This is
rare, but I agree with James White on something. Commenting on the sorry state
of much of anti-Mormonism, White wrote:
. . .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. Consequently, a large body of literature exists that is based
not so much upon fair, even-handed study of primary source documentation as
upon a large dose of emotion and bias. Such literature normally emphasizes the
sensational, seeking to arouse the emotions of the reader against the LDS faith. (James R. White, Is the Mormon My Brother? Discerning the Differences between Mormonism
and Christianity [2d ed.; Birmingham, Ala.: Solid Ground Christian Books,
2008], 17)
With that
being said, White then wrote the following:
Modern LDS apologists and scholars like to
focus on such literature, often treating it as the “norm” for all Christians,
and have little difficulty demonstrating inconsistencies and half-truths,
thereby dismissing all efforts at refuting LDS claims and evangelizing LDS
people. (Ibid., 17)
The endnote
for the following reads:
Examples about. See Daniel C. Peterson and
Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word:
How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake
City: Aspen Books, 1992), and a recent video production, In Defense of Truth: A Candid Response to Anti-Mormon Criticism (Keystone
Foundation, 1997). (Ibid., 229 n. 4)
This is
disingenuous on many levels. Firstly, the fact that White admits that such a
style of anti-Mormonism is very common would lead many to (correctly) argue
that such is the norm. Scholarly,
informed criticisms of the LDS Church are a rarity, especially among
Protestants. Furthermore, Peterson and Ricks in their book do not just interact
with that flavour of anti-Mormon polemic but authors whose work White would
argue is among the “best,” such of those of Martin, McKeever, Hoekema, et al.
White has read Offenders for a Word (see
Wade
Englund’s response to White’s attempt to critique the book), so he knows
that this is not accurate. Don’t take my word for it. An online version of the
book can be found here.
Furthermore,
notwithstanding presenting the book as an updated version of the first edition
of 1997, it appears White, with the exception of the introduction, has not updated
the book at all. Indeed, had he bothered to keep up with LDS scholarship
post-1997, he would have seen that LDS scholars and apologists have been
interacting with (and soundly refuting) the best Evangelical Protestantism has
to offer. The 3-volume Exploring Mormon Thought
series by Blake Ostler comes to
mind, as do the following articles responding to Craig and Copan:
A well-known example of interacting with the best the other side (albeit, largely agnostics/atheists) has to offer pre-dating White's first edition (1997) is FARMS 6/1, an entire issue responding to a book White is a huge fan of, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993). One can find the issue here. The book and the essays contained therein were not dismissed as anti-Mormon nonsense and the like; instead, they received sound, scholarly refutations by competent LDS apologists and scholars such as John W. Welch, Royal Skousen, and John Gee.
With such comments,
it is clear that White’s book, notwithstanding the attempt to present it as a
fair, scholarly volume, is just another example of “boundary maintenance”—his book
is packaged for Evangelicals who know nothing about “Mormonism,” not informed
Latter-day Saints.
