Say Hi to the Smiling Linebacker!
Comments on the Introduction
Kevin Graham and I have something in common that's hard to overcome: We both like small dogs.
And we're both big guys who look funny with our small dogs (his Jack Russell and my Pomeranian/poodle mix could hardly be more different, though!) and we both enjoy intellectual discourse. I decided to write The Mormon Defenders aboutr 4 years ago. About two years later, Graham assembled a group to create an intelligent reply (as opposed to...ahem...another). And here we are. Now it's my turn to get back on the offensive...without being too "offensive".
You'll see me have my usual fun with titles here; after that, I'll be all business in these chapters. More comments on this as we proceed; for here, given the level of detail Graham et al. have engaged, I think they deserve a reply that engages "full disclosure". What this means is, I will mostly leave the full text of their response intact and simply insert comments in bold, as I have here. I'll close this initial comment by remarking, as I have to Graham on numerous occassions, that my Mormon opponents have, as a whole, earned and deserve respect. The responses of Graham and his group, in contrast to that of responses I have received from the atheistic crowd, take scholarship seriously and respond in kind. No, "I read this in a dental office six years ago in Newsweek" crap. The real thing. That puts Graham et al. at the head of all but a very small handful of Skeptics I know (for example, Kyle Gerkin).
Not of course that I think they have succeeded in their effort. But that's what I have to prove, isn't it?
For decades the counter-cult industry has allowed an aggressive, emotional and ministerial tendency to lead their protest against the LDS faith, and for the most part this has hindered both their success, as well as relations between LDS and Evangelical Christians. With this approach it is not at all surprising to find critics describing themselves as being on the front lines, or even more to the point, “dug in the trenches.”[1] To say the least, this theological gridlock, which, being buttressed by this "war mentality," does very little to promote environments conducive to civil dialogue, and it is unfortunate that this attitude has resonated to Evangelical camps like wildfire. Even more exasperating is the fact that this misguided mission is being led in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet, it is encouraging to know this approach has not appealed to all Evangelicals, as some have decided to tackle the challenge of Mormon apologetics in a respectful manner. Which brings us to our subject under review.
Two years ago a friend of mine, James Patrick Holding, who is the President of Tektonics Ministries, Actually, "Tekton" but no big deal. The opening graphic can be read both ways. published his first book, “The Mormon Defenders: How LDS Apologists Misinterpret the Bible.” At first glance this may appear to be the typical anti-Mormon book that floods Christian bookstores on what seems to be a monthly basis (which usually rely on outdated arguments from previous works where the word "cult" appears ubiquitously). To be sure, the opening foreword offers us no reason to expect otherwise. Therein we are welcomed by Ex-Mormon, Kevin Bywater[2] of Summit Ministries, who intends to spark curiosity by creating an unnecessary concern by alluding to a Mormon conspiracy that intends to, “claim the theological and biblical high ground over the Christian faith.”[3] I think "conspiracy" is too loaded of a word to use in the context. "Agenda" suits better what Bywater was saying, and I would hope that any denomination or group that has any interest in the Bible as an authoritative text has a similar "agenda" to show that they have high ground in this regard. To say the least, and contrary to Holding's intentions, the book launches off with the implication that Mormons are not part of the “Christian faith.” How lovely. That the term “Christian” has not been properly defined by any objective means that would exclude Latter-day Saints, has been a quandary Evangelicals have ignored for quite some time. To be sure, this problem is not solved or for that matter acknowledged, in Holding's book.[4] But this is an issue that was never intended to of primary focus, and as a result, Bywater immediately creates a deficiency in the book since it fails to address a subject presented in this mini-thesis.[5] Because it suggests that Mormons are not Christians without defining the term Christian, it immediately appeals to the choir and the choir alone; those Evangelicals who already have a predetermined definition which excludes the LDS faith. This position is taken for granted in virtually all works critical of the LDS faith. Naturally I disagree. As in my own explanation -- which Graham does quote below -- the Christian-Mormon dichotomy is in this context nothing more than a convenience for the average reader. I think Graham reads far too much into this and is perhaps, as he did with me before, committing the fallacy of stereotyping and assuming intentions into what is not clearly present. Knowing Kevin Bywater well, I would say he has no such intent. I'd suggest he and Graham have lunch, except that Bywater will soon be going to the UK to pursue advanced studies.
As any Latter-day Saint apologist would surely recognize, his statement which alludes to a Mormon conspiracy is nothing short of absurd, but this is a well-known theme in anti-Mormon circles. I would reply that it is "absurd" to read an allusion to "conspiracy" in Bywater's simple statement of historical fact. The Mormon church has sought to claim the theological and Biblical high ground; Joseph Smith's claim to offer a path to restoration could hardly have any meaning otherwise. I also say that to some extent every denomination from Episcopalians to Catholics have tried to do the same. It simply isn't as obvious because there is not as much theological and religious difference between the average Protestant denominations. Mormons and mainstream Christians are trying to claim such ground over the person of Christ; the average Protestant denominations are just trying to claim ground over whether the Bible supports specific church offices. To say the least, the foreword by Bywater offers no justice to Holding’s book, as I can imagine serious LDS readers immediately returning the book back to the shelf from whence it came.[6] If Holding expected Latter-day Saints to find this foreward in any way inviting, then on this point it is an utter failure. If, however, he intended to merely appeal to other Evangelicals, then the book succeeds with flying colors, since this is a very simple task as far as Evangelical literature goes. My only intent frankly was to get a qualified person to offer comments. Invitation or appeal to persons of the sort Graham alludes to is no interest of mine, since this is also exactly the sort of person who would find most of my material beyond comprehension.
Once we get past Bywater’s drivel, (a major pothole for serious readers) a second look would reveal something about Holding's approach that is very unusual. The pontificating from the foreword didn’t roll over into Holding’s chapters, and strangely enough, I found myself wading through a book critical of my beliefs without feeling intellectually insulted or spiritually violated. I felt like I was in the twighlight zone because the word "cult" appeared not once. I then said to myself, "Now this sounds more like the guy I had lunch with last week." While his book, like any other, could have benefited without various rhetorical devices,[7] its shortcomings are overshadowed by its appealing tone, which is for the most part, amiable and respectful.[8] Perhaps he was playing the "low-key" role for his first publication. No, like I say, Mormons as a whole earned this approach. But I'll also admit that since this was a self-pub job, it was in my best interests to make the book as compact (and therefore as inexpensive to print) as possible. Whatever the reason, the success of its presentation can be attributed to the fact that he has abandoned the traditional methodology of "shock and insult." Holding, who unlike most counter-cultists, has little concern for preaching hell and damnation to those who worship Christ differently. This is a focal point on why he and I have been able to maintain a friendly relationship. As a faithful Evangelical he takes seriously his Bible, and while most LDS critics take on the haughty and quite often flamboyant role of a minister trying to save LDS souls, Holding takes the position of an exegete whose mission is clear: to dispel false assumptions about what the Bible teaches. He has spent a great deal of his life trying to correct misinterpretations of the Bible, primarily with the atheist and agnostic groups, but also within his own Evangelical sphere. Correct, and moreso since TMD was published. These days also I have addressed claims by JWs, Christadelphians, the ICOC, and assorted oddballs like Edgar Jones. In all of this I have preferred to maintain the same general orientation of just how these groups or persons (mis)use the Bible rather than trying to delve into internal claims. Only recently has he decided to expand his horizons and address the concerns his Evangelical faithful have had with LDS apologia. Unlike so many LDS critics, Holding doesn't pretend to be a Mormon authority by delving into all fields (Mormon History, Book of Mormon Studies etc.) with reckless abandon. These are beyond his expertise, as he would be the first to admit. With few exceptions. I did do a "trial" piece on Izapa Stela 5 to see if I would like getting into internal Mormon issues. I found I didn't very much. To this day the only similar items I have done and plan to do are on select prophecies of Joseph Smith and the Mormon internal witness (which also has parallels in non-Mormon teachers like Benny Hinn). His forté is clearly hermeneutics, and for the most part he has stuck with his guns and refrained from indulging the lower level polemical tactics used by his counter-cult associates.[9]
Holding is well aware of the weaknesses in the common Evangelical approach, as most of them have, “assumed that the Mormon position will be shown to be absurd and untrue by exposure, and by simple reassertion of orthodox doctrine.”[10] In practice this is likely a reflection of a tendency to use a "presuppositional"/Calvinist approach to apologetics, in which it is basically assumed that arguments are ultimately a distraction and a waste of time. My approach is more "evidential" in nature, and while I do not say the presupp method is entirely without merit or uses, I have repeatedly criticized certain figures (Josh McDowell, notably) whose quality of work has clearly suffered because of this approach. They have made it their goal to evangelize, which he admits is their “primary focus,” instead of following through and proving their arguments. Holding has clearly allied himself with those scholars most friendly towards Latter-day Saints (Paul Owen, Richard Mouw and Doug Cowan),[11] and he intends to be among the first to take up the gauntlet, which was thrown down by Owen and Mosser. The initial charge was that there were “no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarship and apologetic writings.”[12] Holding intends to contribute to that deficiency in a positive way. The Mormon Defenders intends to call upon “top-notch Evangelical scholarship” to the task of refuting LDS truth claims. Although he opines that LDS scholarship cannot win the battle against Evangelical scholarship, unfortunately we will find no such verdict in The Mormon Defenders because Holding spends most of his time avoiding a head to head confrontation with "top-notch" LDS scholarship, and spends more time tackling less formidable arguments as presented by the LDS laity. In function, as I have told Graham, this is because the best LDS apologists (as at FARMS) simply don't do that much work on the Bible, my main concern. Their main focus is internal Mormon apologetic issues. Even beyond that, in many cases what they write of the Bible I find overall little disagreement with. Graham for example once asked why I did not deal more closely with Daniel Peterson's take on Ps. 82:6 in a FARMS publication; my reply was that Peterson's essay contained very little that a Mormon and a mainstream Christian would disagree on. I have surprised Graham more than once by telling him something like this; I have also shocked one or two other Mormon apologists with my essay here. If I have not battled the top LDS apologists much in TMD, it is precisely because they have simply not fielded that many weapons to begin with. Regrettably, Holding feels that proving LDS biblical arguments to be false will somehow stunt the, “culling of converts from mainstream Christian strongholds.” However misguided this particular mission may be,[13] Well, whether it IS misguided is the issue at hand, isn't it? But I would personally rather see a Mormon Reformation than a Mormon Elimination. it proves far more appealing than the usual Bible-thumping “hell and damnation” approach that has appealed to so many counter-cultists before him. Rome wasn't built in a day, but I am confident that LDS and Evangelical relations will improve gradually.
While I believe the LDS apologetic holds the upper hand and will win the overall debate, this is not to say every argument will be a slam dunk. In fact I believe Holding has successfully pointed out many errors in current LDS apologia, and for this we should not be resentful, but grateful. Holding tackles apologetic issues in a manner that would challenge most LDS apologists and perhaps some LDS scholars. So those of us who are bored with the basics should consider Holding’s book to further sharpen our arguments,[14] for this is by no means the usual anti-Mormon work to which we have become accustomed. For reasons listed above, it is far more sophisticated in both content and approach, as it also offers fresh perspectives on a variety of issues that bring to mind the words of Hugh Nibley, “We need more anti-Mormon books, they keep us on our toes.”[15] In fact, this is perhaps the first time in a very long time that I felt the significance of Nibley’s famous cliché applied. Where others have only offered empty promises of providing the “cutting edge” against LDS claims, Holding appears to be, to at least some extent, producing. Indeed, it could be well argued that Holding has accomplished far more in two years with one book than has the vast majority of anti-Mormons who have spent their entire lives attacking the LDS faith.[16] While I find myself in disagreement with most of Holding’s arguments, and believe he has not refuted LDS claims, I believe he has successfully addressed the theological arguments of the LDS faith without concerning himself with attacking the LDS faith itself. For this he should be commended.
LDS apologetic responses to Holding's arguments over the years have varied. Most have been left dumbfounded with his zany manner of discourse. Few understood the nature behind his reponses that seemed nothing short of bizzare. In other words, my tactics worked.
... with the issue of whether or not what they [LDS] say is correct. Call yourself a Hare Krishna if you feel like it, but I mainly want to know if what you say is right or wrong...repeated use of such statements as, "A fundamental point of contention between Mormonism and Christianity . . ." is not meant as any kind of social statement about division. These are terms of convenience for the average reader; if I went about making qualifying statements every line or so I may as well ship each inidividual copy of TMD in a U-Haul.[17]
This approach in itself should draw in more LDS apologists interested in serious discussion. It is my hope that this review will meet Mr. Holding in a vein similar to that which he has presented us, and also respond to his arguments in a concise, coherent manner in which it deserves. I do not recommend this book to everyone, however, for it is certainly an upper tier apologetic which has already gone over the heads of some of his own followers. I don't know that the person in this review is a "follower" in any sense of the Tekton ministry. The other persons who reviewed the book (aside from one fussbudget Skeptic who complained that the book was irrelevant, because BOTH Mormons and Evangelicals were wrong!) are supporters of the ministry, however. [18] Nevertheless, I remain comfortable with much of his methodology and for this reason, feel compelled to encourage all LDS critics to read this book and follow the apologetic tone as illustrated therein.[19]
[1] Anti-Mormons Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson accepted this compliment from Hank Hanegraff during the promotion of their book, Mormonism 101.[2] I have had past experience with Bywater’s “biblical” arguments. http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/bywater.htm[3] A conspiracy that makes no sense given the fact that the LDS faith does not rest its doctrines and beliefs on the premise of sola scriptura. Since the LDS faith is grounded in revelation, it is readily granted that there are LDS beliefs that are extra-biblical. So what need would there be for trying to attain a “biblical” high ground? As noted, "conspiracy" is too strong a word here. Sola Scriptura is really not the point; Smith claimed to provide a "restoration" of true Christianity, and so this necessitated that he claim a more accurate undertstanding of the Bible and its contents as well. Revelation was a way of attempting to achieve this. Comments such as these only question the credentials of the speaker, which in this case we are only offered Bywater's genealogy. If being a former “fifth-generation Mormon” somehow provides him superior insight on the LDS faith, then does my status as a former seventh-generation Protestant allow me the same priveldge? [sic] Yes, it would, with one caveat: If Graham had said "formeer seventh-generation Southern Baptist" then yes, it would allow him a certain privilege to comment on Southern Baptists (as it implies of course someone deep in the movement and its history). "Protestant" is too broad a category to match. Bywater's credit as Director of Curriculum and Research at Summit Ministries is also noted. He had graduated from Denver Seminary and has recently been accepted for prestigious Ph. D. studies at a university in the UK.[4] For an extensive treatment of this subject, see Peterson and Ricks, Offenders for a Word, F.A.R.M.S.; (October 1998). Holding reviews this book with three downed thumbs, and says it is merely a "pep ralley." Instead of dealing with the arguments Peterson and Ricks did make, Holding complains that they didn't try proving something entirely different. I actually did deal with several of their arguments of my concern. But as noted, not all they said was disagreeable within my paradigm. This is an entirely inadequate and misguided response to what has stood as an untouched refutation for many years now. An author has the right to decide the content and more importantly, the purpose of his own book. I never said they didn't. What I did say was that their book assumes a foundation laid that they did not lay. Peterson and Ricks successfully demonstrated the double-standard that prevails throughout counter-cult America today, and so far Evangelicals have only ignored these arguments. http://www.tektonics.org/DP.OFW_0934893357.html[5] It is implied that LDS are not Christian, yet Holding’s intentions do not broach that subject. He argues on the biblical nature of the LDS faith, not its Christian nature. Furthermore, Bywater continues to insult our intelligence in only four small paragraphs. He felt compelled to mention the less than honest rhetorical practices by LDS apologists, namely Stephen Robinson, who was successful in pulling the wool over Craig Blomberg’s eyes. Bywater’s insinuation that the Mormon faith attacks “biblical Christainity,” does nothing to convince LDS scholars that this is a book worthy of attention. Insinuation indeed. The word "attacks" is nowhere in Bywater's commentary. I believe Graham is overreading again.[6] The comments from Bywater, which reflect an all too common war mentality, probably played a major role in Russell McGregor’s decision to offer a nonchalant review of Holding’s book, which was quickly consigned to the bin of anti-Mormonism literature. Russel C. McGregor, “The Anti-Mormon Attackers” FARMS Review of Books vol.14 no.1. While I was dissapointed with McGregor's off the cuff response, which dealt with none of Holding's arguments, the same can be said of Holding's reviews of LDS apologists like Bickmore and Peterson. I disagree of course, but we have no specifics so no more can be said.[7] For example, Holding inappropriately refers to LDS bias in scriptural interpretation. On what page? I would like to check the context of this remark. But: This really has nothing to do with the validity of an argument and I doubt Holding would argue the Evangelical position to be entirely vacant of theological bias. No, I wouldn't. Correct. This is an indication that the intended audience is non-LDS. If one wants to make use of the argument from subjectivity, then he better be sure he isn’t living in a glass house. I have done so. In fact the Tekton ministry has made it a habit of inspecting for fragile living quarters. This is the very attitude that has also put me into a place where I was compelled (for example) to reject both the Calvinist and Arminian positions (see here). The LDS position is supported by scholars who have no theological bias or motive for arguing our case for us - the same can rarely, if ever, be said of Holding’s scholars. Tsk tsk -- that's bombast, now.[8] This is in stark contrast with Holding’s previous correspondences with LDS apologists in times past - such as his review of Barry Bickmore - which range from highly uncharitable to brutally obnoxious. These are found on his animated and less than cordial website. See note above. Bickmore is one of those who turned out to have a chip on his shoulder, as I and already figued out from the uneven nature of his writings.[9] For example, McKeever and Johnson called upon Holding’s services in response to Mormonism 201, but since much of this material is beyond Holding’s expertise(LDS history) he declined participation.
[10] Holding, The Mormon Defenders, 9.
[11] “Cult apologists” as they have been dubbed by their Evangelical critics. http://www.cornerstonemag.com/cart/cowan2.htm
[12] Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?” Trinity Journal 19/2 (1998), 179-205. Holding, p 9.
[13] There is no direct connection between converts to the LDS faith and converts to LDS biblical arguments. LDS converts are admonished to seek truth spiritually, not sola scriptura; converts from biblicist backgrounds notwithstanding. I believe that there is no direct connection, yet. I am anticipating here that sometime in the future, Mormon missionaries WILL begin making more use of argument in their presentations. Given the growth in production and sophistication of LDS apologetics, I believe it will be only a matter of time. The atheists already follow this model for their own system of "proselytizing".
[14] Upon publication of “The Mormon Defenders” I purchsed some three dozen copies and passed them out at the FAIR Conference in August of 2001. He sure did! My thanks! Kevin also told me that he saw one leading LDS apologist "nodding off" with a copy in his hands.
[15] Quoted in Truman Madsen, Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center ,1978), 11.
[16] For example, McKeever and Johnson, the Tanners, John Ankerberg, Ed Decker, Walter Martin, John L. Smith, etc., All claim to be presenting the “truth in love” but have been perceived as aggressive anti-Mormons because of their methodology. JP Holding is the first LDS critic I have encountered who can disagree without passing judgment on my eternal status with God. According to Holding, those Evangelicals who engage in such activities are engaging in “foolishness.” This he said to me one day we met for lunch. To be more specific, I also said that I would not make any assumptions about how much "diversity" God might tolerate in belief when it came to doctrine. In these cases (as with the Trinity) someone who holds to i.e., modalism in ignorance may be better off than the person who argues for it intelligently. If someone wants to argue that Mormons are damned for a particular doctrine, then they have a conundrum. Will they be damned for saying God has a human body? Well, my former pastor told me that many Southern Baptists among the laity believe the same -- are they also damned? Rather than waste time talking about who is damned or not for what in this context, it's better to simply correct the error.
[17] http://www.tektonics.org/funnyfarm.html
[18] “The book seems to be filled with important information, but is a very hard book to read. I struggled to get through it and after finishing it I still don't have a good argument for the topics. I just found it a hard read.” (confused, January 24, 2002 Reviewer: Judith from Parrish, FL USA, amazon.com) One of my more dedicated readers titled his review: "Update your gray matter", which much better represents the spirit of the Tekton ministry.
[19] While many LDS may take exception and offense to Holding’s past-animated antics, one must first appreciate that Holding at one time, aspired to be a cartoonist, and he intends no disrespect by overdosing his arguments with humor.