Rule. Or the truth in a given situation might be too painful for us to accept at first. We may be “in denial” about something that we ought to accept. But if this continues, we engage in self-deception, and self-deception is neither a virtue nor something that we can practice consistently. As a rule, we become convinced that things are true. Our beliefs choose us. This applies to religious beliefs as well. Whether through social influence, spiritual experience, or rational argumentation—or a combination of these—people become convinced that certain religious truth claims are true and others are false. Does this mean that choice is irrelevant to religious belief? No. Since we can choose to act, we can choose to investigate as many religious truth claims as we want. We can investigate our own beliefs carefully, or the beliefs of others. As we do so, we either will become convinced that we already possess the truth, or we will change our minds as we encounter new ideas, arguments, and counterarguments. Of course, once we do become convinced that something is true, we can choose to commit ourselves to it a little bit or a lot in terms of practical application to life. Why does this matter? We sometimes get frustrated with others for their apparent refusal to “see” things our way. Do you disagree with me? What is wrong with you? You must be very stubborn! There is such a thing as the stubborn refusal to believe, and it can be caused by any number of things. But I imagine that many who disagree with me on any subject of Philosophers debate everything, and this certainly includes the notion of “free will” as it pertains to actions. The discussions are fascinating but beyond the scope of this project. I do not believe that one’s philosophical conclusions about the nature of free will have direct bearing on my point here, unless one is a hard determinist. If you are one, I declare that you have been determined to change your mind about this. 3

BELIEFS AND VOLITION

131

importance do so because they simply are not convinced that I am right. A recognition of this can be very helpful in developing our own character and in developing and maintaining relationships with others. Finally, thanks for choosing to read this book.

APPENDIX 2 THE CREEDS1 The Apostles’ Creed I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

1 The Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are taken from The Book of Common Prayer published by The Episcopal Church (1979 ed.) 120, 358-359. The Mormon Articles of Faith are taken from The Pearl of Great Price published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1981 ed.), 60-61.

133

134

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

The Nicene Creed We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

THE CREEDS

135

The Articles of Faith (LDS) We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. 2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. 3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. 4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. 5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. 6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. 7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. 9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.. 10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

136

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

APPENDIX 3 THE QUESTIONNAIRE Introductory Questions 1. Why do you believe that Mormonism/Evangelical Christianity is true? 2. How did you become a Mormon/Evangelical Christian? 3. If you converted later in life, why did you convert? Spiritual Foundations of Faith 4. To what extent has spiritual or religious experience inspired or sustained your faith? “Spiritual or religious experience” includes prayer, preaching, reading Scripture, ordinances/sacraments, etc. 5. What kinds of spiritual or religious experiences positively influence your faith and why? 6. Mormons/Evangelical Christians claim to have the witness of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit in their hearts confirming the truth of Mormonism/Evangelical Christianity. How do you know that the assurance you have in your heart is from God? 7. To what extent do you continue to believe because your faith has changed your life in a positive way? 8. What do you think of the religious experiences of non-Mormons/nonEvangelicals, especially those which seem to confirm their religious beliefs to them? Sociological Foundations of Faith 9. Who was or is the greatest influence on your religious beliefs? 10. What were the religious beliefs of your family when you were growing up? 137

138

MORMONS AND EVANGELICALS

11. To what extent have the religious beliefs of your family changed over time? 12. If the religious beliefs of your family have changed significantly, have yours changed with them? Why or why not? 13. How much do you associate with people that hold to other religious beliefs? 14. To what extent do your friends share your religious beliefs? 15. What would be the social consequences for you if you converted to another religion? Rational Foundations of Faith 16. To what extent do you have faith because you think that Mormonism/Evangelical Christianity is reasonable? 17. To what extent do you think that an unbeliever can become persuaded of the truth of Mormonism/Evangelical Christianity by rational arguments and evidence? 18. What do you consider to be the best proof or evidence for Mormonism/Evangelical Christianity? 19. Would you believe that Mormonism/Evangelical Christianity is true even if most of the evidence were against it? Conclusion 20. How has your assurance changed over time? That is, has your faith become stronger or weaker over time or has it stayed about the same? 21. What has caused your faith to become stronger or weaker over time? 22. To what extent do you ever doubt that Mormonism/Evangelical Christianity is true? 23. If you sometimes doubt that your beliefs are true, what causes you to doubt?

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

139

24. How do you respond to or deal with doubts about the truth of Mormonism/Evangelical Christianity? 25. Is there anything else about your faith that you would like to tell me that I did not ask you?