It is an old adage among polite people that you should never discuss politics or religion unless you want to get into an argument. I hate old adages, and sometimes they contradict each other -- how does once reconcile "Look before you leap" with "He who hesitates is lost"? Plain speaking, solid reasoning, and good old fashioned common sense are my preferences.

When it comes to religion, things can become especially heated. Mormonism sends out missionaries to virtually every corner of the earth. Two by two they knock on doors, looking for that soul who is searching for what they have to offer. Ask any missionary about rejection, and he or she will likely regale you with stories about doors slammed and obscenities screamed.

So what happens when evangelicals set out to convert Mormons? If you've been to Temple Square, you've likely met up with a few very loud, and not very polite, anti-Mormons. I've seen ward parking lots tracted during a meeting. Folks return to their cars to find a booklet, generally displaying the fires of hell, sentencing the Mormons to a fiery eternity unless they repent and leave the Church.

The present volume, I Love Mormons, is a book for evangelicals who are looking for ways to approach their Mormon neighbors with "the gospel" -- a deeper, personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Of course, Mormons will argue they already have that. How does one sort out all of the competing theologies and views?

It may be just a quirk of fate that I've just finished reviewing Robert Millet's "Another Jesus?" It, too, was published by an evangelical publisher (Eerdmans), written to inform evangelicals about what Mormons really believe and teach about Jesus.

The current volume is in the same genre. Rowe, a professor and dean of spiritual life at Salt Lake Theological Seminary, is concerned that evangelicals are using all the wrong moves in their efforts to reach their Mormon neighbors. Millet expresses a similar concern in his volume. Discussions cannot take place unless there's a level of mutual understanding and respect.

What comes across very clearly in this book is that the title, I Love Mormons, tells only half the story. Rowe expresses himself as one who also truly respects Mormons and many of the things they stand for. He describes his attitude as something of an evolutionary experience. He's written this book to help others avoid the same kinds of mistakes he made.

His formulations were interesting and, to a degree, innovative. Some may disagree with his approach. In a chapter titled "Mormon Theology 101," he views the doctrine of eternal progression as central to understanding Mormonism as a whole. He spends some time offering a respectful explanation of the doctrine (although I thought in one instance he came close to trivializing the idea):

In very simple terms, this is saying the person Mormons call Heavenly Father was once a human just like us and simply worked his way up! (56)

He might have found a better way of saying this.

In general, though, he shows a real depth of understanding, and a familiarity with his subject. He has lived in Salt Lake City for a long time, has many Mormon neighbors, and has made a genuine effort to understand, and appreciate, the Mormon people and lifestyle.

His chapter titled "The Heart of the Matter: Learning to Speak Mormonese" was, I thought, the most insightful in the book. He addresses the difficult and sometimes perplexing area of "epistemology" --

"the study of how we know what we take to be true." (115)

He represents Latter-day Saints as those who use experience -- the burning in the bosom, for example -- as a primary evidence of truth. Evangelicals, on the other hand, look to the Bible and reasoned argument to arrive at truth statements.

Rowe believes that evangelicals and Mormons can sometimes talk past each other because they come to truth through different venues. He doesn't present this as an all or nothing proposition -- he doesn't suggest that Mormons don't study or that evangelicals don't have inner stirrings -- but I think he's correct in his assessment of how each group primarily arrives at statements of truth.

Despite the great care he took to assure fairness and a great generosity of spirit, I think from time to time he misses a point. Several examples will serve to illustrate.

First: in a list of questions he suggests folks ask their Mormon neighbors, this one arises:

In terms of its meaning and power to your people, what modern historical event ranks equal in importance to the crucifixion of Christ? (23)

I was a bit startled, and not at all sure what he was getting at. The answer comes later in the book:

Joseph Smith's murder in the Carthage Jail in June, 1844, is the defining moment in Mormonism. In Mormon belief and society, the martyrdom of Joseph Smith is as important as the crucifixion, in terms of its meaning and power to people (45)

Sounds like Howe has it right. The problem: he's not quoting a General Authority, but rather my friend Will Bagley. Will is certainly a great historian, a terrific writer and a great mind. But I don't think his writings can be considered authoritative statements from the Mormon hierarchy!

Second: In a section of a chapter titled "Mormons in Transition," Howe makes the following statement:

"When the prophet speaks," a common saying goes, "the thinking has been done." For people wanting a sense of certainty, reassurance, and undoubting faith, this becomes quite appealing. (90)

Two comments: first, the saying really isn't so common. I understand it refers to a statement made by a General Authority to a certain educator in a disciplining letter. The letter was later circulated, much to the alarm of some readers. Yes, the saying is known to some, but I'm not sure it's accurate to describe it as a "common saying." Also, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this is particularly Mormon. How many other Christians have chosen what amounts to a "guru," a leader, whose every word is considered gospel? In my view, it's more of a human failing than a Mormon trait.

I smiled when, in his opening words, he in a sense apologizes that the book was classified by the publisher under the general heading "Cults." Bookstores need to know where to shelve the book, and there really was no heading to adequately describe his view of the Church.

As an aside, I think there's an underlying truth to the Mormon-evangelical connection. It seems to me that both groups are targeting pretty much the same demographic. In a sense, they are competitors in the grand business we call "religion." Not that there isn't passion and promise on each side, but only that each group sees it to be to their, and their proselytes', advantage to gain as many converts as possible. This is not without honor, nor should we discourage the active sharing of ideas. Indeed, as the competition continues in the religious marketplace, both sides will benefit from the positive and forward-looking approach manifest in this book.

Yes, Howe does believe that Mormonism constitutes an "aberrant theology." And yes, he does make the occasional slip in his presentation. But as a whole, this book is a refreshing change from other books classified as "anti-Mormon." This label simply does not fit Howe's presentation.

One cannot expect a book from an evangelical publisher to support Mormon doctrine. It would be dishonest and disingenuous. But all sides of an issue can reasonably expect mutual respect and an honest attempt at understanding the other side. Dr. Howe does this nicely. Mormons may not agree with his goals, but perhaps he can be viewed as a friend by Mormons, and others, desiring to enter into dialogue.

-----------------------------------

Jeff Needle
September 7, 2005