Is the Evangelical My Brother?: A Sea-Change in Mopologetics

[_Doctor Scratch]

A new piece was posted to Mormon Interpreter today. The article, which includes a quotation from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, is quite a long examination of the Mormon-related works of the prominent Evangelical Richard Mouw, and it wraps up with this tidbit:

I think that we Latter-day Saints can learn a great deal about our own faith and doctrines by trying to see them through the eyes of friendly and informed outsiders, as well, obviously, as understanding the views of others more accurately and sympathetically. Both of these are very worthy goals. And Richard Mouw is one of the friendliest and most theologically competent of such outsiders. He honors us by the attention he’s given to our faith, and we can profit considerably from our interactions with thinkers and scholars of his caliber.

For those here who are students of the old FARMS Review, this is a remarkable development. For decades, Evangelics were among the primary targets of the Mopologists, who accused them of everything from stupidity and avarice, to general wickedness and dishonesty, to relying on an extensive "Old Cash Nexus" to fund their profit-driven activities. Indeed, Mouw--who was a protege of Walter Martin (something which DCP says he finds himself "utterly unable to share or even, really, to grasp)--was once allegedly going to be a "target" for a smear piece of some kind. (Kevin Graham goes so far as to say that DCP called Mouw an "anti-Mormon.")

Are we seeing a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics here? Maybe so. It would seem that the situation for the apologists has finally reached a point where they are scrambling to befriend their old enemies. I can't help but wonder: what would an EV/Mopologetic collaboration look like? Will EVs be invited to submit pieces for Mormon Interpreter? Or will this backfire, and only serve to infuriate the more entrenched supporters of classic-FARMS-style apologetics? Or, instead, should we read this within the context of the "liberal takeover" at the Maxwell Institute? Whereas the "new MI" has sought to establish academic credibility in mainstream religious studies, perhaps the classic-FARMS people are aiming for something similar, but via a different route?

Very interesting developments, in any case.

[_Markk]

Does this mean I can post again at MAD?

[_moksha]

They might be at theological odds if premise came to premise, but they are still brothers in conservative politics. The enemy has overrun the Fortress of Maxwell and those unacceptable "others" are still seeking to be married in the most sacred and conservative States. These brothers in Remington Arms have a common goal of pressing for the restoration of religious liberty and reclaiming the Fortress along the way.

[_Jersey Girl]

There are few times when I feel compelled to comment on a post like this having to do with division or unity between religions, and while I wasn't planning to comment here, I think this is a serious issue and one that I think I really should speak the truth about in terms of what I think. I want to say first, that I've been friends with LDS for my entire adult life. I've been friends with folks who engage in just about every religion you can name and folks who engaged in no religion at all. I don't enter into friendships with people based on whatever group or race or what-have-you, I establish and maintain friendships with people whom I like, admire and find a connection to.

What I have to say is based on my observation of the groups as a whole and my life long experiences in Christian churches. Some of those churches would be considered Evangelical (though that's not entirely accurate for every Christian according to the Bible is tasked with evangelism...something I'm not personally good at when I view myself in terms of spiritual gifts.) but some are more fairly described as either mainstream Protestant and Catholicism.

That said, let me reply to what I've isolated here.

Are we seeing a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics here?

No and I think that anyone who suspects they are seeing it are simply kidding themselves.

Maybe so. It would seem that the situation for the apologists has finally reached a point where they are scrambling to befriend their old enemies.

That may well be true.

I can't help but wonder: what would an EV/Mopologetic collaboration look like?

How wide the divide...with too many trade offs required of each group for it ever to succeed in any meaningful way.

Will EVs be invited to submit pieces for Mormon Interpreter?

In all blatant honesty, I can't imagine an Evangelical even wanting to publish in the Mormon Interpreter. I say this for a variety of reasons. Either the piece would need to be so generic in nature to the point where the Evangelical would have had to edit out what they'd really like to communicate and they wouldn't bother with it or they simply wouldn't want to be publicly affiliated with LDS via publishing in the Mormon Interpreter. I suppose I could say why and this is going to offend the hell out of people, but here goes. The main reason EV writers wouldn't want to be publicly affiliated with LDS via authoring a piece for an LDS publication is because they wouldn't want to be seen as compromising their own religious beliefs (which they would likely have to), choosing to censor their own religious identity and beliefs and please don't shoot the messenger here folks, but they wouldn't want to give "the appearance of evil" by essentially publicly locking arms with the Mormon church.

I guess you can shoot me if you want. I'm simply stating the truth. It's not any easier for me to make these comments which I believe are based on truth and fact, than it is for you to read this.

How wide the divide was one thing. Essentially integrating with LDS would be quite another for Evangelicals.

Or will this backfire, and only serve to infuriate the more entrenched supporters of classic-FARMS-style apologetics?

It doesn't matter. It will never happen and even if there was an attempt it would no more succeed than The World Table succeeded. Evangelicals would view the prospect by assigning ulterior motives to LDS. There are no winners in that scenario.

Or, instead, should we read this within the context of the "liberal takeover" at the Maxwell Institute? Whereas the "new MI" has sought to establish academic credibility in mainstream religious studies, perhaps the classic-FARMS people are aiming for something similar, but via a different route?

Very interesting developments, in any case.

You might think it's interesting. I see it as a predictable venture with an entirely predictable outcome.

Okay, so for whoever would like to shoot me now, feel free. You all need to hear from "the other side" of the equation and I've done my best to represent the dynamic from the Evangelical perspective.

[_cwald]

Thanks for the update Scratch. Very interesting indeed.

[_kairos]

Walter martin and hank hannegraff-the Bible answer man were the first to try to convince evangelicals and Mormons of how non-Christian Mormonism is. then came along mouw in his later transformation and ravi zacharis-who preached in the tabernacle and finally john macarthur of "grace to you "radio fame engaging Robert millet of BYU fame. the Mormon hope in all this is that the evangelicals will somehow overlook the screwy theology of physical body gods, mother in heaven, pre-existence, gods and worlds without number BS and on and on. Mormon leaders try to engage to get credibility- no other reason and it simply has not/will not happen. it took hundreds of years and it has not happened yet that RC's are accepted as Christians mainly because the RC have backed off some from the " works get you to heaven" theology.

RC's once accepted Mormon baptism as valid until they recognized about 10 years ago the rc trinity was not the Mormon godhead theology.

with the internet Mormons are turning to other faith traditions for salvation- why would an evangelical tell a leaving Mormon-"it's ok we and the Mormons really believe the same key things"

imho cross acceptance of articles by evangelicals and Mormon scholars will not happen at any high level that would be a game changer.

as I look at deseret news and read about Mormons in important slots in politics, education, science, wealth etc, my mind is boggled at how the Mormon church has pulled off this greatest of all indocrinations of children to adults that has a staying power that seems to be still goiong strong. it seems to me that Mormons in all circles should be becoming significant doubters and that a rush out of the church is immenient- I don't see how church hq can keep the lid on for much longer. when all is said and done most of these " stayers" stay because of some emotional feeling they got at 7,10, 20 years old or whenever and that trumps everything when it should not.

just musin
k

[_Jersey Girl]

the Mormon hope in all this is that the evangelicals will somehow overlook the screwy theology of physical body gods, mother in heaven, pre-existence, gods and worlds without number b***s*** and on and on.

That will never happen.

Mormon leaders try to engage to get credibility- no other reason and it simply has not/will not happen. it took hundreds of years and it has not happened yet that RC's are accepted as Christians mainly because the RC have backed off some from the " works get you to heaven" theology.

RC's once accepted Mormon baptism as valid until they recognized about 10 years ago the rc trinity was not the Mormon godhead theology.

That is one of the reasons that I say that Evangelicals aren't going to make that compromise. They have no reason to make that compromise and to do so would be seen as a betrayal of their faith in God.

with the internet Mormons are turning to other faith traditions for salvation- why would an evangelical tell a leaving Mormon-"it's ok we and the Mormons really believe the same key things"

Again, that will never happen.

imho cross acceptance of articles by evangelicals and Mormon scholars will not happen at any high level that would be a game changer.

I don't see it happening at all and certainly not by any evangelical who is well grounded in their faith and belief.

as I look at deseret news and read about Mormons in important slots in politics, education, science, wealth etc, my mind is boggled at how the Mormon church has pulled off this greatest of all indocrinations of children to adults that has a staying power that seems to be still goiong strong. it seems to me that Mormons in all circles should be becoming significant doubters and that a rush out of the church is immenient- I don't see how church hq can keep the lid on for much longer. when all is said and done most of these " stayers" stay because of some emotional feeling they got at 7,10, 20 years old or whenever and that trumps everything when it should not.

just musin
k

Not an evaluation that I'm in a position to make.

Musin' with you.

:-)

[_ldsfaqs]

Is the Evangelical My Brother?: A Sea-Change in Mopologetics

LDS Theology has always been that other good people of the world are the Mormons brother, for all light and good comes from God.
This is why we don't have "ministry's" against others..... We are a Universalistic religion, while also being fundamentalist.

Thus, we have no problem with those who strive to do good in relation to our religion.
Of course, if they really knew all he said about Mormonism, they wouldn't be so quick to embrace him. However, Mormons do recognize some goodness in the man, as well as his "good faith" despite some imperfection.

[_sock puppet]

A new piece was posted to Mormon Interpreter today. The article, which includes a quotation from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, is quite a long examination of the Mormon-related works of the prominent Evangelical Richard Mouw, and it wraps up with this tidbit:

I think that we Latter-day Saints can learn a great deal about our own faith and doctrines by trying to see them through the eyes of friendly and informed outsiders, as well, obviously, as understanding the views of others more accurately and sympathetically. Both of these are very worthy goals. And Richard Mouw is one of the friendliest and most theologically competent of such outsiders. He honors us by the attention he’s given to our faith, and we can profit considerably from our interactions with thinkers and scholars of his caliber.

For those here who are students of the old FARMS Review, this is a remarkable development. For decades, Evangelics were among the primary targets of the Mopologists, who accused them of everything from stupidity and avarice, to general wickedness and dishonesty, to relying on an extensive "Old Cash Nexus" to fund their profit-driven activities. Indeed, Mouw--who was a protege of Walter Martin (something which DCP says he finds himself "utterly unable to share or even, really, to grasp)--was once allegedly going to be a "target" for a smear piece of some kind. (Kevin Graham goes so far as to say that DCP called Mouw an "anti-Mormon.")

Are we seeing a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics here? Maybe so. It would seem that the situation for the apologists has finally reached a point where they are scrambling to befriend their old enemies. I can't help but wonder: what would an EV/Mopologetic collaboration look like? Will EVs be invited to submit pieces for Mormon Interpreter? Or will this backfire, and only serve to infuriate the more entrenched supporters of classic-FARMS-style apologetics? Or, instead, should we read this within the context of the "liberal takeover" at the Maxwell Institute? Whereas the "new MI" has sought to establish academic credibility in mainstream religious studies, perhaps the classic-FARMS people are aiming for something similar, but via a different route?

Very interesting developments, in any case.

Interesting, yes. Seems that the mopologists are more willing to suffer the theological differences with Mouw than the geographical theory differences with devout LDS Rodney Meldrum. The mopologists hold the LGT to which they are inseparably wedded, stronger than they are willing to hold to the LDS theological teachings about the nature of god. The development you reported and have commented on does seem to hold the potential of being a watershed moment.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Does this mean I can post again at MAD?

No, I'm afraid not, Markk. Moksha is right--the article can really only be seen as being completely disingenuous. The Mopologists will never arrive at an accord on EV belief; privately, I'm quite sure that they're still mocking people like Mouw, calling him an "anti-Mormon," and so on. The article has to be seen as an act of desperation. The apologists don't see their "Mormon Studies" colleagues as allies--in fact, it may be more accurate to say that they view these fellow LDS as being even more dangerous and threatening than atheists. They're also aware that the Church is losing the youth pretty rapidly, and they regard their support base as a bunch of fundamentalist rubes and idiots. Factor in their marginalization and ejection from the Maxwell Institute, and it's no real surprise that they are scrambling now to find allies, hence this feigned gesture of friendship towards Mouw.

Almost immediately, though, the ruse is falling to pieces. Check this out, from the "Comments" section:

it was for me discouraging to find him not grasping that we differ radically from typical Reformation dogma....

Professor Mouw should have taken the Book of Mormon seriously. Insisting on becoming a Saint is not to be brushed aside as self-salvation.

Good article. As Christianity itself is more and more assaulted, I suspect that our interdenominational feuds will slowly subside as we all join together to fend off the Atheist/Islamic assaults on our faith.

That said, I wish you would publish a primer on Islam from an LDS point of view. As far as I can tell, we don’t really deal with Islam much. Presumably there is more to the faith than the terrorist brutality thing, but, well, it’s also indisputable that Islam seems to be a rather violent faith.

Based on what little I’ve read, it seems like Mohammed, if he even existed, had two periods: Medina and Mecca, and the Mecca one is good and where most of the good in Islam came from, while the Medina one is where all the bloodlust comes from.

This last comment from "Vance" is especially important because it shows rather clearly why the article is disingenuous. Vance takes it at face-value, meaning that he thinks the basic thesis is, "We should try to learn from other faith communities! There's a lot we could gain by doing that!" But, obviously, that's not really what's being argued--there is a clear reason why this is focusing specifically on EVs, and even more specifically on Richard Mouw. The apologists really have zero interest it trying to understand others' points-of-view. Do you really think they give two squats about the theological views of Hindus, or Scientologists, or Calvinists--to say nothing of ex-Mormons or atheists? So this isn't really about being nice, or trying to come to an understanding of others' viewpoints. There are ulterior motives at work.