Customer Reviews

New Mormon Challenge, The

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I will start by stating that I am LDS, a student at BYU (Philosophy under-grad) and have been active in Apologetics for nearly four years now. I was privileged to be in the audience in Salt Lake City when, earlier this year, five of the contributors (including the 3 editors) spoke on this book, their contributions/papers and their hopes for it. I was pleasantly surprised by what I found in these presentations and the tone with which the presenters approached their topics. I say "pleasantly surprised" because I was not necessarily expecting the high degree of civility and integrity with which these presenters approached Mormonism (I was hoping for it but was not fully expecting it; I was, in all honesty, expecting the worst and was relieved to find it different than I had previously conceived). I was particularly impressed with Francis Beckwith and was delighted with the chance to meet him (I was reading through his and Stephen Parrish's _The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis_ at the time and was, and currently am, preparing a critique of that said work).

This book stands as a vast improvement of LDS-critical literature and, overall, I would be hard pressed to place it in the category of "anti-Mormon" due to its general tone and approach. The term "anti," in LDS Apologetics, quite often holds a negative connotation, not inherent in the words general meaning, including, among other things, uninformed, illogical, poor scholarship, overly-antagonistic, incredibly biased, etc., none of which I can fully attribute to this work. Its academic tone is refreshing and its allowances for further dialogue on the issues (rather than dogmatic pronouncements of the complete error of our ways and the desolate nature of our attempts to answer their critiques) is encouraging. The writers speak their minds in a respectful manner and by-and-large are open for further dialogue, something often lacking in much LDS-critical literature.

With that said, this work is not perfect. Despite the author's best intentions, there are occasional misrepresentations of LDS beliefs, utilization of weak arguments that most LDS philosophers/scholars would not hold, etc. This is to be expected, though, as the dialogue between LDS scholars and Evangelical scholars is still in its infancy. This is being remedied as the Society of Biblical Literature will now set apart a special section within their annual meetings for Evangelical-LDS discussion on various topics. Likewise, the increase of conferences in relation to things-LDS (such as Yale's upcoming conference on LDS Philosophy in 2003) will only help further dialogue and increase understanding between the two groups (something that is still sorely needed). Further, this work, and the responses currently being made towards it, should stand as a good impetus for further dialogue.

I am thankful for the three editors (Beckwith, Owen and Mosser) for their desire to create such a work to bring genuine, and heart-felt, scholarship to the fore in Evangelical-LDS discussion. I am also thankful for the contributors, for the time and energy that they put into their individual chapters. I just hope that LDS responses will be given in the same charitable spirit as this book is given and that dialogue will continue to increase in quantity and quality.

If anything can be said about The New Mormon Challenge (henceforth TNMC), it has to be that it is sure to create controversy. After all, never before have so many different Christian scholars attempted to respond-in one volume, even-to Brigham Young University professors as well as LDS apologists.

The position taken by the editors assumes that the words of LDS scholars or even the personal beliefs of the laity may supercede that of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. For the average Mormon, truth is contained in the four standard works and the current words of the leaders. When one of the editors, Carl Mosser, says that "evangelical apologists" are "jealously" guarding a type of Mormonism that is not believed by Mormons, I ask if Mosser believes the majority of Mormons would hold to the following beliefs: 1) The idea that "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become; 2) The idea that temple work is essential to reaching the highest level of the celestial kingdom; 3) The idea that ultimate truth is to be found in the Standard Works as well as the LDS prophet and apostles; 4) The idea that a person must be baptized in the Mormon Church to have an authentic baptismal experience; 5) The idea that Joseph Smith and succeeding church leaders were given complete authority on earth; 6) The idea that the Mormon Church is the most trustworthy church in the world.

The list could go on. The point is that I have no doubt that no less than 80 percent of all Latter-day Saints would immediately agree with me that the above six points as fully being Mormon doctrine. I am not sure why Mosser makes a blanket statement to make it appear that Christians involved with LDS outreaches are making up their own brand of Mormonism-a straw man, so to speak-so they can more easily tear the religion down. This, I believe, is just not accurate.

While the editors would like the Christian community to direct more effort to respond to the scholarly LDS community while paying less attention to the teachings of LDS leaders, they forget one very important point. That is, the Mormon Church is considered to be a restoration of the Christianity that is said to have died soon after the time of the apostles. When Joseph Smith was supposedly given the keys of this authority by Peter, James, John, and even by God the Father and Jesus, it is believed by most Mormons that he was personally given the authority the church lost more than a millennium ago.

Indeed, Smith's own history records that the Christian churches "were all wrong" (Joseph Smith-History 1:19). Succeeding leaders have made it a point to declare that there is no true church on the face of the earth except for the Mormon Church itself. Currently Mormons hold that all authority rests with current LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, his First Presidency, and the apostles. For a vast majority of Latter-day Saints, what a certain BYU professor or FARMS scholar says does not mean half as much as what President Hinckley says, especially at the general conference.

So my question is why focus on the scholars when most LDS members direct their attention of the Standard Works and LDS leadership? (Strange, but I wonder why the Mormon high school seminary students merely study the Bible, D&C, and Book of Mormon during their four years of study. I don't see them studying "Church Scholars.")

Who is this book intended to reach? Perhaps it was meant as a discussion for the scholars. No doubt it will be a great resource for seminary professors and some pastors. It will probably also be a great asset to Christian apologists.

Yet I just don't see how TNMC-though attracting LDS intellectuals to the table of discussion-will have a wide impact on the general LDS community. I doubt most Mormons will ever even hear of this book, let alone pick it up in their lifetime. It can be safely said that the majority of Mormons are too busy with families, church-related activities, donating their time in church ministry, etc. to even care what the scholars, either Mormon or Christian, declare is truth. The Mormon has a burning in his bosom, and no scholar could ever alter this "fact" regardless of the available evidence.

Its depth will probably confuse many readers who do not have a considerable grasp of the book's technical language related to philosophy, logic, and science. Those Christians who buy TNMC thinking it is a witnessing-tip manual will be sorely disappointed as the arguments will be unintelligible to the average Mormon.

With this being said, I need to temper my criticism by saying there are many important arguments raised in TNMC that will be beneficial for many Christians. The best chapters were 3 (Kalam Argument), 8 (Monotheism and the New Testament), and 10 (Book of Mormon and Ancient Near Eastern Background). As far as recommending this book, I would certainly do so for those who are more learned in the fields of philosophy, theology, and the background of the Mormon Church. However, this is not meant to be a popular book or one that can be easily digested by the majority of Christian and Mormon laity. Thus, for such people, I would think that TNMC will have very little impact since much of the material will sail over their heads. Based on this, each reader needs to make a personal choice...

I highly recommend this book to intellectual Christians and Mormons, whether involved professionally and/or personally with their faiths. No longer can Christian academia be accused of publicly ignoring Mormon apologetic efforts. This book offers a serious, massively end-noted response by impeccable Christian scholars to important issues raised by the Latter-day Saints' academic community. Several indices and a glossary of terms are included for referencing. What follows is a brief summary of the book's topics:

Paul Copan and William Craig relay a brilliant defense of Christianity's view of God's creation ex nihilo in contrast to the Mormon belief of the world's organization from eternally existing matter.

Jim Adams examines the evidence for Mormon belief in pre-existence and eternality of human souls, and of the gods in general, in light of the teachings of the Old Testament.

Stephan Parrish and Francis Beckwith deal with moral law, the human/divine freedom of choice, and how they relate to the Mormon and Christian concepts of God.

J.P. Moreland dissects Orson Pratt's view of humanity and its dependence on material existence.

Paul Owens looks at monotheism from the perspective of the New Testament and how it contradicts the published views of several prominent Mormon scholars.

Craig Blomberg takes up the question of whether or not Mormonism is Christian.

The final section of the book focuses on the Book of Mormon, evalutating it on the basis of linguistics in the ancient Near East (Thomas Finley) and by contrasting principles of translation with possibilities of pseudotranslation (David Shepherd).

For those who crave detailed and cogent arguments, intellectual stimulation, and thoughtful interaction in Christian and Mormon apologetics, look no further than this book and ENJOY!

I was very impressed by this book. It contains chapters by many major Christian scholars in areas of their specialization, providing excellent insights into and arguments against LDS beliefs.

The authors of this book do not argue against traditional Mormon sources of authority, as they have been largely abandoned by contemporary Mormons. The authors assume that the only accepted sources of God's revelation accepted by modern Mormons are the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and the current president of the organization. Traditionally (and I believe, officially) all of the past presidents have been included as accepted sources of God's revealed word, but many of today's Mormons are shying away from accepting that, as it leads to innumerable problems, as their previous leaders have said many rather unfortunate things which have long been used to refute Mormonism.

However, I think that the authors should have raised an objection to the new Mormon acceptance of only the current president's words as inspired. If only the current president's words are inspired, then when there is a new president, are the past president's words no longer considered inspired? If so, then God's truth is changing and Mormonism has collapsed into relativism. If not, then the same should apply to all of the past presidents, thus putting them right back where they started with all the problems that position brings with it. In either case, it should have been pointed out that this is a rediculous position to be taken.

I personally enjoyed William Lane Craig's chapter on creation ex nihilo the most. Craig presents a rather strong case that the Mormon's doctrine of the pre-existing matter fails to line up with the Bible, philosophical reasoning, and scientific evidence. I look forward to reading any responses that Mormon scholars make to the arguments presented against them in this book.

This is definitely a unique book. While other Christian books written about Mormonism tend to simply point out that Mormonism is in conflict with the Bible, or they focus on errors in the Book of Mormon, etc, this book takes a rather different approach and looks mainly at the philosophical and historical implications and claims of Mormonism, and why these positions are not viable. I imagine it will be an elightening book whether you agree with their conclusions or not.

Overall grade: A+

The authors of The New Mormon Challenge invite their readers to concentrate on a new dimension of the Evangelical-Mormon conflict. Although the popular literature on evangelizing Mormons remains to be the formidable choice for surface encounters, the authors capitalize on the more scholarly research that has been grounding Mormon apologetics for years. For these academicians, gone are the days of citing Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 against the charge of the Book of Mormon being a valid extra-canonical book supplementing and correcting the Bible. Now Evangelicals must address the apparent chiasmus and Hebraisms allegedly found in the Book of Mormon that point toward a Jewish authorship. We may also remember the powerful Smithsonian Institution's "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon" as it proclaimed evidence against the Book of Mormon's archaeological allusions. But Mormon scholars now hypothecate discoveries in ancient America that appear to vouch for the characters and places mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Could the average Evangelical layperson handle these counterarguments? Moreover, is the seminary student aware of the Mormon research that attempts to vindicate its history and theology? The authors of Challenge contend that they are pioneering the necessary scholastic material designed to counter the scholarly responses posed by Mormon professors and apologists and that their book "is a truly groundbreaking and epoch-marking book" (19). Indeed, the time for scholastic seminary research to marry counter-cult apologetics has arrived!
The New Mormon Challenge is a threefold response to the new challenges made by Mormon apologetic research: (i) The authors of Challenge, as well as Evangelicals in general, have made themselves "aware of the work of their LDS counterparts" and they "thoughtfully engage the new LDS scholarly apologetics" (20); (ii) Challenge "will challenge certain stereotypes and misinformed caricatures Christians commonly, but regrettably, have about the Mormon faith"(20); and (iii) "This book will challenge the Christian community - from the person in the pew, to the pastor in the pulpit, to the scholar teaching in the seminary - to recognize and effectively respond to the new Mormon challenge" (21). The authors of Challenge have "assembled a team of respected Christian scholars" (20) to address this threefold response. I must say that this is an understatement. The scholars included in this book excel at their crafts. Challenge includes theologians of the Old and New Testaments, philosophers, and language specialists who critically evaluate the material that makes the new Mormon challenge a growing force. The only deficiency of the book is that it is only a partial apologetic -- it does not address the Trinity, the issue of deification, soteriology, and ecclesiology. But the authors assure us that this book is only the beginning of the challenge.

This 2002 book begins by stating in the Introduction, "The phenomenon that is most relevant to the present discussion, however, is the emergence over the past several decades of a community of gifted Mormon intellectuals who have earned the right to be taken seriously in the larger academic community... This fact by itself should dictate that evangelicals treat Mormonism differently then the other groups that we have typically---and misleadingly---lumped together as 'the cults.' Christian Science has had almost no influence in the academy. And we are not being flippant in saying that the term 'Jehovah's Witness scholar' has the feel of an oxymoron. But the existence of a highly intellectual Mormon subculture ... suggests that we would do well to treat the Mormon worldview as a serious intellectual perspective."

They continue, "this is not one more book on Mormonism by evangelicals for evangelicals; it was written for and to Latter-Day Saints... In marked distinction from many evangelical works on Mormonism, LDS readers will find that the authors are respectful, charitable, and courteous throughout... Rather than attacking easy targets and propped-up straw men, the authors of 'The New Mormon Challenge' have engaged the thought of the most knowledgeable and articulate LDS scholars. They have interacted with Mormonism's best and brightest in order to critique Mormonism at its strongest..."

Here are some additional quotations from the book:

"In many ways, I believe, Mormonism represents Joseph Smith's attempt to save Christianity by reinventing it... and then outdoing rival forms in the religious marketplace of his day on the basis of superior authority, rationality, and relevance." (Pg. 35)
"When it comes to the important cultural distinctives, a world religion contributes to a society. Here Mormonism is simply not very distinctive; for the most part it simply follows the cultural patterns it has inherited from the Christian society in which it was birthed." (Pg. 65)
"So if there exists an eternally existing sovereign who is the source of the moral law and who has the authority to issue moral commands based on that law, the LDS worldview would be falsified." (Pg. 229)
"Here I simply want to make it clear from the beginning that I readily affirm BOTH that heavenly council imagery is present in the Old Testament and that it need NOT pose any threat to monotheism as it has been understood within the Judeo-Christian tradition." (Pg. 281)
"Fawn Brodie, one of (Joseph) Smith's more skeptical biographers, admitted long ago that the terms 'author and proprietor' were used in compliance with the copyright form of that day." (Pg. 368)
"If Christians are to effectively meet the new Mormon challenge, the apologetics community needs to use Christian scholarship of the highest caliber. Our brightest and best biblical scholars, theologians, historians, and philosophers must remember that they have an obligation to use their abilities to promote and defend the message of the orthodox Christian faith." (Pg. 398)

Written by an international team of respected Christian scholars, this freshly researched rebuttal of Mormon truth will aid those sharing the gospel with Mormons and those investigating Mormonism on their own. It will help readers to accurately understand Mormonism through biblical, historical, scientific, philosophical, and theological discussions.

From the Back Cover
Current facts about Mormonism
- Over 11 million members.
- Over 60,000 full-time missionaries more than any other single missionary-sending organization in the world.
- More than 310,000 converts annually.
- As many as eighty percent of converts come from Protestant backgrounds. (In Mormon circles, the saying is, "We baptize a Baptist church every week.")
- Within fifteen years, the numbers of missionaries and converts will roughly double.
- Within eighty years, with adherents exceeding 267 million, Mormonism could become the first world-religion to arise since Islam.

You may know the statistics. What you probably don't know are the advances the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) is making in apologetics and academic respectability.

With superb training, Mormon scholars outclass many of their opponents. Arguments against Mormon claims are increasingly refuted as outdated, misinformed, or poorly argued.

The New Mormon Challenge is a response to the burgeoning challenge of scholarly Mormon apologetics. Written by a team of respected Christian scholars, it is free of caricature, sensationalism, and diatribe. The respectful tone and responsible, rigorous, yet readable scholarship set this book in a class of its own.

The New Mormon Challenge recycles no previous material and duplicates no one's efforts. Instead, responding to the best LDS scholarship, it offers freshly researched and well-documented rebuttals of Mormon truth claims. Most of the chapter topics have never been addressed, and the criticisms and arguments are almost entirely new. But The New Mormon Challenge does not merely challenge Mormon beliefs; it offers the LDS Church and her members ways to move forward.

The New Mormon Challenge will help you understand the intellectual appeal of Mormonism, and it will reveal many of the fundamental weaknesses of the Mormon worldview. Whether you are sharing the gospel with Mormons or are investigating Mormonism for yourself, this book will help you accurately understand Mormonism and see the superiority of the historic Christian faith. Outstanding scholarship and sound methodology make this an ideal textbook. The biblical, historical, scientific, philosophical, and theological discussions are fascinating and will appeal to Christians and Mormons alike. Exemplifying Christian scholarship at its best, The New Mormon Challenge pioneers a new genre of literature on Mormonism.

The Editors
Francis J. Beckwith (Ph.D., Fordham University), Carl Mosser (Ph.D. candidate, University of St. Andrews), and Paul Owen (Ph.D., University of Edinburgh) are respected authorities on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the authors of various books and significant articles on Mormonism. Their individual biographies as well as information on the book's contributors appear inside.


With contributors including such respected scholars as Craig L. Blomberg, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, and others, The New Mormon Challenge is, as Richard Mouw states in his foreword, ". . . an important event for both Protestant evangelicals and Mormons" that models ". . . to the evangelical community what it is like to engage in respectful and meaningful exploration of a viewpoint with which we disagree on key points."

"In recent years, Mormon scholars have produced a body of literature that has been largely ignored by evangelicals. This current volume takes a giant step forward in correcting this oversight in a way that is both intellectually vigorous, yet respectful."
- Ken Mulholland, President, Salt Lake Theological Seminary

"Intellectually serious evangelical responses to the faith of the Latter-day Saints have been depressingly rare. This book represents a significant contribution to a conversation that, really, has just begun."
- Daniel Peterson, Brigham Young University; Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)

"Finally we have a book from evangelicals in which the authors have made a good-faith effort to accurately represent the range of Mormon beliefs. I believe this book is the best effort to date by evangelicals to assess and critique Mormon worldviews."
- Blake Ostler, LDS philosopher, author of Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God

"I applaud the sensitivity and understanding invested in this enormous work."
- Ravi Zacharias

"This impressive new book makes every earlier evaluation of Mormonism outdated. The book sets a new standard in evangelical discussions of Mormon beliefs."
- Dr. Ronald Nash, Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando) and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville)

". . . displays an admirable grasp of primary sources and a commitment to genuine courtesy, combined with an unflinching desire to remain faithful to Scripture."
- D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

"What an important book! Evangelical scholars have joined together to pay Mormonism the high compliment of a serious, contemporary evaluation. This is not a volume of 'Anti-Mormon' rhetoric, but rather a thoughtful, scholarly interaction in the tradition of How Wide the Divide? While theologically sophisticated, this is nonetheless an accessible book that will assist readers of all kinds to respond effectively to the new Mormon challenge. It is a book that demands a response."
- Rev. Gregory Johnson, President, Standing Together Ministries, Orem, Utah

See additional endorsements inside.

About the Author
Francis J. Beckwith is Associate Professor of Church-State Studies, and Associate Director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University. A graduate of Fordham University (PhD, philosophy) and the Washington University School of Law, St. Louis (MJS), his books include Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause ad the Challenge of Intelligent Design (Rowman & Littlefield), To Everyone An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview (InterVarsity Press), and Do the Right Thing: Readings in Applied Ethics & Social Philosophy (Wadsworth)

Carl Mosser (PhD candidate, University of St. Andrews) has published significant articles on Mormonism in both evangelical and Mormon journals.

Paul Owen (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is assistant professor of Bible and religion at Montreat College. He has published significant articles on Mormonism in both evangelical and Mormon journals. He lives in Asheville, North Carolina.


THE APOLOGETIC IMPULSE IN EARLY MORMONISM
The Historical Roots of the New Mormon Challenge
CRAIG J. HAZEN

Craig J. Hazen is Associate Professor of Comparative Religion and Christian Apologetics at Biola University and Director of the Graduate Program in Christian Apologetics. He earned a B.A. from California State University, Fullerton; studied law and theology at the International Institute for Law and Theology in Strasbourg, France; and earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Dr. Hazen is the author of The Village Enlightenment in America: Popular Religion and Science in the Nineteenth Century (University of Illinois Press) and editor of the philosophy journal Philosophia Christi. His academic work has received multiple awards for excellence from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Academy of Religion. His articles have appeared in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Journal of Christian Apologetics, and the Proceedings of the International Congress of the History of Science, among others.

The flamboyant governor of Minnesota, former theatrical wrestler and Navy SEAL Jesse "the body" Ventura said in a highly publicized and provocative interview that he considered religious people to be inherently "weak-minded" folk. By doing so he was parroting a popular notion of arm-chair agnostics that people who embrace religion are gullible and needy; they are people willing to give up all or a certain amount of rationality in order to have their emotional needs met by some type of spirituality or superstition.

A furor ensued in his state, and his popularity rating plunged, but to some extent the governor's remark had some basis in reality. Many get the same impression very quickly by talking to the rank-and-file devotees in most religious movements. The average believer generally does not have the training or the interest in articulating or defending a coherent, systematic worldview that captures and makes sense of his or her faith. This is certainly true with regard to the movements that are addressed in this essay, evangelical Christianity and Mormonism. Both movements have been characterized as anti-intellectual, and detractors have not been slow with insults to both groups along those lines. What both Christians and Mormons in North America know, though, is that those who characterize and insult the groups in this way are themselves not particularly well informed.

In both modern American evangelicalism and Mormonism there are significant pockets of believers who are scholars and thinkers, people who are committed to making a vigorous defense of their respective faiths based on reason and on the very best evidence. Whether the case these thinking believers make is sound and persuasive is another question, but the fact that there are LDS and evangelical Christian scholars who would very much like to show that their belief systems are eminently reasonable is not up for dispute.

The accusation of anti-intellectualism and gullibility on the part of believers was especially rife in the early years of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As religious historian Jan Shipps put it, outsiders saw Mormonism pandering, "to the superstitious, the gullible, and the fearful." They would accuse, "Mormonism of 'blinding' its adherents so effectively that when they heard Smith's report of his visions and his explanation of the origins of the Book of Mormon, they could not distinguish truth from falsehood."

Just a month after the publication of the Book of Mormon, newspaper editors like Abner Cole of the Palmyra, New York, Reflector began the lampooning and discrediting of the new 'Gold Bible', Joseph Smith (1805- 44), and his followers. Mormon historian Richard L. Bushman correctly noted that early on there was simply an assumption that, "they had to be dull because it was axiomatic that superstition flourished in ignorance.

That there were undiscerning converts to Joseph Smith's new religion in the nineteenth century is a given. That they were all, or even mostly such, is a myth. Clearly, there was an advantage to early opponents of the Mormon movement's slapping a pejorative label on those who chose to join. It made the overall task of response and refutation much easier and perhaps more effective. Some adversaries at the time went so far as to claim that Joseph Smith was adept at the power of 'animal magnetism' or 'fascination' and hence could wield undue influence over the minds of potential converts.

These kinds of characterizations held on for years. Esteemed Mormon historian Leonard J. Arrington tried to gauge popular views of the movement in the nineteenth century by examining fiction that involved the Latter-day Saints in the plot line. He discovered that almost every one of the fifty novels that described Mormon life saw the people as incurably ignorant if not also lecherous and depraved.

One can not make full sense of the initial rise of Mormonism without recognizing that there were strong elements in it that resonated with thoughtful people on the frontier. I do not mean by this that the 'rational' element was the only factor, perhaps it was not even the primary or secondary factor to which one can attribute the success of the early LDS movement. But for many at the time there was undoubtedly a logic to it and certainly enough cultural resonance of a rational sort in the message of the Mormon 'restoration' of Christianity to attract intelligent, reflective people. Of course, I am not talking here about professors, academics, or trained scholars - there were none in the early LDS Church. But here I would make the same point that social anthropologist Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah and historian of Mormonism D. Michael Quinn both make: that we should be sure to carve out a, ". . . distinction between the academic and the folk, not between intelligent and unintelligent." We are discussing here very bright but not highly educated people on the frontier who were unwilling to join a religious movement without what they thought were good reasons.

(Excerpted from New Mormon Challenge, The by Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, Richard J. Mouw)

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Although the book is written by Evangelical scholars, it has been favorably received by Mormon thinkers and educators at BYU and other institutions. It is well-written, and avoids hype and hostility sometimes found in other works which disagee with LDS theology and philosophy. I would highly recommend the book for both LDS, as well as for non-Mormons.

I have previously seen such attempts at explaining, through experts in select fields, why the LDS theology is wrong. I'm not exactly sure how the word 'new' applies to this work. This book is the latest effort, as the subtitle suggests, of the evangelical Christian world's answer to Mormonism, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is a very sophisticated, and learned approach to several issues of difference between the two schools of Christianity. Indeed, within its pages the right of the LDS Church to claim Christian status is even questioned, but all things in time. Instead of doing a point-by-point examination of the whole text, something I'm not at all qualified to do intelligently, I simply want to illustrate some of the areas with which I have difficulty agreeing.

First of all, this book is intended to begin a dialogue between the two schools of theology.

"The respectful tone of these essays, then, is a laudable attempt to set the record straight--not by coating over real disagreements, but by inviting our Mormon friends to engage in a mutual exploration of some of the most fundamental issues that bear on the human condition. This invitation is based on the conviction, stated explicitly in these pages, that the essays are not meant to be the last word spoken on any of the subjects covered. The conversation that takes place in this book is a sustained one--and it is offered with the expectation that what is said in these pages is only a first step in a discussion that needs to keep going. I hope the Mormon community--especially LDS leaders and Mormon intellectuals--will accept this invitation in the spirit in which it is offered."

Thus the tone is set for the intentions of the editors and essayists. At first glance such an effort is noble indeed, but it misses a vital point of difference between the two sides. I shall address that point later, likely in my conclusion. First, I want to go over some of the points of difficulty I observed while reading the book.

The first problem I have with the book is the lack of LDS contributors to the volume. It is mentioned early on that,

"They [the contributing authors] have worked hard to accurately understand Mormon positions before attempting to critique them. Great effort was taken to ensure that the misconceptions and caricatures that so often plague works on this subject are avoided. Rather than attacking easy targets and propped up straw men, the authors of The New Mormon Challenge have engaged the thought of the most knowledgeable and articulate LDS scholars. They have interacted with Mormonism's best and brightest in order to critique Mormonism at its strongest, for such a noble people deserve nothing less, and the high calling of the Christian scholar demands it."

This brings up an issue I have seen proven true time and time again. Whenever someone attempts to analyze a religion from outside the purview of a believer, what results is either an incomplete definition of the faith, indifferent to it, or merely silly. I am by no means asserting that this work is either silly or indifferent to LDS theology. Both are abundantly not correct. However I do feel that the attempts of our evangelical Christian brothers to understand, and explain the LDS theology according to their own understanding and information have been similar to an attempt of a Ford automotive salesman to explain the facts about a Chevy. There is very little chance of avoiding the aforementioned misconceptions and caricatures, regardless of the care taken.

If the intent of the editors was to get a true picture of LDS theology from which to formulate their response, instead of merely 'interacting' with the 'best and brightest' of the LDS Church, why not invite them immediately to the desired discussion in order to allow the LDS theology to be presented by those who believe it to be true? Perhaps in the future, if this initial effort is indeed maintained per the desires of the editors, such an arrangement could be established. For now, all we are left with is to examine the results of this book.

To the reader I would simply say this; the issues of study within this book regarding LDS theology may have been discussed with many scholarly and well-read LDS members, but the statements, as written, are those of LDS theology as understood by evangelical scholars, and not of believing LDS members. I'm not saying that the statements are necessarily wrong, nor are they intentionally inaccurate. Rather, they are desperately incomplete, and thus do not present a true picture of the religion itself.

The issue of the LDS Church's rate of growth over the years is an interesting topic. Both Jack W. Carlson and Rodney Stark made predictions about it, and both found their estimates to be under the mark set by real-world numbers. The fact that the size of the numbers by themselves could give evangelicals cause for some alarm is not an issue I'm interested in discussing at this point. Instead, I want to examine what I see as the causes of such growth based on what the author includes in his conclusion. I quote from page 83 of the volume.

"The missionary force of the LDS Church is immense and poses a serious challenge to evangelical missionary work around the world. Missiologists and Missionaries need to develop strategies for effectively meeting the challenge. The nature of LDS growth also presents a challenge to pastors, Christian education directors, denominational leaders, and those involved in theological education. For Mormonism is not growing only out on the "mission field" but also in the fields of the missionary sending nations. It is important that the various elements of the evangelical community work together to develop strategies for meeting the Mormon challenge at home. It will require that parts of our community move away from those approaches to local church ministry that avoid apologetic and theological engagement in favor of coddling a cultural Christianity or that prefer to be so "seeker-sensitive" that they can only be described as entertainment driven. An important part of any effective strategy (but not the only part) will be a renewed emphasis on expository and doctrinal preaching in our churches. Perhaps too, the ancient notion of catechism should be reviewed and adapted for contemporary church life. These are in addition to the current emphasis in many churches on worship, discipleship, and fostering community. In short, we need to do our Christianity better."


I cannot help but make a personal observation here. Dr. Carl Mosser, the author of this essay, is clearly indicating a need to 'rally the troops', so to speak, of evangelical Christianity. He highlights the Mormon missionary effort, and the LDS Church's steady rate of growth as 'challenges' to evangelical Christianity. His suggested remedies include abandoning unprofitable church formats of the past. He mentions two examples, those that are 'coddling a cultural Christianity' and those that can be described as 'entertainment driven'. In their place he recommends renewed emphasis in areas where traditional evangelical Christianity has been lacking for generations. He sums up his feelings with the last sentence, "In short, we need to do our Christianity better."

First of all, I find it highly ironic that an evangelical scholar would make the observation that his own religion is not doing enough. All the more so is that his own religion is well known for holding tightly to the idea that 'works are not necessary' for salvation. While many Christians hold that to be true per salvation, it clearly is not true if the 'challenge' that Mormonism brings to the discussion is to be answered in his view.

Secondly, I find it also ironic that the very remedies to evangelical Christianity's problems can easily be found already in place and operating within the LDS Church. Indeed many of these have been part of the regular practice of the LDS Church for decades, if not from the very beginning in 1830. In short, what I see Dr. Mosser recommending is that evangelical Christianity must behave more like the LDS Church if it is to rise to the 'challenges' we Mormons bring to them.

I wonder if Dr. Mosser has considered the possibility that the very doctrines of the LDS Church being called into question are the same reasons for the success and vitality of the 'challenge' the religion brings as a whole. I wonder if Dr. Mosser has forgotten when Joseph Smith was asked how he governed such a large population with so little effort. His reply was "I do not govern them. I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."


Next I wish to address the ninth essay, "Is Mormonism Christian?"

The immediate observation made by Dr. Craig L. Bloomberg is that to answer this question, "obviously requires a New Testament definition of Christian." Upon the realization that "No formal definition of the term ever appears in the Bible", he searches elsewhere for the elusive definition. According to the World Book Encyclopedia,

"Christianity is the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Most followers of Christianity, called Christians, are members of one of three major groups--Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox."

He then concludes that "Based on this definition, Mormonism is clearly not Christian, nor has it ever claimed to be so". But hold on a moment. Let us study this definition more closely. The first statement should have warned him immediately.


"Christianity is the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ."


According to that, Mormons are most definitely Christian and have always claimed it to be so. The second statement begins this way.


"MOST followers of Christianity, called Christians..."


Since it doesn't say all followers, but most followers, Dr. Bloomberg must admit there is very little trouble in stating that the LDS religion, while not fitting neatly into one of the three listed groups, remains very much a Christian religion. Anyone who observes the regular worship practices of an LDS congregation or family will easily recognize the fact that the LDS Church is deeply rooted in worshipping Jesus Christ. Nowhere does the definition state exactly what the Christian must believe about Jesus Christ, nor how the true Christian must worship him. If the LDS Church does not fit Dr. Bloomberg's personal definition of what a true Christian should be, that is of no issue to me whatsoever. In my own opinion the age-old duck test works just fine. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Just so, if a religion teaches of Jesus Christ, prays in the name of Jesus Christ, Worships Jesus Christ, and has his very name in its official title, then what else could it be, if not a Christian religion?

I wonder why the dictionary definition was never addressed, or even mentioned. Here it is, from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, copyright 1996.



Christian
of or pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings
of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.



There are, of course, more than just the two definitions, eleven to be precise. However I would ask Dr. Bloomberg if he seriously believes the LDS Church fails to meet these two simple criteria. I feel as though Dr. Bloomberg, despite his respect, care, and caution in addressing this question, has simply used too restrictive a definition of Christian. Just because we worship Jesus Christ differently than evangelicals do is no logical reason to say Mormons aren't Christian. After all, we can't very well be seen as Buddhists or even Catholics who, according to the Dr., are indeed Christians.


Now we come to the issue of the Book of Mormon, as addressed by Dr. Thomas J. Finley and Dr. David J. Shepherd.


For those hoping I address a few issues brought up in the essays, I must sadly disappoint you. The reason why is simple; I lack the knowledge or training to expertly refute any of the statements in the section. However, it brings me to something I said at the beginning, that the intention of the book itself misses a vital point of difference between the two sides. Here's the vital point that was missed entirely. The whole strength of the LDS theology rests, as it always has, upon the shoulders of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Throughout the entire volume the very question of if the LDS theology is accurate is never addressed. Again, this is no surprise, but it goes to the heart of my argument.

All our evangelical Christian brothers and sisters need to do in order to answer the 'challenge' of the LDS Church is explain precisely how Joseph Smith managed to invent such a book as the Book of Mormon. Long before they ever discuss what is written within its pages, they must explain how it came to be in the first place. Here's where the if comes into play.

If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, if the Book of Mormon is absolute fiction, then a rational explanation of how it came to be should be a straightforward task. After all, whatever one man does by himself, another man can easily copy in the exact same manner. It is a matter of much wonder, then, how Joseph Smith, surrounded as he was observed to be by similar 'miraculous events' and similar 'religious movements', managed to not only build a religion that survived, but built a religion that survived the worst measure of persecution and hatred of any religion in all of American history, including unchecked acts of terrorism, mobs, harassment, theft of property, destruction of property and livestock, rape, murder, and eventual eviction from the United States itself.

However, if Joseph Smith really was a prophet, if the Book of Mormon really is the word of God as it claims to be, then this whole book has absolutely no value whatsoever. I hate to use such boldness in the face of much more learned men, but this highlights the biggest difference between the two religions, and has not been addressed at all in the entire volume.

Mormonism is built upon the rock of revelation from God, rather than the learning of men. The General Authorities themselves don't have any of the many degrees in theology that the editors and authors of this book posses. Even at that, all the editors can do is seek to begin a dialogue wherein they plead with Mormons to 'use their agency' to 'reevaluate the truth claims' of their religion. It's as though they think us Mormons haven't considered these questions before now. I can assure the editors, and all of evangelical Christianity as a whole, that whatever question you choose to raise, whatever doubt you seek to plant in the mind of the believing LDS member, chances are we've already asked that question, or raised that doubt ourselves prior to your efforts.

You see, we trust in the truth revealed from God himself far and above what our fellow man has to say. The reason why should be very clear by now. God knows everything. In this we can both agree with absolute unity. Also something we can absolutely agree on is that Man, however well educated he may be, does not know everything. It comes down to a matter of credibility, and unfortunately for our evangelical Christian brothers, the Creator of the universe we are seeking to understand easily surpasses their credibility.

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we are instructed, from childhood, to seek truth on our own initiative. Never has a prophet of the LDS Church demanded acceptance of and obedience to his words merely because he is the one speaking them. Every General Conference of the church we are reminded of our duty as followers of Jesus Christ to find our own path to God's presence; to "gain our own testimony", to use a Mormon phrase. We understand that nobody can be given truth they don't want, or are unprepared to receive. That is why you see a wide divergence in what one member believes when compared to another. The two people are at their own personal levels of religious truth. Some know more than others. Some believe more than others. This is partly why scholarly discussions of LDS theology sit in the background. The focus of any Mormon is to first get the truth from God himself, then examine and study what He has given you.

Of course the evangelical attitude is that the LDS Church is the one that needs to do the changing. Since evangelical experts wrote the book, I would expect nothing less. What remains to be resolved is the if questions I mentioned earlier. Should those answers be found in favor of Mormonism, then some serious re-thinking is due on the part of the evangelical Christians. Should they be in favor of evangelicalism, then of course the ball is in the court of Mormonism. Unfortunately for the reader, the editors and authors completely missed the mark on that issue.

If the real desire of the editors and authors of this book is to have a true dialogue between the two Christian faiths, it should be on equal terms, with each side presenting its own beliefs, not one side giving their interpretation of what they think the other side said they believe. In the final examination, all I see is a very respectful, sincere, and serious effort to gently disassemble the LDS Church. In short, it is a very long-winded assembly of well-educated anti-Mormon philosophy. However gentle the authors seek to be, they cannot hide their true motive of luring rank-and-file Mormons away from their religion of choice. If the LDS Church were to agree to the doctrinal changes recommended by our evangelical brothers, what then would distinguish us from them? The true power and attractive ability of the LDS Church, for me at least, is the very fact that the doctrine does not change at all, nor has it since 1830. Such a stable array of beliefs that have demonstrated useful compatability through several incarnations of American popular culture should hardly be looked at to change simply because someone outside the faith believes differently.

Finally, in response to the invitation given at the outset of The New Mormon Challenge, let me say this. I have received a personal answer to prayer from God himself, through the Holy Ghost that the LDS Church is God's only true church on the earth today. I have examined in detail all your arguments and conclusions. What I see is a lot of reasoning and rationality. What I don't see is what troubles me. Nowhere do any of the learned Doctors remind the reader of the importance of verification from the source of all truth in the universe. How can we know the mind of God if we never ask him? Name one religious truth in your own evangelical faith that was not first revealed to man from God himself. Even according to the Bible, the very promise that prompted Joseph Smith to pray for the first time in his life still applies to all of us today. Why is that small fact ignored altogether?

It is essential that we never forget that 'wisdom of men is foolishness to God'. Every time we decide we are strong enough to go through life according to our own wisdom, God is more than willing to let us try it. What I think will help evangelical Christianity in large measure, is a return to seeking wisdom from God, and not our fellow, error-prone man.

Dr. Bosch is a Biblical apologist that returned to Southern California after ten-years teaching, researching, and writing in Utah. He lived in three different rural towns where more than ninety-percent of the population were LDS. During that time, he had the opportunity to get personally acquainted with the LDS culture and faith. Few non-LDS apologists have had this kind of long-term and first-hand learning experience opportunity to get intimately acquainted with the Utah LDS way of life and belief system.

The New Mormon Challenge fosters a scholarly approach to respond to the latest defenses of Mormonism. A fundamental problem that surfaces from the beginning of the book is its self-characterization of being scholarly and intellectual, instead of allowing the reader to arrive at their own conclusion. The overemphasis of intellectualism and undermining the apologetic work of earlier evangelicals is lamentable, despite how crude some of their strategies may have been. This is not to be misunderstood as supportive of "trading insults" and "both sides regularly setting forth oversimplified and distorted accounts." However, it seems that in spite of scholarship and intellectualism, it is still difficult not to distort accounts.

The New Mormon Challenge incorrectly portrays LDS leaders making changes because of their having "reflected" about departing from Biblical orthodoxy. The book says, "...we hope that this volume will contribute toward encouraging LDS readers to reflect on the plausibility of some of their distinctive ideas that depart from biblical orthodoxy. To some degree, the leaders of the LDS Church have already proven willing to do this in several areas: polygamy, the Adam-God doctrine, blacks and the priesthood, and aspects of the Temple endowment ceremony" (p. 399). This statement proves that The New Mormon Challenge is not thoroughly acquainted with the LDS literature, doctrine, and teachings. There is no LDS evidence to support the book's assertion. The changes that The New Mormon Challenge refers to were made because of "continuous revelation," and not because of a cognizance of departure from Biblical orthodoxy.

LDS scholars will make sure to point out aberrations like these. To gain an objective and well informed understanding of the LDS faith, it is best to read LDS literature. To determine how far the LDS faith has departed from Biblical orthodoxy, it is best to read the LDS literature with the Bible in one hand, and one or more good systematic theology handbooks in the other. While doing so, pray for God to guide and teach you His truth.<><