This is an interesting post over at Morehead's Musings about dialogue between Mormons and Evangelicals. Morehead interviewed a thoughtful person of Mormon heritage who blogs under the name Aquinas. Aquinas discusses several books about the M/E dialog. And it struck me that I, not having been exposed much to Mormon thought, had never thought to think about what Mormon theologians think and feel. The more conservative/fundamentalist types are the ones who make the news what with their polygamy and marriage of young people. Aquinas, in describing the purpose of one book (
Claiming Christ) says this about the Mormon co-author's purpose.
Millet explains, "My purpose … is not to convince readers that they should walk where I walk; it is to invite them to stand in my shoes for a season at least, and then to be in a position to make a meaningful and informed assessment of LDS Christianity." Throughout Claiming, Millet doesn't so much respond to McDermott by using apologetic arguments or by citing the leading works in LDS scholarship. Rather Millet prefers to relate personal experiences, stories, narratives, engage in rhetorical questions, etc., to achieve his goal of inviting the reader to stand in his shoes.
I found out in the interview that Mormon theologians read and like C. S. Lewis. They read the church fathers. They embrace them naturally. They don't feel they should be barred from using them as sources.
Most interesting to me was what he said about faith and evidence, how E's and M's differ.
For Mormons, evidence can never create a testimony ex nihilo. At best, evidence might support a pre-existing testimony but can never create one out of nothing. Evangelicals on the other hand, claim they put their trust in the scientific evidence and objective proof that Christianity is true. The Gospels, they argue, are historically reliable and provide the best proof that Christianity is true. Mormons simply cannot accept that faith and belief come from objective evidence and proof, otherwise what would be the difficultly in accepting the claims of Christianity? This is the opposite of faith for Latter-day Saints. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Bushman explained this well in his autobiographical work On the Road with Joseph:
"Mormons wonder why all Christian don't understand that we believe in the Book of Mormon on the basis of a spiritual witness. It is very hard for a Mormon to believe that Christians accept the Bible because of scholarly evidence confirming the historically accuracy of the work. Surely there are uneducated believers whose convictions are not rooted in academic knowledge. Isn't there some kind of human, existential truth that resonates with one's desires for goodness and divinity? And isn't that ultimately why we read the Bible as a devotional work? We don't have to read the latest issues of the journal to find out if the book is still true."
So one of the reasons this doesn't make sense for Latter-day Saints is that it excludes a lot of people from having a viable and valid witness of the truth. It excludes all the early Christians who never had any archeological proof of the Old Testament. It excludes children from having valid witnesses of truth. It excludes elderly men and women, who may not be up on the latest scholarship and academic knowledge. It is simply difficult to believe Evangelicals who say their witness is based on scientific evidence and rationalism.
I've always wondered about this problem too. If we have an abundance of evidence that something is true, then there can be no faith. For instance I do not have to have faith about who won the last World Series. It is well known. Some evangelicals are so convinced that everything must be literally, rationally, and scientifically true and that it is so very important. Aquinas above states the obvious, that most of us never came to the gospel that way. I agree that almost no one does or has. And he points to a different way of viewing it. What is the alternative "viable and valid witness of truth" he mentioned?
Posts
