Reading Joseph Smith’s Book
— Sunday, April 26th, 2009 —
I just finished reading Ross Anderson’s little book Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Quick Christian Guide to the Mormon Holy Book, just published by Zondervan, and find it both helpful and fascinating.
The book is short, 116 very small pages, and is written in a conversational style. Anderson, an evangelical pastor in Utah, lays out the contents of the Book of Mormon, compares the doctrinal content with that in other Mormon holy books, and suggests ways for Christians to dialogue with Mormons.
The most effective part of this book is its fair, honest look at the Book of Mormon, and its loving, respectful tone toward Mormons. I would word things a bit stronger than the author does in a few places, but his overall tone is a needed balance to some of our bombast when it comes to speaking Christ to our neighbors.
Anderson is an ex-Mormon, but he’s an ex-Mormon who loves Christ not an ex-Mormon who is rebelling against his family. It is obvious in the pages of this little book that Anderson loves his Mormon family members and wants other Christians to learn how to speak to folks like them, with grace and truth.
Anderson advises his fellow Christians on what Mormons hear when we say certain things to them. He tells us why, for instance, bringing up Joseph Smith’s polygamy isn’t the best way to get the gospel to Latter-day Saints.
This book isn’t a comprehensive comparison between Christianity and Mormonism. It’s not necessarilly the book to give to someone weighing becoming a Mormon, or to a Mormon contemplating Christ. But it’s an excellent resource to give to a church member who is in an ongoing conversation with a Latter-day Saint friend or neighbor.
Thanks Russ,
That little book sounds like it will be very helpful for someone who lives in the other Mormon mecca, Independence, MO.
Look forward to reading it
Brooke, Yes, Independence is quite interesting. The Reorganized LDS temple looks like something Mesopotamian at best; Hindu at worst. All the Mormon culture was something to see, last time I was there, along with a welcome visit to the Harry S Truman Library.
Dr. Moore,
I’m an ex-Mormon turned evangelical Pastor myself. As matter of fact on Sunday night I had a 45 minute discussion with youth and parents about the nature and essence of Mormon theology in comparison to Orthodox Christianity. I will have to pick up book. Thanks.
Tobby, Two quick questions, if you don’t mind. What, humanly speaking, did the Lord use to persuade you to embrace historic Christianity? Second, what mistakes do you see your fellow evangelical Christians making in trying to reach Mormons?
Dr. Moore,
1. When God began to turn my heart away from Mormonism and towards the Christian gospel it was through the witness and testimony of two devout Christian women. One of whom is now my wife of 13 years and the other is now my mother in law of 13 years. They were kind enough to love me though I was in error, yet, they were bold enough to confront me with basic tenants of the gospel (the centrality of the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ, the authority of scripture, etc.,). God used them to bring me out of the Kingdom of the Cults and into the Kindom of Christ. Praise God for His mercy.
2. It’s been my experiance that Christians need to have a very good understanding of the gospel to confront faithful and nominal Mormons (I’m right your wrong doesn’t lead down the road to exposing truth as much as it leads vindicating yourself). When a Christian can a explain the gospel in an intelligent and articulate and simple way it will go a long way. But in each instance there needs to boldness tempered with humilty and love.
As a believing Mormon who has been in dialogue with Evangelicals and ex-Mormons for the past couple years, a few observations:
1. My experience is that the counter-cult movement is more effective in turning Mormons into atheists than it is in turning them into “Christians” (as you folks would define the term).
A lot of Christians have unwarranted confidence that faith in Jesus can survive the general loss of faith in a Mormon. Once you’ve taught a Mormon to doubt and question his faith, it’s not really all that hard to extend that newfound suspicion to the Bible. Whether Christians want to admit it or not, the essentials of Christianity are just as unbelievable as the Joseph Smith story. And I have a lot of ex-Mormon friends who have reached exactly that conclusion.
2. A little critical self-observation goes a long way.
For instance, don’t use arguments on Mormons that can just as easily be used to undermine Christian faith in general. Recent (fallacious) claims that DNA evidence somehow “disproves” the Book of Mormon would be one example. It always frustrates me how many Christians are unaware that similar DNA arguments undermine the story of the “Great Flood” or other particulars of the biblical narrative.
Use of Deuteronomy 18:22 against Joseph Smith is another good example. The Christians I’ve encountered who use this argument seem utterly oblivious to the fact that the same verse, when used the way THEY are using it, can also be used to discredit prophecies from Jonah, Ezekiel, Nathan, the prophecy given at Sampson’s birth and others.
4. Be sure to confront the beliefs of the Mormon in front of you rather than your own caricature of Mormon belief. There is a great diversity of belief in modern Mormonism. The religion LOOKS unified from the outside, but you’ll find widely divergent beliefs inside a typical Mormon ward.
This is why the book “The Godmakers” is so misguided. It constructs a picture of modern Mormonism almost solely from outdated and marginalized historical sources. Believe it or not, the idea that God the Father was ever a “sinful man” who grew into his current state is a highly marginalized and pretty-much ignored idea in modern Mormonism. Neither do most modern Mormons envision a heaven where every guy gets a dozen wives. You are also going to have a hard time finding a Mormon today who believes that God the Father slept with Mary to conceive Jesus Christ.
But, largely I think out of sheer laziness, a lot of Christian outreach ministries insist on holding modern Mormonism to ideas that have been either marginalized or discredited in its own history. Honestly, I think it’s because a lot of Christians aren’t intellectually equipped to tread the fine line of nuance, and find it easier to attack a dumb caricature of Mormonism rather than the real thing. It’s the strawman fallacy writ large.
When you confront a Mormon with the “Godmakers narrative” they will likely think you are an idiot or a bigot (or both). This is because that narrative is so far off from what the normal everyday Mormon actually believes, that it ruins the credibility of the Christian using it. Granted, use of that cheesy cartoon explanation of Mormonism that has been circulating on YouTube may win you some cheap laughs from the choir loft (and maybe it has a function in boundary-maintenance in that respect), but it will just make the average LDS think you’re a hateful idiot.
3. I have seen Mormons convert to traditional Christianity before. But, at least in the online world, they seem to be in the minority (off of the internet, it may be a different story). When the DO move from Mormonism to Christianity, it is usually for emotional, and not intellectual reasons.
A common one is when a Mormon burnt out by a focus on works, discovers the good news of Christ’s love and grace and embraces the local Evangelical congregation.
I would point out, of course, that such focus on works is a misreading Mormon scripture and doctrine, but enough Mormons are afflicted by it that the local Baptist congregation can sometimes have something valuable to offer.
Just a few random observations I’ve had. Hope you find them useful.
Seth, Thank you for your engagement with the question. That’s a huge help to me to see things from your vantage point. I do hope and pray that you will come to believe the gospel of historic Christianity (which we believe is the gospel of Jesus himself). It is always a good idea for Christians to talk to Mormons not just about the gospel, but about what in our own presentations of it prevent them from hearing what we’re saying.
Seth, Thank you for participating here. I have two quick questions if you have time:
1) Could you explain what you see as the Christian (non-Mormon) gospel?
2) When you say, “A lot of Christians have unwarranted confidence that faith in Jesus can survive the general loss of faith in a Mormon”, can you explain what “faith in Jesus” means to you and why it is important for it to stay intact when Christians question Mormons?
Russell,
Thanks for the generous review on amazon.com. I appreciate your recommendation. You very accurately perceived the spirit of “humble confidence” in which I intended to communicate.
Well Joshua, I merely used the term “traditional Christian gospel” as a handy term for distinguishing between the Mormon set of beliefs and that of other Christians.
If you are going to ask my own opinion, I would, of course respond that I find Mormon teachings synonymous with the “Christian gospel.” But that’s not a view I expected would be widely shared here. I don’t see Christianity as “non-Mormon.” We believe we have a true notion of Jesus, his role and teachings.
I view faith in Jesus as a belief in the need for an atonement of some sort to rescue us from the inescapable reality of our fallen natures. That is, after all, the whole theological point of having a Jesus-figure.
I will say that I find the atheist trend in ex-Mormons to be very discouraging. I find so much contempt and negativity from them. It’s like someone came by and switched off the lights. Very sad to watch.
I much prefer it when a person leaves Mormonism for a different faith. I don’t care if it’s Baptist, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. The person maintains a spiritual richness in life and a connection with the divine. Much better spirit coming from these people.
Of course, an ex-Mormon Baptist can be very, very resentful about their former faith too. Just as much so as the atheist variety. But in this case, it’s at least tempered by a new love in their life.
With atheism, you’re just left with a handful of mud essentially.
Dear Seth,
Distinction between Mormonism and Christianity simply comes down to our appeal to authority. A Mormon will appeal ultimately to the testimony that Joespeh Smith is a true prophet and the book of Mormon is a true testimony.
As a Christian my appeal is that the bible alone (and the gospel that comes out of its pages) is the Christian source of authority.
One view is right and one view is wrong. We both cannot be right. There are eternal consequences for what we believe.
Contemporary Mormonism may be different than it was when “the Godmakers” came out. But that is also one of the major flaws that I see within the LDS Church.
Its an “evolution of theology” where nothing is quite fixed other than Book of Mormon as authoritative and the prominence that Josepeh Smith still has. If we contrast that with Orthodox Christianity we come to a gospel that has stood for 2,000 years under the tension of Roman persecution, Papal infalibilty, the Enligtenment, and modern liberalsim (its been delivered once and for to the Saints).
I am a former Mormon and I feel no bitterness towards you or other Mormons, rather,by God’s Spirit I feel more inclined to show you grace, mercy, and love.
Ross, You are quite welcome. Congratulations on a fine and helpful work for the church. I plan to give it out to lots of folks.
Tobby, I also don’t buy arguments that the rest of Christianity has “stood firm” for the last 2,000 years. There is such a diversity in Christian thought, belief and practice, and there have been so many changes - even in the most conservative wings of the major faith traditions.
It is nice however (as I mentioned) that you found a new faith.
Seth,
I appreciate you sentiments. There may be as you say “changes” in some of the forms of Christianity, but the elements of apostolic Christianity have, do, and will remain (despite any difficulities through the ages), namely, the biblical view that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, co-eternal with the Father, the God-man has walked among His creation (1 John 1:1-4, John 1:1-2, Col 1:15-16).
Even through the dark ages there was still a “needle of truth in the haystack of error.” By God’s grace during the Reformation of the 16th century Chrisitanity got back “to the sources” the scriptures that reveal that a person is not made right in eyes of God because intrensic goodness or works or bloodline, rather, they are made right because another man’s righteousness . . .that is Jesus Christ the Son of God.
I agree Tobby.
And this is what I view as the message of the Restored Gospel.
This is not a matter of pitting Joseph Smith’s testimony against that of Christ’s. We believe that Joseph was the messenger of Jesus Christ to a modern age. Our faith is “founded” on “the testimony of Joseph Smith” than your faith is “founded” on the testimony of Paul or Peter, or others.
Seth, I thank you for your response to what “faith in Jesus” means to you. I think you are right that your view of commonality with Christianity would not be widely shared here. And I think it may be your explanation of faith in Jesus that constitutes that separation of views. Now it may be the brevity with which you wrote but I would like to offer a response to it.
My faith in Jesus means more than a belief in the “need for an atonement of some sort”. I do believe the atonement of Jesus Christ was needed to save me and that He made that atonement but there is more. There is only one God. God exists in Three Persons. One of those Persons, Christ, came to earth in the likeness of sinful man to live a sinless life and die on the cross for sinners. When He rose from the dead He showed His triumph over sin and death was perfect and complete. And this is important, He proved He was the final revelation of who God is without need for more - He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name He has inherited is more excellent than theirs. I think there is a difference here between our desire to live our whole lives by faith in that Jesus unto our final goal to worship and submit to our One God forever and your desire and goal.
So, if you are pleased that Tobby has found a new faith then I encourage you to embrace a new faith, the one in Jesus Christ who is God with skin on, one of the three Persons of the only true God, who came to die for sinners, that they might have eternal life with God. If you will not believe then will you explain how these things are the same as the Mormon faith?
Mormons do believe that Father, Son, and Spirit are one Joshua.
We just don’t believe in homoousios.
So you believe there is one God, that the final revelation of God is Jesus Christ and that Jesus is the only way to salvation? I don’t see how you can agree that Jesus is sufficient for our salvation and deny that He is fully God. Why would we waste time worshipping someone who is not God?
When you “just” don’t believe the main point of the earliest and most widely accepted creed of the Christian faith, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, I think you can see why you are not a Christian.
I can see why I am not a “Christian” according to the vested status quo, yes.
But I see no particular reason to defer to that status quo.
You wrote:
“So you believe there is one God, that the final revelation of God is Jesus Christ and that Jesus is the only way to salvation?”
Yes.
But most of the other Christians I debate with tend to further qualify this simple statement with additional technicalities that seem to wind up excluding Mormons anyway.
Seth,
I acknowledge the fact that there is a great deal of diversity within the realm of the LDS church. Having recently had a discussion with two gentlemen from the local LDS congregation, I will ask you the same question I asked them. According to your own understanding, what is the role of baptism? And, is it necessary for salvation? They gave me a somewhat unclear answer. Perhaps I am simply following a common misconception, but from my perspective on what those two gentlemen said, how would you respond to someone that understood your theology as arguing for a works-based salvation? Thanks for your time.
Seth, I am glad you see that you are not a Christian because there is a “traditional Christian gospel” tracing back before the Nicene Creed which you deny.
I am not happy with the way to redefine Jesus Christ mid-post. It is not consistent to deny what you call the “status quo” (Christ being the same essence as the Father) and then affirm Jesus being the final revelation of God. Jesus could not finish/complete such a task of finally revealing God unless He were the very infinite image and essence of God. And with your inconsistency you confess that you are unsaved. That is what we are truly talking about - your denial of who Jesus is, is your acceptance of your just punishment in hell for eternity.
And once again, I am glad that you have talked with so many Christians. I pray that God will convict you of your sins and use their testimony of His Word to save you.
Now you’re just playing word gotcha games Joshua.
I reject the status quo because I believe you guys have had it wrong. Yes, had it wrong for over 2000 years. I believe I have an accurate view of Jesus and am thus the only kind of “Christian” that matters - a true one (assuming I am living by the tenants of my faith of course). I don’t care if I’m in your historical club or not.
You are simply begging the question. You can’t just declare someone a non-Christian for rejecting a creed when it is the validity of that creed which is at issue.
By the way, as Mormon, I find the Nicene Creed doctrinally fairly unobjectionable - except for the homoousian part (and hints at creation ex nihilo). Although I do find the notion of limiting and binding belief by a rigid set of orthodox creeds to be distasteful as well.
And one more tip Joshua, don’t use the threat of hell on me.
It doesn’t work. All it does is make it look like you serve God out of fear - which I consider to be an inferior and selfish reason for serving God anyway.
And the fact that you are using threats to try and bring me into your church is insulting. It implies that you think I’m some sort of moral coward. For instance, even if the God of “five-point Calvinism” exists, I would refuse to bend a knee to him - for the simple reason that I consider him a monster and not worth worshiping in the first place.
Tell me Joshua, do you simply worship whoever has the biggest stick?
As a former Mormon who has witnessed to Mormons for many years I am impressed with the sound advice given here. Two errors Christians make in witnessing to Mormons are:
1. Giving the Mormon the benefit of the doubt in an act of goodwill and bridgebuilding. There are so many holes in Seth’s arguments but you will miss them if you are determined to think the best of him. That is not to say Seth is in any way disingenuous in what he says just that you can’t assume he knows what he is talking about when he talks about Mormonism.
If Mormonism is in error then so is the Mormon and the Bible talks about such people as being “blinded by the god of this world”. In that case taking things on face value is not an option no matter how reasonable the argument may appear to be. Like Luther you must insist on being persuaded by Scripture.
2. Talking about Mormonism instead of Christianity. Of course it is necessary to say something about Mormonism but you should always take thr shortest route to the cross. The man who was instrumental in bringing me to a true faith in Christ had what seemed at the time an infuriating habit of quoting the Bible, having me read the verse and when I came out with my Mormon “interpretation” asking “but Mike, what does it say?”
Seth suggest that the effect of casting doubt on a Mormon’s faith is that they go on to doubt the Bible and become atheists. This is not quite the order of things if a Mormon does become an atheist. Mormons have always cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible and come with a built in suspicion of what “corrupt preists” and “profane hands” have done to corrupt it; the Book of Mormon calls it into question and Mormons use the claim that it is unreliable to build a case for “restoration” through prophets. Once I depended on God’s Word I saw the truth.
Another good piece of advice is not to castigate any Christian who chooses not to instantly go into attack-mode whenever a Mormon enters the room. Not everyone has to be a pit-bull. In fact, most people probably shouldn’t be.
Mike’s advice about focusing on what is inherently good about your belief in Christianity is good. If the subject of the conversation is Mormonism, then your ministry is missing the point.
On that point, I absolutely agree,.
Seth,
I wasn’t convinced that I was going to enter this thread until i read your next to last post; the one in which you state that the God of “five-point” calvinism is “a monster and not worth worshiping in the first place.” that sounds like something Moroni, the “angel of light”, would say. I maybe incorrect, but didn’t Moroni tell Joseph Smith that the beliefs of the evangelical church, e.g. virgin birth, the fullness of deity of Christ, the eternal pre-existence of God, bodily resurrection of Christ, penal substitionary atonement, just to name a few were corrupt abominations?
two questions, Seth. 1) is it still a central tenant of Mormonism, and do you believe, that as man is, God once was; and as God is, man can be? exactly what are your personal beliefs about the nature and origin of God? (you apparently do not believe in the pre-existent, eternal nature of God and that He created everything from nothing, ex nihilo.)
2) if there is a question between what Scripture says and what the Book of Mormon says, which is your final authority?
you also objected to the “threat of hell”. well, You say that we are the ones that have gotten it wrong for 2000 years. we cannot both be right. one of us is wrong. and this is a question of eternal consequence. what do you believe is our destiny if we are the ones that are wrong?
if you are wrong, your destiny is hell; and that isn’t a “threat”; it’s a reality; it’s what we all, every last mother’s son and daughter of us, deserve. and, i’m not implying that you are a “moral coward” anymore than i would be implying that you are a regular coward if i offered to show you the way out of a burning building! i don’t love God and serve Him because i’m afraid He’ll “send” me to hell if i don’t. i love Him and serve Him because He loved me first and rescued me from hell.
Ray, the Book of Mormon IS scripture.
And no, there are no contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon (since I assume that was what you were driving at). So your question is both leading and meaningless to me.
“is it still a central tenant of Mormonism, and do you believe, that as man is, God once was; and as God is, man can be? ”
Popular Mormonism would only hold to the “man can be” portion of that statement as certain. As to what God was doing before he bothered with us, we don’t really know much about it. I know of Mormons who believe that God was indeed like us at some past time. But I also know of Mormons who also believe that he was never anything less than God ever. You have to ask the Mormon in front of you what he believes. Joseph Smith was never very clear on this particular doctrine and it was first uttered shortly before his death. So he never had a chance to clarify it.
For myself, I’m agnostic on the issue. But I don’t consider it particularly pertinent to salvation anyway.
I do reject creation ex nihilo because it is both unnecessary, logically problematic, and un-biblical. And I do believe in the eternal nature of both man and the universe.
“didn’t Moroni tell Joseph Smith that the beliefs of the evangelical church, e.g. virgin birth, the fullness of deity of Christ, the eternal pre-existence of God, bodily resurrection of Christ, penal substitionary atonement, just to name a few were corrupt abominations?”
No. And Joseph Smith didn’t teach that either.
He reported that GOD the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him personally and stated that the existing CREEDS were an abomination and their professors corrupt. The angel Moroni was not the one to deliver this message - it came straight from Jesus Christ himself.
As to what Joseph Smith meant when he reported the “creeds were corrupt,” we are less certain. In fact, doctrinally, much of the Nicene Creed is relatively unobjectionable from a Mormon standpoint. The only parts we have a problem with, are homoousis and creation ex nihilo. Certainly, Joseph said nothing about the idea of substitutionary atonement being corrupt.
Nor did he attack the virgin birth, the eternal nature of God, nor the bodily resurrection of Christ (in fact, I think it is traditional Christianity that has marginalized the bodily resurrection of Christ and we Mormons who have sought to correct that deficiency).
Joseph also displayed later in life a remarkable tolerance for diversity of belief. He seems to have indicated that what was abominable about the creeds was not necessarily their doctrinal content (although five-point Calvinism seriously gives it a good shot), but rather the fact that they existed at all.
It seems that the idea that we would put up bounds and limitations on the body of Christ based on artificial tests of orthodoxy was repugnant to Joseph and it was this that he was primarily at odds with in the creeds. A quote from him:
“[Some] have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” The Prophet Joseph Smith, Official History of the Church 5:340
I happen to agree with this. The wisdom of Joseph’s sentiments has been demonstrated in spades in countless debates I have had with other Christians. They keep claiming that I cannot be Christian - cannot be saved - based on artificial tests of orthodoxy. You have to know the correct theological passwords, otherwise you’re not welcome in the club.
But repeatedly, these same people demonstrate that they themselves are incapable of passing their own orthodoxy tests. I’ve never met a traditional Christian yet who understood the Trinity well enough to explain it in a way that wasn’t utterly incoherent. Neither have I ever met a traditional Christian who fared much better on the question of grace vs. works. And we haven’t even started talking about the countless masses of lay Christians who don’t have the first clue about technical theology who seem to get a free hall pass from the apologists just because they aren’t Mormons (even if their beliefs are almost indistinguishable).
Organized attempts to explain religious belief are fine, as far as they go. But when men arrogantly assume that their mortal attempts to limit and bound the word of God in mere formulas are to act as gatekeeper for God…
Well, that my friends seems like a pretty dangerous game. And no less dangerous for the fact that you’ve been playing it for the last 1600 years.
Seth, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and passion. If historic Christianity is right, and Mormonism is untrue (which I believe, without reservation, is the case), then my prayer would be that you might one day meet the Christ who is himself our God and our brother. And I pray that, like Paul’s rabbinical training, your giftedness in arguing for the oracles of Smith will be turned toward the proclamation of an older gospel.
Believe it or not Russell, as passionate as I am about defending the ultimate truth of my faith, my view of it is not entirely unbending.
My views have evolved due to my constant interactions with Evangelicals, Catholics, E. Orthodox, and others. It is in this sense that I find interfaith dialogue has its greatest value to me. Not that you or I are going to suddenly drop our position and defect to the “other side.” But that I find my own faith enriched and deepened by the perspectives of others.
For instance, I have a much different view of the grace of Jesus Christ for having debated with Evangelicals than I did previously. Some Evangelical concerns about Mormon culture are not entirely wrong, and their critiques have forced me to take a more careful look at what my own scriptures are, and are not saying. We do have a cultural tendency to obsess over righteous works at the expense of other essentials of Christ’s Gospel.
I also think Evangelicals could benefit from Mormon critiques as well. For instance, there is a bona fide doctrine of theosis taught by the E. Orthodox that appears to me to be entirely biblical and supported in numerous places throughout the New Testament. But this doctrine seems to be very-much de-emphasized in modern Evangelicalism. I think the movement could really benefit from re-discovering and reclaiming this doctrine.
But we get hamstrung by worries about boundary-maintenance. We want to stay distinct from each other and want clear dividing lines.
I’ve known Mormons (especially of the older generation) say we reject grace for no other reason than “that’s what the Baptists believe.” But there is a full-fledged grace theology in the Book of Mormon. It’s right there, but we don’t see it because we are too busy trying to differentiate from the Baptists.
Likewise, I think a lot of Evangelicals (I use Evangelicals because I interact mostly with them, and they make a useful example - I know not everyone here is “Evangelical”) avoid theosis because they are worried it will draw them too close to “what those Mormons believe.”
It’s a tough trap to avoid. I fall into it all the time. But I do manage to genuinely learn something now and then.