The recent Salt Lake Olympics presented the Church with a unique opportunity to show the world how Mormonism has grown from a provincial American sect to a dynamic world religion. Anyone with access to a television could see first-hand the Mormon state in action. And, if press reports are to be believed, they were impressed!

The First Presidency of the Church had announced that missionary efforts among the Olympic visitors would be curtailed. But this didn't stop the anti-Mormons from hitting the streets with their publications and persuasion. I don't know that their impact was great; very little anecdotal evidence has arisen that their efforts were very effective.

What is Mormonism All About? was written by Johanson to address the world audience that would be focused on Salt Lake City, attempting to explain Mormonism in a simple, catechetical method. In question and answer format, Johanson offers "answers to the 150 most commonly asked questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (from the cover).

Sounds like a good idea? It is indeed a fine idea. But how well does Johanson accomplish his task? The results, I fear, are mixed.

Let me begin by saying that the author frequently asks the right questions. These questions are clustered into broad topics: "Are Mormons Christians?", "Polygamy and Other Curious Facts About Mormonism", "Women's Issues," etc. Assuming that many will not read the book from cover to cover, Johanson overlaps some material from chapter to chapter, providing for some repetition (allowable in this kind of book, in my opinion).

When reading such books, I always ask myself two questions: 1) Does the author understand his religion? 2) Does the author understand other religions? I ask the second question because, inevitably, a comparison of Mormon belief with other belief systems becomes part of the apologetic.

Addressing the second question first, it seems that Johanson holds to some curious ideas about Christian history. His biography states that he was "raised in the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Methodist traditions." This seems to cover many of the bases of modern Protestantism. And yet, his grasp of Protestant history is skewed by popular misconceptions:

At the time of Christ, the people in the area around Jerusalem were mostly Palestinians, Romans, or Jews, and those who followed Christ were labelled Christians. Several hundred years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus (and the death of the Apostles), the Catholic Church was formed, claiming that it represented the continuation of the Christian faith. The word Catholic in Latin means "universal," so it claimed to represent the universal Christian Church.

Aside from other splits that had occurred, the Catholic Church was "the Church" in Western Europe until the time of Martin Luther, who was a Catholic who split away from the Church and formed his own version of Christianity, which came to be called Lutheranism. This was the beginning of the reform movement in Christianity, now called the Reformation. Soon others also began to split off from the Catholic Church, and they were all called Protestant denominations, because they "protested" the accuracy and correctness of the Catholic Church, as representing Christ's true church. So all subsequent Christian faiths were considered to be Protestant, as opposed to Catholic. (p. 1,2)

One can only cringe at this reading of Christian history. Luther never established a church (page 28 makes it clear that he believes that Luther "proceeded to establish his own church"). Not all subsequent splits were Protestant -- this dismisses such movements as the Anabaptists, etc. And his last statement above neglects the entire Anglican phenomenon, which considers itself both Catholic and Protestant, a "via media," a "middle way" between the two traditions.

But as to his understanding of Mormonism, he seems to have a fair grasp of his subject matter. His bio states that he is "president of the National Institute for Organizational Research, an expert in higher-education marketing, and an accomplished marketing strategist, writer, and public speaker." (back cover) It should not be surprising that the book should have a marketing bent to it, putting forward the best possible face.

In some cases, however, he goes a bit too far. Consider his take on Mormon families:

For those who know a lot of Mormons, or live in communities where there are large Mormon populations, they realize that Mormons lead a very "Leave-It-To-Beaver, Father-Knows-Best, Ozzie-And Harriet" kind of existence. And for those who feel that no one actually lived like the families in those TV sitcoms, they must not know many Mormons, because that's the norm among most Mormon families. (p. 42)

Is this really true? I know a lot of Mormons, and in many cases, it's difficult for me to draw straight lines between these families and the Cleavers. Substantial documentation of troubles within Mormon families makes it clear that such problems do indeed exist. To claim otherwise seems false to me, and paints more of a public relations picture than an accurate view.

From time to time, Johanson asks questions which are simply inaccurate:

Why do we hear about anti-Mormons, but not about anti-Methodists, or anti-Lutherans, or anti-Catholics, or anti-other groups? (p. 70)

To pretend that Mormons are the only group with enemies is absurd. Anti-Catholicism is deeply entrenched in American religious life. I have no doubt there are as many anti-Catholic ministries as there are anti-Mormon groups. And what about anti-Jehovah's Witnesses? The list could go on.

Later in the book:

Most religions are pretty vague, or claim that it's a mystery, about what the ultimate Plan of Salvation is. Do Mormons have some particular explanation of Christ's Plan of Salvation? (p. 153)

This is simply inaccurate. "Most religions" have a perfectly clear explanation of their view of the Plan of Salvation. They have written voluminously on this subject, and to present their views as "vague" simply misstates the case.

And so it goes, throughout the book, we find bumps and swerves that range from the imaginative to the wrong-headed. To be fair, there is a lot of good material in the book. The bumps are there, but they fall between some solid material. The irony is that it takes a person familiar with Mormonism, and with wider Christianity, to sort the good from the bad, and this is precisely *not* the audience to which this book is addressed.

When this book is factually accurate, it does a very fine job of answering the reader's questions. An entire section on Mormon practice (including baptism, confirmation, the celebration of holidays, etc.) is nicely done. The answers are straightforward and accurate. In one instance, he presents a very sympathetic view of Mormonism's diverse population:

Are Mormons really this good?

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are a cross-section of every possible kind of person you can imagine. Are they perfect? Of course not. Are they sinless? Of course not.

But most are sincerely trying to get better, little by little, day by day. They try to be honest. They try to be charitable. They try to be friendly and helpful . . .

So are Mormons really as good as they're often portrayed? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. (p. 108)

This book would have been well-served by a careful reader who could have directed the author into a clearer explanation of the Mormon faith. There is always a need for such books. As Mormonism continues to grow in both numbers and influence, there will inevitably be those who will inquire about the faith. I hope the next effort will be better than this book.

---

Reviewed: 9 May 2002

Copyright © 2002 Jeff Needle <jeff.needle@general.com>