The Mormon System of Hermeneutics

Co-written: Jeff Krohn and Thorsten Moritz, September 2012

 AIMS

 The Mormon faith is a complex system that is supported by several pillars. How the church perpetuates its teachings and what hermeneutical moves are involved in so doing has to be understood against the backdrop of those pillars. After reviewing them with respect to their hermeneutical implications, the foundational role of presupposition(s) in Mormon thinking will become apparent. The system in its entirety is a filter that fuels pre-understanding and enables the LDS church not only to interpret the Bible according to their perspective, but also to thrive as a revelation-receiving church. To help us assess the hermeneutical credibility of Mormon presuppositions, we explore by way of intellectual background pertinent aspects of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s focus on the crucial and positive role of presupposition(s) in interpretation. This should help us evaluate the extent to which Mormon readings of the Bible can hope to be accommodated within acceptable late-modern interpretive and epistemological paradigms. The suitability of Gadamer for this particular purpose is grounded in his unique contribution to epistemology and hermeneutics by rehabilitating the interpretive role of pre-understanding in principle. His point is not to allow presupposition(s) to run rampant, but to show how presuppositions provide the pool of possibilities without which the construction or re-constructing of meaning would not be possible.

 QUESTION

 Is it conceivable that a Gadamerian awareness of the role of presuppositions lends credibility to Mormon hermeneutics or that the latter can be evaluated intellectually based on Gadamer’s legacy?

 CONTEXT

The Mormon System

In the absence of significant scholarly interaction with Mormon hermeneutics, it is best to contextualize this study against Mormonism’s own systemic understanding.

The following facets and pillars of Mormonism are most relevant for our research: First, the doctrine of the “Great Apostasy.” Soon after the apostles died, so the Mormon argument goes, there was a loss of authority, an introduction of errors into the Bible, and a loss of the fullness of the Gospel. Only a “Restoration” would allow authority to once again emerge on the earth. They confidently affirm “…that a rational interpretation of history demonstrates the fact of this great and general apostasy” (James Edward Talmage, The Great Apostasy Considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History (Independence, Missouri: Press of Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1909), 18).

 Second, the “First Vision” – when the Father and Son appeared in bodily form to Joseph Smith as a 14 year-old boy in 1820 – establishes how God is known (by revelation) and not known (by disputation and rational enquiry) (Jim Siebach, “A Dialogue on Theology as Hermeneutics,” in Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2007), 464).

A third essential pillar is the idea of modern, continuing revelation. The pinnacle of such revelation occurs with the “Living Prophet” who receives direct revelation from God, and is even considered in possession of “special spiritual endowment” (W.D. Davies and Truman G. Madsen, eds., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1278, www.lib.byu.edu/digital/ Macmillan/ accessed October 2011; see also Nathan Oman, “The Living Oracles: Legal Interpretation and Mormon Thought,” Dialogue 42, no. 2 (Sum 2009): 1-19. On continuing revelation see Kent P. Jackson, “Latter-day Saints: a Dynamic Scriptural Process,” in Holy Book in Comparative Perspective (Columbia: University of Columbia Press, 1993), 63-83; and especially The Pearl of Great Price, Articles of Faith 1:9: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”). In principle communication from God can be enjoyed by all members of the LDS church. It is a lens for reading ancient revelation (Richard N. Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment, Making Sense of the New Testament: Timely Insights and Timeless Messages (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2010), Kindle location 8617). “Modern revelation and restored scripture offer indispensable interpretations of the Bible” (M. Catherine Thomas, “Scripture, Interpretation within Scripture,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1284). Revelation effectively replaces reason (“Revelation trumps reason.” James Faulconer, “A Dialogue on Theology as Hermeneutics,” in Mormonism in Dialogue, 473. Of course, a quick rejoinder would center on how such information was received. Who told them this? Was it revealed by revelation? It is insightful to see how reason is used to postulate that reason itself is trumped by revelation).

Three important sub-themes under this general theme of modern revelation include the doctrine that local (male) believers possess the priesthood and its accompanying authority, that a centralized headquarters for the faith is required, and that the “past” may be dethroned at any time. At any time a new interpretation may arise that will authorize or de-authorize a particular doctrine. As one Mormon scholar says, “…what has been an authoritative teaching can become radically nonauthoritative” (Faulconer, 474). Given changing circumstances in the world, new revelation from God will not only be possible but will be necessary (See Jackson, 63). The first two sub-themes are supposedly demonstrated in the New Testament.

A crucial aspect for our study is the Mormon focus on the pragmatics of faith. Reason and study may have their place in Mormon theologizing, but their main interest lies in the living out of their faith. Consequently a formal, systematic summary of their doctrine of hermeneutics simply does not exist. They admit that they have “done little toward giving an intellectual clarification of revelation” since they are “fundamentally practical.” In other words, they perform a hermeneutic of practices and events, more than a hermeneutic of texts (Faulconer, 476. Furthermore, “religion is primarily a matter of practice rather than propositional belief.” Faulconer, 475).

Other hermeneutically important aspects of the Mormon system[1] include the notion of Joseph Smith as the mouthpiece of God, “bearing a testimony,” temple ordinances, the role of the Book of Mormon, the idea that the “Holy Ghost reveals,” (Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology. (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1994), 35, 40; cf. Doctrine and Covenants 20:27), and the role of the “Spirit of prophecy” in understanding Scripture (2 Nephi 25:4).

In its totality, the Mormon system provides an “Exclusivist Systematic Totality” filter through which interpretation occurs. The entire system must be in place, and indeed is firmly in place, for Mormon hermeneutics to function and thrive.

  Gadamer’s Perspective

To interpret is to have pre-understandings and presuppositions. But what is the hermeneutical role of presuppositions? One of the most significant voices is that of Gadamer who argues against overly scientific construals of meaning that the reader plays an essential role, including his or her presuppositions (See Merold Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation?: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 85). For Gadamer interpretation is an ongoing interplay between the presuppositions and the text. As interpreters we are immersed in particular traditions. Yet such traditions are not “coherently univocal” (Westphal, 70-71). They shape our interpretations and understandings and are clearly not meant to fuel abusive treatments of text. Gadamer differentiates between legitimate and enabling preunderstandings that help illuminate the text’s meaning. He does not present a simple model to impose on the text in order to extract its meaning. Such a model, he argues, cannot work, for it is fueled by a tradition laden with presuppositions. There needs to be the discovery of textual meaning beyond using a method. An interpreter – as understood by Gadamer – can be likened to a performer in the arts who is not simply mechanically reproducing the musical score, but who understands such a score by performing it. True understanding would not only entail reproduction but production as well (i.e., the performance of the interpreter). Reading with understanding requires a kind of reproduction, performance, and interpretation (Westphal, 62, 78, 98).

 Methodology

 This research project relies on a mix of the following:

• A thorough textual understanding of Mormonism’s pertinent primary sources.
• A philosophically coherent exploration of the hermeneutical presuppositions evident in those texts.
• A study of the role of presuppositions in Gadamer’s two horizons model (as well as those of other relevant scholars, such as A. Thiselton and P. Ricoeur).
• An interdisciplinary appraisal of whether a Gadamerian recovery of presuppositions lends credibility (or otherwise) to Mormon hermeneutics. (It should be noted that this study is not primarily interested in notions of hermeneutica sacra, except to the extent that such notions are found to be central to Mormon hermeneutics.)

 Outlook

There are a number of ways that Mormon scholars would point out their affinity with modern philosophical hermeneutics. They acknowledge that the reader has a role in interpreting, and that it would be naïve to deny personal involvement in interpretation (See Jeffrey R. Holland, “Daddy, Donna, and Nephi,” Ensign, Sept 1976; Dallin H. Oaks, “Scripture Reading and Revelation,” Ensign, Jan. 1995; Hugh Nibley, The World and the Prophets, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, 12 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987), 3:202. See also 1 Nephi 11-15 where Nephi is commanded continually to “Look!”). Furthermore, they recognize that revelation does not occur in a vacuum (See Anthony A. Hutchinson,  “LDS approaches to the Holy Bible.” Dialogue 15, no. 1 (Spr 1982), 99-124, where he discusses four groups of LDS scholars, each exhibiting different tendencies in their hermeneutical proclivities). Mormon scholars would resonate with Gadamer’s idea that the author of a text can never render meaning sufficiently determinate and that meaning is codetermined by author and reader. A reader is not an uninvolved, curious observer, for he or she wants to know what a text or its implied author says to them. Since, for Gadamer, texts have an effect on us, make claims on us, address us and shape us, the question of compatibility between pragmatic Mormon theologizing and Gadamerian hermeneutics gains significant traction. Furthermore, Mormons would heartily agree that “The goal of biblical interpretation is holy living” (Westphal, 112). Also amenable to Mormon hermeneutics is  Gadamer’s emphasis on application as being a crucial part of interpretation, and that this application makes meaning concrete, giving specific meaning to abstract language. Having said that, the question arises whether Gadamer’s concept of application as an intrinsically interpretive dynamic (rather than a separate step that builds on prior interpretation), can be appropriated for an intellectually grounded appreciation and evaluation of Mormon hermeneutics.

However, while sharing certain affinities with the perspective of Gadamer, the Mormon system is confronted and challenged by many aspects of his work. Mormonism’s emphasis on personal revelation can be accosted by Gadamer’s repeated insistence on the ubiquitous existence of presuppositions (See Westphal, 35, 71). If all interpretation is perspectival, how can Mormons posit that the receiving of revelation is pure communication from God, untainted by earthly influences?

A few striking examples of the results of Mormon hermeneutics serve to illustrate their preference for “just see” hermeneutics.

(1) Their system has produced a pesher-type insistence that Ezekiel’s two “sticks” are the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Ezekiel 37.16-19) (See Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1987), 29).

(2) Literary tensions in the Gospels are resolved by adding angels or demoniacs as needed (In the Joseph Smith translation, the two angels of Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 are added to Mark 16:3 and Matthew 28:2, and the one healed demoniac of Mark 5:2 is changed to the two healed demoniacs of  Matthew 8:28).

(3) Modern scripture readings are offered as ways of expanding ancient revelation (For example, the Book of Mormon expands on Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi 12-14, and chapters 45 and 86 of the Doctrine and Covenants help explain the book of Revelation).

(4) Problem passages are given modern explanation (The sixth president of the Mormon church, Joseph F. Smith, received a vision on 1 Peter 3:18-20 concerning the redemption of spirits of the dead (now Doctrine and Covenants 138); See also Doctrine and Covenants 76 explaining John 5:29 and its “degrees in glory”), often based on the “true meaning…of mysterious passages revealed.” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:74).

(5) Scripture appears to be (willfully?) mistranslated in places (Given Joseph Smith’s espousal of the Arminianism of his day, he changed Acts 13:48 to read, “and as many as believed were ordained unto eternal life.” See Heikki Räisänen, “Joseph Smith as a Creative Interpreter of the Bible,” Dialogue 43, no. 2 (Sum 2010), 73. See also Christopher C. Smith, “Joseph Smith in Hermeneutical Crisis,” Dialogue 43, no. 2 (Sum 2010), 86-108; Philip L. Barlow, “Joseph Smith’s Revision of the Bible: Fraudulent, Pathologic, or Prophetic?” Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 1 (Ja 1990): 45-64).

(6) New Testament ideas are read as anticipations of Mormon systemic theology, with the result that entire doctrines can be based on such re-molded ideas. Mormons have a well-known doctrine of human deification. Thus, when speaking of “human potential and eschatology”, Mormons “take very seriously the New Testament promises that ‘when (Christ) shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is’ (1 John 3:2), and that ‘then shall I know even as also I am known (1 Cor. 13:12)’” (Benjamin I. Huff,  “Theology in the Light of Continuing Revelation.” In Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies, 478-487, (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2007), 484). Such language implies that they are the only ones taking such texts seriously.

It could be argued that such procedures and conclusions take Mormon hermeneutics outside the realm of intellectual accountability. On the other hand, some of the examples mentioned are not too far removed from standard Christian exegetical and theological practice. In light of that, the research proposed here hopes to throw significant new light on Mormon hermeneutics in a manner that allows Mormon hermeneutics to be compared to the Christian academic mainstream. So far, very little published research has addressed these questions. In light of that, the field is so open that it will be important to demarcate the present project more precisely in due course.

Group identity in the midst of fractured culture:

If we as Evangelicals would take seriously the crucial doctrine of the Body of Christ illustrated repeatedly throughout the New Testament, we might begin to approximate the unity that the Mormon church exhibits.

John 10:16: “one flock”

John 17:23: “complete unity”

Romans 12:5: “…we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others…”

Romans 15:6: “one heart”

1 Corinthians 1:10: “perfectly united in mind and thought”

1 Corinthians 12:13: “one body”

Galatians 3:28: “…you are all one in Christ Jesus”

Ephesians 5:30: “we are members of his body”

The Mormons show a strong sense of group identity in the midst of an unstable, on-the-move culture. In the midst of our world of “disintegrating relationships” (Ostling, 169), they are appealing! For some, their distinctive lifestyle may be “chocante” (“shocking, surprising”, as we might say here in Peru), yet it effectively feeds into this group identity.

Three specific examples of Mormon unity:

1.     The trek west: Leaving Illinois was a laborious undertaking for thousands of Mormons. Yet on the route toward Utah there was an impressive example of organized cooperation. A string of camps were set up en route, each planted with crops to be harvested by Saints traveling through later (See Ostling, 40). Can you imagine the harmony and unity created when after weeks of difficult travel your wagon train comes upon crops ready to be harvested and consumed?

2.     Sacred temple garments: Most of the time the Mormons are ridiculed for these undergarments. Yet, maybe every day they look at them as a serious reminder of their commitment and loyalty to something much bigger than who they are as individuals (See Ostling, 184-185).

3.     Missions two-by-two: Youthful idealism! Seeing the world! Adventure! Being with friends experiencing such newness! This perpetuates their strong group identity (see Ostling, 218).

Yet, what about the Truth?

Someone might respond: “It doesn’t matter if what they follow is false.” However, we live today in a superficial, entertainment-based world, and deep, challenging theological conundrums do not matter as much as they should. (This is our fault! Many are calling this the most “un-intellectual” time in the history of the church). Such theological challenges keep the scholars busy, but since ours is a relational era and not a conceptual one, people are “more likely to be attracted by networking and community than by truth claims”(Ostling, 381).

Yet, how did they even start? How can they even have group unity?  

In the 1820s-30s, Joseph Smith saw something terribly wrong with the church. A complete overhaul was needed. Bickering and rivalry was rampant among the denominations. So he supposedly received a revelation that told him of a complete apostasy, and of the need for him to restore the church of Jesus Christ. While many others in his day were proclaiming the same need for reform (Alexander Campbell, Elias Smith, Lorenzo Dow, Francis Asbury, Barton Stone, William Miller. See Beckwith, 37), Joseph Smith’s doctrine of apostasy was so much greater (all the way back to right after the apostles!) and the glory of the restoration was so much more complete (a new book of Scripture!) that many were attracted to his vision and insight (See Beckwith,35-38).

Connection with the Creator:

Another crucial aspect of early growth of Mormonism deals with its “more direction connection with Christ” (Beckwith, 37). If God spoke through the prophets and apostles throughout biblical times, why would he not do the very same thing today? (See Amos 3:7: “Surely the Sovereign Lorddoes nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets”). This is a main point strongly defended by early Mormon apologists (See Parley Pratt in the late 1800s and the first three chapters of his book “A Voice of Warning”). Thus,the Mormon church proclaimed their doctrine of the church president as being “prophet,seer and revelator.” Not only that, but when Joseph Smith was visited by the Father and the Son (in the famous, though highly-controversial “First Vision”),he was able to go “one-up” on all others who were claiming the need for are formation. There was a direct connection, a “straight shot” from the apostles(the last ones to receive direct words from God) right to Joseph Smith (See Beckwith, 38).

So, what can Evangelicals do in response? What can we learn from Mormonism?

At the risk of a brief, superficial call to arms, among our many tasks, we need to proclaim the biblical doctrine of the unity of the body of Christ. Also, we need to challenge the church with the depth and richness of theological issues. We need to constantly articulate the authority of the Scriptures—and that God does continue to speak! Finally, we need to love!—“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35).

Bibliography

Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling (New York:HarperCollins, 2007).

The New Mormon Challenge, Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, gen. ed. (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 2002).

A Voice of Warning, Parley Pratt (Public Domain).

Various views of a Mary Batchelor:

I am here today because our families are being threatened. Our religious beliefs and choice of lifestyle have been ridiculed, villified, condemned and proclaimed criminal in a public campaign that has already led to a socially acceptable and openly hostile form of McCarthyism.

It is ironic that this is occurring in a state and country founded upon religious freedom.

For us, and many other minorities, religious freedom has never been fully realized in America.

In order for all Americans to truly enjoy the freedom to practice our religion according to the dictates of our conscience, we must grant that same freedom to others, whether or not we agree with them or approve of their beliefs or actions. It doesn’t matter if we belong to a majority religion, a minority religion, or no religion at all, we must find a way to appreciate diversity of thought and opinion. Toleration means nothing if we only tolerate those people with whom we agree.

It is time to revise oppressive laws, and remove archaic statutes from the books. It is not the place of government to dictate which religion is acceptable or not, neither is it the place of government to dictate to adults how they can arrange their families.

We are not asking for special treatment. On the contrary, we are asking for equal treatment.

Views by Mary Batchelor in defense of polygamy.

From http://pluralwife.blogspot.com/2009/04/principle-voices-website-updated.html

(Much insight gained from Merold Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? (GrandRapids: Baker, 2009)).

In approaching the massive, complex world of Mormonismand how they interpret sacred texts, it is possible that German authorHans-Georg Gadamer may be “illuminatingly” and “clarifyingly” helpful. WhileGadamer doesn’t offer a “way to interpret” or a “hermeneutical method,” he doesdescribe the process in a helpful way that enables us see what is really goingon in the interpretation process (there are good reasons he does not offer sucha method). In this age of overwhelming numbers of competing worldviews andreligious perspectives, it may be time for the serious study of what isinvolved in the act of “interpretation.” Possibly the rigors of philosophicalhermeneutics, espoused by authors such as Gadamer, may help the evangelical churchbe a faithful community amidst a swirling, fiercely disputing marketplace ofideas (See Westphal, 11).

Presuppositions.First, Gadamer emphasizes the reality of “presuppositions.” We all have them,though many do not realize this, or even acknowledge it. Specifically, ourtheologies are shaped by philosophical traditions that we are a part of (SeeWestphal, 13). It is crucial to acknowledge the wrong-headedness of thefollowing idea (not necessarily explicit, but implicit in many people’sworldview): “Well, that may be your interpretation, but my Bible clearly says…”(See Westphal, 17). Furthermore, an important starting point is that everyinterpretation is guided by some preunderstanding. For instance, at the risk ofquoting a Mormon author without thorough dialogue with whole context of hisquote, it is interesting to see this apparent “just read and you’ll have theright interpretation.” One Mormon author states: “Mormons take very seriouslythe New Testament promises that “when (Christ) shall appear, we shall be likehim; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2), and that “then shall I knoweven as also I am known (1 Cor. 13:12)” (Benjamin Huff in Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies, Editedby David L. Paulsen & DonaldW. Musser. MercerUniversity Press (December 2007), 484). This statementcauses an eruption of reactions—is he claiming that Mormons are the only ones “takingseriously” these texts?; is he confidently proclaiming that he knows what “weshall be like him” really means?; does he take into account his own presuppositions:specifically the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression? (Of course, while askingsuch questions, I must also ask myself: when I am reading Scripture, do I takeinto account my own presuppositions? When I read Mormon authors, do I take intoaccount my own presuppositions about what I think about Mormonism?).

While one potential positive of Mormon hermeneutics isits goal to be “actualizado” (Spanish for “up-to-date”) and its desire to knowwhat the text says to us today (for we are not merely uninvolved, curiousobservers), we cannot ignore our own “lens” with which we view our world (SeeWestphal, 93). Such an emphasis of Gadamer helps us study not only Mormon hermeneutics,but evangelical hermeneutics as well (as do the following two ideas).

Community.Second, Gadamer emphasizes the reality of “communities.” We are part ofdiffering  communities, and such communitiesinfluence the way we interpret our world, and any text we interact with. We areimmersed in different traditions, and such traditions often take the form ofcommunities. We can attempt to take a step back from our tradition and attemptto objectively observe it, yet a complete distanciation is impossible, since weare embedded in our particular communities/traditions (See Westphal, 70, 84).As a matter of fact, we can even say the “church” is a context of an “ongoinghermeneutical conversation” (See Westphal, 125). As Westphal states: “Gadamer’shermeneutics, with its emphasis on our embeddedness in particular traditions,is a reminder that we never see things from either everywhere or nowhere. Weare always located somewhere” (Westphal, 141). The connectedness with the previouspoint is obvious: each community/tradition has presuppositions.

 Important questions to pursue: what are Mormonpresuppositions? What is exactly the Mormon community? How has the Mormoncommunity perpetuated their presuppositions? Are such presuppositionsdefensible from Scripture? (Of course, my own presupposition is obvious in thisvery question: that presuppositions need to be defensible from Scripture). Istheir emphasis on the “Living Prophet” and the trumping of the past by thepresent one such defensible presupposition?

 Application.Lastly, Gadamer emphasizes the reality of “application.” Such application to the“present” is crucial part of interpretation (See Westphal, 108). This idea ispositively stressed in Mormonism. They constantly strive to “live out” theirfaith, and proclaim its importance. They would resonate with Gadamer’s thought that“The goal of biblical interpretation is holy living” (See Westphal, 112). Gadamerwould also say that “application” makes meaning concrete, giving specificmeaning to abstract language. (See Westphal, 109). He would even say that the “authordoes not give final meaning” but that the reader is essential, and that meaningis codetermined by author and reader (See Westphal, 81).  

Yet, given this emphasis on modern application of the ancienttext, does that mean that for Gadamer the “author” does not matter? No, forGadamer would say that authorial meaning is not primary, just preliminary (SeeWestphal, 112), and that real meaning is always co-determined, being acombination of the original author/audience along with historical situation ofthe interpreter (See Westphal, 78). So, do we just use some method to know howto interpret correctly, taking into account the author along with anacknowledgment of our modern presuppositions/communities? Gadamer wouldemphatically deny we could ever use a fool-proof method, given our verypresuppositions and communities.

Thus, does the idea of “the author and reader giving themeaning” lend credence to Mormon  hermeneutics? (That is, does the apparent ideaof “just look at the text with our Mormon lens” make sense?) Not necessarily, sincesaying that “author does not give final meaning” does not automatically meanthe “reader can and does give final meaning.” Again, both the author and readerdetermine the meaning. Interpretation must be faithful to the past and the presentif it is to bring meaning from latter to former (See Westphal, 108). Animportant question will be if Mormonism or if evangelicalism remain faithful tothe past in the process of interpretation.

 Finally, to combat the idea that there is “one method” tointerpret Scripture, Gadamer touches on the idea of hermeneutics as being more an“art” than a “science” (See Westphal, 87ff.). Not only that, but that interpretationinvolves a “performance.”

 Thus, if there is no “method” we can confidently use tointerpret Scripture, does that mean we should look to the “spiritual” side ofthe issue? If there is no faithful “system” that we can use to correctlyinterpret Scripture (given our presuppositions skewing any possibility to objectivlyuse such a method), do we just capitulate to the perspective of “just listen tothe Spirit”? No, because life itself, the reality of the human mind, and the processof study and reflection are much too complex to allow for this limited andlimiting perspective. For example, most would admit that no amount of just “listeningto the Spirit” would give us answers to the challenging interpretations of the identityof the “sons of God” in Gen. 6:2; or the meaning of “preaching to the spiritsin prison” (1 Pet. 3:19; cf., 4:6); or the meaning of who or what is “holdingback” the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2.6, 7). Serious study of context,language and 1^st century realities are needed along with dependingon the Spirit. It is, as is the case in many areas, not an “either/or” but a “both/and.”Knowledge of the world of the author and our own world are necessary to (tentatively)arrive at possible meanings.   

 At the same time, as Westphal reminds us, it is “necessaryto listen for and to hear what the Spirit says (present tense) to the churches.Word and Spirit. As this slogan becomes practice and not just theory, thedivinely transcendent voice of Scripture will become incarnate in humanlanguage, and we will hear the very voice of God in our finite and falleninterpretations” (Westphal, 155-156).

Two massive and complex worlds: Mormonism andhermeneutics. Much study is needed in both in order to continue the dialogue… 

I am incredibly blessed to have a chance to continue my studies and pursue a PhD (through London School of Theology with Thorsten Moritz’ as my advisor). My dissertation topic is “Mormon Hermeneutics.” I have had nearly one year in the program–my eyes have been opened in many ways–not only to the complex theology of Mormonism, but also to the world of hermeneutics. 

A great book is called “New Mormon Challenge” edited by Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen. In this book they dialogue with thorough argumentation, and avoid a superficial interaction with Mormonism. 

One pressing issue: In the first years of their existence in the 1830s and 1840s, why was there a swift growth in early Mormonism (in the states of NY, OH, MO, IL, etc.)?

When Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, received the “First Vision” in 1820 laying the foundation for the “Restoration” of the true church, nobody could have imagined that there would be over 14 million Mormons in the world today.  

So, how was the church able to grow? The full answer to this complicated question would take much more room than this brief summary. However, some points are helpful. The author’s answer in “New Mormon Challenge” center around Joseph Smith’s acute ability to answer and resolve a number of thorny and complicated theological issues of his day. For example…

What happens when an infant dies? Joseph Smith: they go directly to heaven (See Book of Mormon: Moroni 8:8-24). 

What do we do in light of so many problems in the contemporary church? Smith: The church needs to be completely restored–but not from within–it is necessary to completely start over. 

Why can’t the church be like the original, apostolic church? Smith: Because there was a “Great Apostasy” after the death of the apostles, so again, there is a need for a Restoration. 

Why are there so many denominations? In Mormon Scripture, Smith wrote this: 

      …my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. 9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others. 10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? (Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:8 – 10)

This division in the church gave supposed proof of the apostasy of the church, and evidence that the church of his day did not contain the truth.   

What does it mean that God has predestined us? (See, for example Ephesians 1.4-5: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ…” (NIV)). Smith: We must be careful in deciding what predestination means. (In Smith’s day, there was a general “rebellion” by many against the hyper-Calvinists that seemed to have a strong influence throughout Colonial America. According the Smith, such Calvinists preached an arbitrary, capricious God who “picked” the elect without any rhyme nor reason. They also supposedly preached a stoic God without emotions, and the impossibility of human free will. Thus, Smith said that each person could choose to follow God by his own volition, and that predestination did not happen in the way the Calvinists claimed).

How can a God of love throw rebellious people into hell for eternity? Smith: In actuality, there are three levels of heaven (See the Mormon Scripture Doctrine and Covenants 76), and only the worst sinners ever go to hell. The vast majority of humanity will go to heaven (though only the faithful Mormons will reach the highest level of heaven). 

What happens to those who die without ever hearing the Gospel? Smith: They do not go to hell–but they go to the lowest level of heaven.

(See Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, eds., New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 35-47).

Entire books could and should be written to adequately touch on all the issues mentioned, yet the authors implicitly challenge the Evangelical Church in many ways: We must “have an answer ready” on such challenging issues–by being faithful to Scripture contained in the Old and New Testaments. Studying how the body of Christ throughout the centuries answered these issues must also be part of our methodology. We must reach those who do not believe with pertinent answers to their poignant questions. 

So, ad librorum! (latin for “to books!”…I know nothing of latin, so this might not be totally accurate. Sounded good though…)

(Below in Spanish is a briefer summary for one of my classes here in Peru of what I have written above): 

¿Por qué había un surgimiento rápido del mormonismo en sus primeros años de existencia? Cuando José Smith recibió una supuesta visita del Padre y del Hijo en el año 1820 en el parte este de los Estados Unidos, nadie pudiera haber imaginado que hoy en día sería más o menos 13 millones de mormones en el mundo. ¿Cómo fue posible crecer en los primeros años de su existencia? Bueno, es una pregunta muy compleja, pero por lo menos se puede tocar algunos asuntos. Una razón sobresaliente tenía que ver con la “habilidad” de Smith y los otros líderes mormones “resolver” algunos problemas más complicados de su mundo. Por ejemplo…

¿Qué pasa cuando un infante muere? Smith: Se va directamente al cielo (véase Libro de Mormón, Moroni 8:8-24). 

¿Qué hacemos en vista de tantos problemas serios en las iglesias? Smith: Hay que restaurar la iglesia y empezar de nuevo. 

¿Por qué no podemos regresar a ser iguales a los de la iglesia del primer siglo? Smith: Había una apostasía total desde la muerte de los apóstoles, por eso, otra vez, hay que restaurar la iglesia.

¿Por qué hay tantas denominaciones? (“Los presbiterianos…usaban todos sus poderes del razonamiento y perspicacia para derrotar las doctrinas (de los bautistas y metodistas)…en cambio, los bautistas y metodistas fueron celosos en establecer todo de lo suyo y refutar a los demás…” (José Smith, Perla de Gran Precio; Historia de la Iglesia 1:9)). Smith: Eso es prueba de la apostasía. También, es prueba de la necesidad de que no tienen la verdad. Hay que arrancar una nueva iglesia.

¿Qué significa que Dios nos predestinó (Efesios 1.4-5)? Smith luchaba contra los calvinistas de su día, que según Smith proclamaba a un Dios de capricho al predestinar solo a algunos, y quien no tenía emociones, y que el libre albedrio de las personas no existía. Por eso, Smith aseveró que todos pudieran haber escogido a Dios por su propia cuenta y que Dios no predestina tal como dicen los calvinistas. 

¿Cómo podemos decir que un Dios de amor arroja a las personas incrédulas al infierno para siempre? Smith: Hay tres niveles del cielo (véase Doctrina y Convenios 76), y solo los pecadores más fuertes se van al infierno. Es decir, la gran mayoría de los seres humanos estarán en el cielo (pero solo los mormones fieles en el cielo más alto).

¿Qué pasa con los que nunca escuchar al evangelio? Smith: No se van al infierno, solo al nivel más bajo del cielo (Véase Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, eds., New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 35-47).

I was very blessed to see 60 people come this year (45 pastors and 15 church leaders)…

We had great times of discussion…

Each pastor received lots of material to study…

We had a great hike to a fantastic overlook…

Thanks to all our supporters for making this happen! 

It is a privilege and honor to plug into the lives of this humble, dedicated men of God…

In my Gospels class this week, in order to resolve an apparent contradiction encountered during a lively and spirited discussion, a student offered, “maybe their eyes are burned.” 

The issue? How hell can be described as both “fire” (Matt. 13:42; 18:8; 25:41: Jude 7; Rev. 14:10; 20:10) and “darkness” (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; 2 Pet. 2:4, 17; Jude 6, 13). 

I had never thought of that explanation…

(I was trying advocate a more figurative meaning to both, since they are mutually exclusive. “Figurative meaning” notwithstanding, the horrific, dreadful and terrifying reality of such a place was obviously the biblical authors intention…and my teaching point)…

Between this great article: http://christianthinktank.com/nextseat.html

and this chapter: “Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture” by Wayne A. Grudem, in the book Scripture and Truth, edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 

there is a great defense of not only the Christian faith, but also of the absolute stunning reality that authoritative and accurate writings/words have arrived from the Creator himself.

Please pray as I translate these and use them here–in my missions class, as well as with a number of pastors!

REALLY good books:

Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Anthony Thiselton)

Truth Decay (Douglas Groothuis)

How Wide the Divide? (Craig Blomberg and Stephen Robinson)

The Pastor as Scholar and the Scholar as Pastor (John Piper and D.A. Carson)

Burned Over: The Religious Upheaval that Shaped America (Jack Kelly)

The Marathoners (Hal Higdon)

The UltraMarathon Man (Dean Karnazes)

Books that had some positives, but also some negatives:

Bridging the Divide (Robert Millet and Gregory Johnson)

Mormon Officials and Christian Scholars Compare Doctrines (John Ankerberg)

Not great books, but not bad:

The Mormon Defenders (James Patrick Holding)

Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (Jan Shipps)

Not-so-good books:

Are Mormons Christians? (Stephen Robinson)

The Great Apostasy (James Talmage)