|
It doesn’t start well: "What’s with
Anti-Mormons these days? It seems like someone has turned up the
heat a couple of notches. Either that, or they are getting
increasingly desperate. Or both, I guess." Unfortunately, it
only goes downhill from there.
Ever since Is the
Mormon My Brother? was released by Bethany House
Publishers in November of 1997, I have waited to see what kind of
meaningful response it would garner from LDS authors. I was
particularly interested because of the nature of the work: it is
very focused upon the central issue (that being the nature of
God). The first chapters present a lengthy, tremendously
fair presentation of the LDS doctrine of God. The sources used
are exclusively LDS---the General Authorities of the Church,
publications copyrighted by the First Presidency, the LDS
Scriptures, etc. The biblical response to the LDS position is
concise and straightforward. The included discussion of How
Wide the Divide? asks many penetrating questions of Stephen
Robinson’s presentation. What is more, the work avoids
unnecessarily inflammatory language. It is, to any even
semi-unbiased reader, a tremendously fair discussion of a vital
issue. It is written firmly from the Evangelical perspective, and
the conclusions drawn are hardly surprising. But the work strives
to make sure that any reader is fully informed as to why
and how the conclusions presented are derived from the
data examined.
How would LDS reviewers respond to a fair, thorough discussion
of the single greatest difference between historic Christianity
and LDS teaching? I hoped that some would seriously interact with
the book, but, I was also aware that such interactions have been
very rare with other fine works written by other Christian
writers. So far, my fears have been realized fully: the
responses, few as they have been, have been nothing short of
simply miserable.
Complimentary copies of the book were sent to Brigham Young
University professors Stephen Robinson, Daniel Peterson, and
William Hamblin. I would like to think that the recent deluge of
simply incredible e-mails from BYU are not representative of any
kind of "response" to the work, but I have to admit a
certain level of suspicion (click here to see
examples). Given the tremendously surface-level review
presented by FARMS of my first work on Mormonism, Letters to a
Mormon Elder (click here for
information on this review), I hope that whatever appears in
the future regarding Is
the Mormon My Brother? will prove more worthwhile.
However, given that Mr. Darryl. L. Barksdale has indicated that
he will be writing that review, the original work by L. Ara
Norwood may prove the most scholarly and in-depth response I will
ever see from FARMS.
While teaching an intensive summer course on Christian
philosophy and apologetics on the campus of Golden Gate Baptist
Theological Seminary in Mill Valley, California, I received an
e-mail note from LDSApolog@aol.com
---Mr. Barksdale---announcing the fact that he had just completed
a review of Is the
Mormon My Brother? and inviting me to his website (www.fair-lds.org). He also
informed me that I was on the "cover" of the June issue
of his publication. So, I went to his site and downloaded the
referenced article. Since I had encountered Mr. Barksdale in
electronic forums, I feared the worst. And my fears were
realized.
Mr. Barksdale indicates that his full review will be posted in
the next edition of his publication ("I’ll fight the
temptation to pick it apart here, and will defer that to next
month’s newsletter"). But if the level of simple
dishonesty that is found in this brief commentary is any
indication of what is to come, we can only hope that he will
think better of the project. Let’s look at some of the
incredible commentary provided by Darryl Barksdale in his article
titled "Is James White Our Brother"?
Anti-Mormons, Again
It seems that all LDS apologists have signed a compact: we
will emulate our Roman Catholic brothers in using the
"anti" label of everyone that we don’t like, and
wish to marginalize (without dealing with the substance of what
they have to say). Rather than taking the high road, Mr.
Barksdale follows after the FARMS path of showing great
disrespect for those with whom there is a disagreement. While my
works refer to BYU writers as "LDS apologists" and not
"anti-Baptists" or "anti-Christians," BYU
writers, and Mr. Barksdale, refuse to return the favor,
preferring to excite the emotions and play to the audience by
using such terms as "anti-Mormons." I would propose to
the fair reader that the use of such terminology indicates a lack
of seriousness on the part of the person using it. I look forward
to reviews by those who will have the temerity to reject this
path, and who will instead refer to those who reject LDS claims
by terms that accurately reflect who they are and what they do.
Throughout this brief article, Barksdale attempts to paint me
as angry, mean-spirited, and vengeful. He portrays a supernatural
ability to interpret my emotional state and motivations, though,
he never indicates just how he is able to do this. Note the next
paragraphs:
One example of this can be seen in James White’s
new book Is
The Mormon My Brother? White is furious that
Craig Blomberg, Ph.D., and Stephen Robinson, Ph.D.,
collaborated on a work titled How Wide The Divide? A
Mormon and Evangelical in Conversation, published
last year by Intervarsity Press.
White is appalled at the notion that Mormons and
Evangelicals should speak to one another. He dearly
wishes that we wouldn’t. And so, lest any hapless
Evangelical foolishly surmise that such a dialogue is in
any way beneficial, and being unsatisfied with writing a
scathing review of HWTD? for CRI, he seemingly
felt the need to write an entire book devoted to why
Mormon theology is just plain sick and wrong.
Note the terms "furious" "appalled"
"dearly wishes" "foolishly surmise"
"scathing review" and "just plain sick," and
all within only a few lines! The motivation for such writing is
easy to determine: the book provides Mr. Barksdale with a calm,
fair and very biblically-based discussion of the central issue
that separates Mormonism from Christianity: but, if his readers
are going to read the book (and it would be my guess that such a
review would hardly motivate them to do so), it is always best to
poison the well before they run into such a fair discussion of
the issue.
Of course, I doubt very much if Mr. Barksdale contacted Craig
Blomberg to see if, in fact, I had been "furious" with
him when I spoke with him before writing my "scathing"
CRI review. I have informed Mr. Barksdale, electronically, that I
not only called Blomberg and spoke to him for an hour on the
phone, but I sent him my review, asked for his comments, and
incorporated his suggestions into the final draft. Hardly the
actions of someone who is "furious" and
"appalled."
And, as Mr. Barksdale further knows, my problem with How
Wide the Divide has to do not with having a dialogue, but
with the fact that the LDS position was not fully or accurately
presented by the book. Hence, there is simply nothing of
substance in these paragraphs, outside of a rather blatant
attempt to portray the work in the worst possible light.
I note in passing that while I most certainly say that LDS
theology is wrong, I did so only after carefully defining that
theology from official sources----and Mr. Barksdale admits that
he is not an official representative of the LDS Church. I never
identified it as "sick," I identified it as false.
I did not use any stronger terms in my rejection of LDS claims
than LDS writers have used in rejecting historic Christianity.
Does Mr. Barksdale interact at all with the fact that this
work expends a tremendous amount of time documenting the LDS
position? No, instead, the old "straw-man" claim is
made yet once again: without a single shred of documentation to
back it up. Here are the comments:
In this book, in true form, White elaborately sets up
an imposing straw man to rip apart and burn, building his
entire premise on the fact that LDS Theology differs from
what he terms "Christian Orthodoxy".
I guess we shall have to wait for the full review to know how
it is possible to set up a "straw man" by merely
quoting in context the leaders of the LDS Church, but I will make
a prediction: Mr. Barksdale refuses to be held accountable to
anything but LDS Scripture. Hence, even though his own church
speaks of latter-day revelation, the priesthood authority, living
prophets and apostles, etc., and even though I provided a
thorough foundation for the use of all the sources cited, this
will be his main point: that Mormons cannot be held accountable
for Joseph Smith, their Temple ceremonies, or for anything taught
by their apostles and prophets. Let the reader decide who is
erecting a straw man.
Poisoning the Well
Above I made the charge that this article by Mr. Barksdale is
nothing more than an attempt to poison the well. He is attempting
to set up his longer review, which he promises to post soon. This
is plainly borne out by the following:
Suffice it to say, rather than letting the facts speak
for themselves, in this book White resorts to the kind of
bitter, name-calling schoolyard charm that has made him a
household name among the Counter-Cult Culture. He calls
us "cultists". He calls us
"idolators". And he absolutely refuses to call
us "Christians".
Such phrases as "bitter, name-calling schoolyard
charm" have become standard fare for LDS apologists, though,
as the facts show, the term describes their own behavior, not
mine. Any person who has read Is the Mormon My
Brother? has to sit back in amazement at such dishonesty.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Note the allegation that
"he calls us ‘cultists’." I did a search of
the electronic files on my computer system for the word
"cultist." It appears exactly one time in the entire
book, and in a context that is almost humorous, given Mr.
Barksdale’s desperate attempt to misrepresent the work. It
is the same passage that attracted the attention of Professor
Midgley as well, a passage in which I am talking about others
who take an improper attitude toward the task at hand:
There are many others, however, who
have no doubts whatsoever about the LDS faith in general,
and Mormons in particular. "It’s a
devil-inspired cult" they say, "and that’s
all there is to it." For many, Mormons are simply
polygamous cultists, out to destroy the souls of anyone
unwary enough to be caught in their clutches. Yet many
who would provide the strongest denunciations of
LDS theology and practice are the very ones who have done
the least work in seriously studying LDS writings,
and interacting with LDS viewpoints. Therefore, a large
body of literature exists that is based not so much on
fair, even-handed study of primary source documentation,
but upon a very large dose of emotion and bias. Such
literature normally emphasizes the sensational, seeking
to arouse the emotions of the reader against the
LDS faith. Modern LDS apologists and scholars like to
focus upon such literature, often treating it as if it is
the "norm" for all Christians, and have little
difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and half-truths,
thereby dismissing all efforts at refuting LDS claims and
evangelizing the LDS people. But for those who find in
Mormonism the very embodiment of evil itself, there is
little reason to even ask the question, "Is
Mormonism Christian?" And there is even less reason
to spend any time at all fairly evaluating the arguments
of LDS scholars on the topic.
As anyone can see who is expending any effort at all to
be fair in reading what I have written, I am decrying such
attitudes as the one I am addressing here. Hence, where in my
book do I merely right of Mormons as "cultists" as Mr.
Barksdale has asserted? It is obvious that it is his desire that
his readers believe that the book is filled with invective and
insult---yet, anyone who reads it knows differently.
Next, he speaks of calling Mormons "idolators." That
term appears once in the entire book---in an endnote---quoting
someone else---about pagan idolaters in the days of Jeremiah.
Perhaps Mr. Barksdale was just a little over-zealous, and meant
to say that I spoke often, in the chapter on the biblical
teaching concerning God, of idolatry? And I most assuredly did.
But, of course, it does not have nearly the emotional
impact to say "James White contrasted LDS belief in a
plurality of gods with biblical monotheism, and concluded that to
worship the god presented by Joseph Smith would be
idolatry." In fact, if he dared note that before coming to
such a conclusion I spent over 100 pages making sure we knew what
the LDS position was, and then took the time to carefully present
numerous biblical passages that contradict the LDS position, his
entire thesis would be destroyed, and he might actually find
himself having to admit that the book is just the opposite of
what he wishes it would be.
But since the charge is made, here are the results of a search
of the chapter titled "The God Christians Worship"
regarding the term "idolatry":
Even though He taught His people from the start that
He alone was God, the people of Israel were constantly
falling into idolatry. Centuries after Moses, Isaiah was
the mouthpiece God used to make some of His highest
statements about Himself and His relationship to our
world. Seeing that the people of Israel were steeped in
idolatry, and were constantly being lured away from
single-hearted devotion to Him, Yahweh convenes a
"court," and puts the gods of the peoples on
trial.
But God’s purpose is plain: "There is no God
besides Me." Idolatry is inherently foolish simply
because there is no worthy object of worship other than
the one true God, Yahweh Elohim, or as it normally
appears in the English text, the LORD God.
God takes His truth very seriously. This is not a
matter of theological finery, it is the difference
between idolatry and worship, salvation and eternal
punishment. Joseph Smith has led millions to follow
"gods whom you have not known." Did not Smith
himself say that we had imagined and supposed that God
"was God from all eternity"? And is this not
exactly what God is saying in these passages in
Scripture? Yet Smith went on to say, "I will refute
that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may
see." These are the words of a false prophet, and
God’s view of false prophets is plainly stated in
verse 5 above.
This is the only God worthy of worship and adoration.
And God expects us to know this truth—He upbraids
those who have forgotten by asking, "Do you not
know? Have you not heard?" That this has always
been known is plainly proclaimed. There is no excuse for
idolatry, no defense for polytheism. In comparison with
the true God, earth’s inhabitants are "like
grasshoppers." Are we truly to believe this is being
said of an "exalted man" who was once a mortal
like you and I?
The true God is not liable to representation by the
physical universe, for He is invisible, and infinite, and
hence incapable of comparison with anything in the
created order, which must be, by nature, finite. This
brings us to the very nature of idolatry, for to
represent God in any way that is untrue is, at its root,
an act of idolatry.
As strong as it may sound, we cannot possibly be
honest with the biblical evidence and teaching, and
the statements of LDS leaders we have examined, and not
honestly warn our LDS friends that to worship the God of
Joseph Smith is, quite simply, to engage in idolatry. To
even think of God in terms of a creature, a man, is to
denigrate His being beyond words. To worship any god
other than the one true God who made all things,
likewise, is to place one’s very soul in eternal
peril.
The sin of idolatry includes thinking of God in human
categories. This is not to say that God has not used
human terminology to express Himself and His
existence—surely He has. But we are warned over and
over again not to think of God as if He were a
creature like us.
Man slips down the slope into idolatry when he
views himself in any way other than as the creature of
God, bound by his creation itself to live in such
a way as to honor and glorify his God.
Yet in Scripture, God Himself uses
sarcasm—regularly—to point out the foolishness
of man’s idolatry. So we hear God saying, "Oh
man, man! I am God, and you aren’t." God
likens rebellious men to an earthenware vessel, a mere
inanimate object, yet arrogant enough to argue with his
Maker!
Two of the above uses of the word conclude that LDS teachings
lead to idolatry. One could logically conclude, then, that a
person embracing such beliefs will be led to idolatry as a
result. However, it would not do for Mr. Barksdale’s
purposes to present the truth of what the book actually says, for
to say that someone examines the issues thoroughly and comes to
the conclusion that a system leads to idolatry is a far cry from
saying "He calls us idolaters and cultists." If he were
to deal with what I actually said, he’d have to admit that
for him, to engage in ad-hominem attacks upon Mormons is to
fairly evaluate their beliefs, compare them with Scripture, and
come to the honest conclusion that they have been badly deceived.
Yet, anyone can see that is not ad-hominem argumentation at all.
Unrelenting Hatred
So why the tremendous misrepresentation in Mr.
Barksdale’s article? The answer comes quickly:
Why? Why are people so consumed with hatred that they
feel the need to form organizations like CRI, or the
"Counter-Cult" movement? Why is their hatred so
unrelenting? What is the payoff for persecuting other
Christians? One has to seriously wonder. And as can be
seen by White’s most recent book, the tone of
anti-Mormon works is getting worse.
Note the assumption here: that I hate Mormons. Yet, Is the Mormon My
Brother? contained the following statement:
I love the Mormon people. In our
culture today, that might sound strange. Secular folks
could not possibly understand what I mean, especially
since I have written an entire work demonstrating, from
LDS sources, and from the Bible, that Mormonism is not
Christianity. And since Mormons claim to be
Christians, how can I say I love Mormons when I say that
one of their most often repeated claims is not true?
But the Christian reading this work
will understand exactly what I mean. The Bible is very
plain in telling us how we are to act as followers of
Christ. We are to "speak the truth in love,"
(Ephesians 4:15) even while we "refute those who
contradict" (Titus 1:9) and "expose the
unfruitful works of darkness" (Ephesians 5:11).
Christian love does not ignore the truth, it revels in
it. Indeed, there is no Christian love where truth is
ignore or compromised. They go hand in hand, for
"love rejoices with the truth" (1 Corinthians
13:6).
It is my love for the LDS people that
compels me to missions work in Utah and Arizona. And it
forms a major component in my writing this book. If I
love someone, I will tell them the truth, even if I know
they may not appreciate my efforts. As Paul was forced to
say to the Galatians when writing them a difficult
letter, "Have I become your enemy by telling you the
truth?" (Galatians 4:16).
I believe it is not a sign of true,
honest, uncompromising love to have the kind of
disagreements I have with LDS people—disagreements
that involve eternal issues, and yes, the eternal destiny
of those involved—and yet dismiss those
disagreements because it is uncomfortable to talk about
them. We would never allow such a mindset to exist in
almost any other area of our lives, but when it comes to
this one area, we seem to go just a little berserk,
allowing our emotions to run away with our thinking. If
my Mormon friend is worshipping another god and has been
deceived, how can I remain silent and still claim I am
showing Christian love?
And so in part I write out of love for
the LDS people. But even more so, I have written out of
love for Christian people. This book is meant to
equip the saints, to provide them with the necessary
facts, both from a biblical perspective, as well as from
a dogmatic LDS perspective, upon which to act in deciding
such issues as fellowship, interaction, and evangelism.
Christians need to know the truth about LDS teaching, and
I have sought diligently to present it. I hope that the
Lord will be pleased, through the process of struggling
with these issues, to re-ignite in the hearts of many a
pastor and layperson a love for the great truths of
God’s uniqueness, immutability, and creatorship.
Is it not far more likely that the "unrelenting
hatred" is to be found in those who misrepresent others, are
dishonest in their writings, and who seek to damage others’
reputations by dishonesty? Yes, Mr. Barksdale accuses me of
misrepresentation, just as I am accusing him. There is, of
course, one glaring difference: I have documented his
misrepresentations. He documented nothing. Instead, his
desire is obviously to do nothing more than communicate to his
readers that I am a hateful, vengeful person. If the above was
not enough to convince you of that, read on:
White has written yet another book, this time aimed at
teenagers, called What’s With The Dudes At The
Door? Not content with spewing his hatred in the
general direction of any adult that will listen, White
now feels it his imperative duty to indoctrinate
Evangelical youth with a healthy dose of hatred and
religious bigotry. These youth would be well-served to
ask, as they read this book, "What Would Jesus
Do?" as White has definitely ignored this rather
rhetorical question as he repeatedly labels Mormons as
"weirdo cultists".
Why? Why would an otherwise intelligent Child of our
Heavenly Father be so possessed and consumed with this
kind of hatred? What would possess him to be this
vicious? Why would he do such a thing?
Let’s put the terms together for the full effect: hatred,
healthy dose of hatred and religious bigotry, "weirdo
cultists," consumed with this kind of hatred, vicious.
Combine these with the ones we’ve already seen: unrelenting
hatred, bitter, name-calling school-yard charm, etc. The
reader is invited to scan both of my books on Mormonism and see
if any such invective can be found. The truth is
self-evident.
Barksdale goes on to quote from Mosser and Owen’s famous
paper, attacking my scholarship. Yet, he does not even quote from
the book itself. While we could hope for more from the full
review, the clear emotionalism and pure prejudice documented so
far will undoubtedly preclude the full review from having any
substantial meaning.
I have indicated in written works and in many media
appearances that Mormonism is attempting to
"mainstream" itself. Mr. Barksdale admits it:
It is my opinion that more work needs to be done in
this area. More projects like How Wide The Divide? need
to be pursued. Mormon scholars are well-accepted in
mainstream Christian Scholarship. It’s high time
that the rest of us were accepted as readily into the
mainstream Christian community.
I have addressed this issue fully in the book----which is why
Mr. Barksdale is so desperate to keep his readers from fairly
listening to its argument. He is so desperate, in fact, that
he’s willing to go this far:
Mr. White, this is not Nazi Germany, and Mormons are
not a lower life form. Evangelical Christianity is not
the "Master Race", and all others scum. We are
all children of our Heavenly Father. Let’s act like
it, and emulate His example in our lives. Let’s be a
light to their feet, and show them the way.
If we need to, let’s set the example for James in
our dealings with Anti-Mormons. He obviously needs one.
And who knows? It might just work some day.
Nazi Germany? Lower life form? Master Race? Scum? I invite any
person to pick up Is
the Mormon My Brother?, read it, and think about what
could possibly prompt such comments from Mr. Barksdale.
Will They Ever Deal Honestly with the Issue?
One is left to seriously wonder if any LDS writer will
honestly deal with the issues raised in Is the Mormon My
Brother? It is obvious beyond dispute that Mr. Barksdale
is unwilling to do so. FARMS is so completely out of control that
I no longer post the embarrassing e-mails I continue to receive
from notable people associated with that organization. So who
will step up to the bat and actually respond to the issue without
first engaging in the most obvious, blatant forms of dishonest
argumentation and simple name-calling? Only time will tell.
James R. White, Th.D.
July 1, 1998
Addendum:
Upon encountering Mr. Barksdale's review, I asked
him, in an Instant Message, to document some of his claims.
He said he is an honest man, and he'd retract anything that was
in error. Time passed. No documentation.
Finally, Mr. Barksdale replied: with an article more shrill, and
less true, than what came before. Laced with childish
invective and condescension, Barksdale blithely skipped over the
vast majority of the above, choosing only to respond to what he
could successfully twist to his own view, ignoring that which is
simply too difficult to even attempt to misrepresent (Mr.
Barksdale did not include the URL for this response entitled "If
You're Not My Brother, Then Why Do You Keep Hanging Around My
House-"). Sadly, he has chosen to press forward with his
"review" as well . Again, the reader is invited to
simply lay aside the emotions Darryl Barksdale is so desperate
to invoke, examine the issues and arguments, and decide from
there.
|
