Episode 43: Outside Looking In

This was AWESOME!

I am practically speechless. These two guests were brilliant!

Loved hearing about life from the outside. Amazing stuff.

Thanks to them both and to you John!

Wow, great podcast! One of my favorites!

Except why did it sound like you were in a fishbowl? I kept hearing bubbles throughout the podcast.

GREAT, GREAT, GREAT!!

The world needs more people like Chris and Jack who can discuss topics openly and respectfully to either side of the issues.

Chris, you have Daniel C. Peterson coming to Claremont next month. Have you met or talked to him before? Are you ready for his glare?

I caught your 5 minute BRIEFING at the seminar last Friday…sucks there wasn’t more time to hear the whole thing, sounds like an interesting topic, are you going to be able to give that presenation in full, or post it anywhere for us to read?

Thanks again guys!!!!

One more thing, Chris…you probably can’t answer this totally.

What are your thoughts about Richard Bushman? Is he more conservative or liberal than you expected? Is there anything you can tell us about him, that would be surprising?

Thanks, John, for having us on the show. It’s a shame we had so many connection and audio issues. The echoes, Skype sound effects, and audio cutting in and out are pretty distracting.

Oz,

I have indeed met Daniel before. He’s actually a pretty nice guy in person, as long as Bill and Lou aren’t around. I think the Internet just brings out the worst in him (as it does for many of us). I and a couple friends were joking that we should bring some Krispy Kremes to his lecture.

At Sunstone West at Claremont in March I’ll be presenting on the Indian delegations that came to Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, so if you’re interested in the subject, you can catch me there.

As for Richard, he’s an interesting case because he does seem to be fairly liberal, but the Brethren love him anyway. I don’t know how he does it. Maybe it’s because, in between writing books like Rough Stone Rolling, he also periodically does pieces for FARMS. Personally, I’m a big fan of Richard. Mind you, his work isn’t perfect. I think he sneaks more apologetics into his book than people realize. But he’s an extremely nice, funny, and intelligent person, and a very responsible scholar and thinker. My few objections are greatly outweighed by my appreciation for his contributions.

“The Church should pick and choose its battles.”

AMEN!!!

My biggest gripe with Mormonism is so how damned controlling it is. Still, I appreciated your charitable words and approach. Jack and Chris, you guys were awesome!

One of the hardest things for me to accept about the LDS faith that I grew up with is its “cultural imperialism.” The more I live, the more I think that faith is strengthened when by pluralism: a dynamic, vibrant faith tradition needs to embrace the fact that its members will not think the same thing all the time, will not express their individual faith in the same terms (with the same music, wearing the same clothes, etc). That being said, I agree that the church needs some kind of order if it is to survive as an institution. So why don’t we define ourselves by a few flexible principles (faith, hope, charity) instead of a cacophony of rigid rules (e.g. # of earrings) and historicized mythology (the Great Apostasy as history)?

Yet again…awesome job all.

Just listened to this podcast – great job. You too have a great outlook toward both your Mormon friends and the larger Christian world.

Chris, Bridgette,

Thanks. It was insightful to hear you both. I had never heard the term ‘Christian Pluralist’ and to hear Chris describe himself in terms that include the possibility of realities besides traditional Christianity was interesting. It was interesting to hear how Bridgette described diverse beliefs held by Mormons in contrast to relative uniformity among protestant Christians. I wonder if it would be easier to find satisfying association with LDS Inc. from the perspective of one who has never been part of it than for one whose family remains deeply involved.

Why did you go to BYU, Bridgette?
Chris, what are your career plans? Do you see a place for you in ministry? as a historian?

It was interesting to hear John refer to the conversation as a ‘love fest’ and I appreciate that he also brought the conversation back to beliefs you found different than believing Mormons (despite Bridgette pointing out diversity in those beliefs).

Hey Nathan,

I can’t speak authoritatively for Bridget, but I *think* that the relative uniformity she was describing among Protestant Christians was only within particular churches, because in Protestantism people can church-shop until the find that one that fits them best. I agree with her that this is actually a weakness in evangelicalism, because it limits the healthy diversity of thought within a congregation. But I’d add that we shouldn’t overstate that uniformity. Protestants these days tend to choose churches based on worship styles rather than theology, and you might be surprised by the range of different views you’ll find in a single church. Plus, most Protestant churches today don’t excommunicate people for holding “heretical” beliefs. This lack of boundary-maintenance makes possible a higher level of diversity, as long as it isn’t too disruptive.

As for my career plans, I hope to teach religious history at the college level, and do some writing on the same subject.

Thanks for commenting!

-Chris

Nathan ~ I was referring to uniformity of thought within individual denominations. I suppose Chris is correct that you can still find a lot of variety of opinion within a denomination just as long as it isn’t too disruptive, but I have known plenty of people who have left a denomination because of their positions on certain issues. Positions which effect actual practice can be especially contentious (infant baptism, ordination of women, etc.).

I think that the Protestant denominational system has strengths and weaknesses. The strengths are that it puts decision-making power into the hands of people at the grassroots level, that it allows for individual and cultural adaptation, and that it allows for significant disagreement while still affirming a set of general beliefs. The weakness is that sometimes the divisions aren’t necessary, and too much individualism can be a bad thing. Say, for example, churches which get calls from attenders wanting to know who’s preaching this weekend because they only attend when their favorite pastor preaches.

I went to BYU because I felt like God wanted me there. I’ve blogged about my journey in-depth here if you’re interested: Evangelical at BYU

Fantastic episode. Loved it. I wonder if I’d have the level of fascination with Mormonism if I weren’t raised in it. (I certainly don’t have a great fascination with any other church.)

I really do wish the “Brethren” would listen to a podcast — and people — like this and hear some insights about the church they are directing.

Chris mentioned that he almost felt like joining the LDS church. I thought that was interesting, primarily because he hasn’t joined. Really, how many people join the church already having a knowledge of its complicated history? Does anyone with academic/critical “outside looking in” perspectives, like those of Chris and Bridgett, end up converting? I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who has.

Does anyone with academic/critical “outside looking in” perspectives, like those of Chris and Bridgett, end up converting?

It’s pretty darn rare. I can’t think of any solid examples off the top of my head.

There are people who have converted after exposure to anti-Mormon literature, having an amateur knowledge of the church’s complicated historical issues. I think this is in part because coming into contact with a faction that treats Mormons so hatefully, and especially embracing it, produces guilt in the person and s/he remedies that guilt by converting and making peace with the church. I nearly joined the church after my time dabbling in anti-Mormon literature, and I think that was part of the reason I was so tempted to.

But reasonable, thoughtful, respectful information on the church’s troubled history does not produce anti-Mormons and is pretty effective at getting people to say “no” to the church’s claims. It’s something that the church has yet to figure out how to deal with.

Does anyone with academic/critical “outside looking in” perspectives, like those of Chris and Bridgett, end up converting?

It’s pretty darn rare. I can’t think of any solid examples off the top of my head.

There are people who have converted after exposure to anti-Mormon literature, having an amateur knowledge of the church’s complicated historical issues. I think this is in part because coming into contact with a faction that treats Mormons so hatefully, and especially embracing it, produces guilt in the person and s/he remedies that guilt by converting and making peace with the church. I nearly joined the church after my time dabbling in anti-Mormon literature, and I think that was part of the reason I was so tempted to.

But reasonable, thoughtful, respectful information on the church’s troubled history does not produce anti-Mormons and is pretty effective at getting people to say “no” to the church’s claims. It’s something that the church has yet to figure out how to deal with.

Great interview, guys! It was such a different, rare and interesting perspective. Loved it. I hope you’ll interview them again because I have more questions! I would love to hear more about why Chris almost joined the church and why he changed his mind. And, I would love to hear about Bridgette’s husbands reaction to her work, her opinions, church history etc. Thanks guys!

Excellent interview!!

This is actually the first podcast I’ve ever listened to. I’d never really been interested in podcasts, but after ME won a Brodie — and considering that you interviewed two of my favorite bloggers this week — I decided it was time to try this whole podcast thing out.

It was interesting to hear what Ms. Jack sounds like. (Of course I’ve already met Chris in person at Sunstone. He doesn’t look like his pic, BTW — I didn’t recognize him at first without a mortarboard and a chimp.)

My only problem was that (while listening) I kept thinking of comments I wanted to add! This is why I like blogging — you can always add comments.

Does anyone with academic/critical “outside looking in” perspectives, like those of Chris and Bridgett, end up converting?

Apparently Equality did. You can read his conversion story here. Unsurprisingly, his case also included a romance. (Also note that he has left the church since.)

There were a number of reasons for my being interested in joining the Church.

I’d like to say that my romance with the bishop’s daughter wasn’t a major consideration, but it undoubtedly was. Certainly it’s easier to generate a confirmatory emotional reaction when reading the Book of Mormon if one is romantically invested in a Mormon!

My disillusionment with the countercult literature was also a major factor. Like Jack, I went on the message boards and used a lot of arguments I had learned from the Tanners, Mormonism Research Ministry, and elsewhere. The competence of the apologists’ responses was quite startling. Jack was right that their arguments are perhaps best-suited for answering the criticisms of evangelicals. The parallels to Mormon doctrine in the Bible and early Church Fathers were very compelling to me. I was also quite persuaded by Chris Tolworthy’s Bible-numbers game, in which he showed that “The Bible Says 1830″ (to quote the title of his book). Again like Jack, I actually attended seminary for several months. When Jack was telling her story, I noticed a *lot* of parallels between our stories.

I also, after reading David Whitmer’s “An Address to All Believers in Christ”, very seriously considered the possibility that the Book of Mormon might be historical, but Joseph Smith might have “fallen” thereafter. The Book of Mormon is a very Protestant book, so it was not particularly objectionable to me. And I found Whitmer’s testimony of the Book of Mormon to be very persuasive. Moreso, perhaps, because of his persistence in it despite his strong disaffection from Joseph Smith and the Mormon movement.

Ultimately, my interest in the Church subsided when I failed to obtain an unambiguous “testimony” experience, and when further study revealed problems that seemed intractable. I’m not sure what the “turning point” for me was, but it may have been reading Brodie’s book, or finding no evidence of a Christian priesthood before the third century AD, or seeing Chris Tolworthy apostasize. Perhaps some combination of these things.

To the question about whether I consider Mormonism to be a legitimate religious path, the answer is that yes, I do. The important thing is not the truth or falsity of the theology, but its usefulness in reorienting the believer toward the other and toward God. Insofar as Mormonism increases the well-being of the person, infuses him or her with a sense of wonder, and moves him or her to love and service, it is a “true” Church.

Anecdotally, when I was investigating the Church in high school I had two spiritual experiences that suggested a pluralistic relationship between the religions. The first was a dream in which my Mormon “girlfriend” and my evangelical pastor argued some theological point with great vehemence, much to the disillusionment of all present. At the end of the dream I suddenly realized that both had been saying the same thing, though neither had been willing to admit it. The second came as a mental impression in response to prayer as to which church I should join. The answer that burned itself into my mind was, “My [i.e. God’s] salvation is not limited by the bounds of church membership.”

By the way, when I say “Jack”, I mean Bridget. She usually goes by “Jack”, but we used the name “Bridget” in the podcast so as to avoid gender confusion.

JackUK ~ I thought that bible inerrancy was one of the 5 Fundamentals of the Niagra Bible Conferenece. Am I confusing Fundamentalism with Evangelicalism? Is the Bible considered inerrant in the denomination you attend?

Well, the Niagara Bible Conference took place in the latter part of the 19th century. The term “fundamentalist” technically didn’t come into usage until after WWI, although the groundwork for what it represented was being laid before them. And fundamentalism and evangelicalism didn’t split until midway through the 20th century; the movements were, more or less, still one and the same in the late 19th century. Just the same, technically the Niagara Bible Creed doesn’t explicitly say that the Bible is inerrant or infallible, and I’m not sure how many denominations use it as a statement of faith.

I attend the Evangelical Covenant Church, and their statement of faith says this about the Bible:

Covenanters have always affirmed the Bible to be “the Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct.” The Apostle Paul writes that “all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Covenant Church has not chosen to be more precise than this in stating its view of inspiration. The authority of the Bible is supreme in all matters of faith, doctrine, and conduct, and is to be trusted. “Where is it written?” was and is the Covenant Church’s touchstone of discussion with regard to faith and practice.

However, they also state that they “[do] not require adherence to any written creed” for their members. Personally, I think they’d be willing to admit someone who has a more nuanced view of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, provided they didn’t publicly attack parts of the Bible from the pulpit.

My point in the podcast wasn’t that evangelicals don’t believe in inerrancy. They almost always do, though there are a minority who don’t. New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall is one of the famous exceptions who doesn’t. My point was that I don’t see inerrancy as required for salvation, or necessary in proclaiming the central point of our message. I think salvation is about accepting Jesus Christ as God and Savior, and accepting what he did for humanity on the cross, and you don’t have to believe in inerrancy to do that. You just have to believe that what’s taught about Christ in the New Testament is generally reliable.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation. I get a lot of questions about inerrancy from Mormons & former Mormons, and I think it’s one of the more problematic aspects of evangelical beliefs. I affirm it, but I guess I’m not much of an evangelist or apologist for it.

chanson ~ It was interesting to hear what Ms. Jack sounds like.

Yeah, I don’t have a very soothing voice, do I? That was my fear of doing this Podcast when it was first suggested months ago. Glad my voice wasn’t too annoying for people to stomach. Hopefully I’ll have better mic quality for future Podcasts so I don’t sound like I’m in a room.

To the people who mentioned they’d like to hear from my husband (JackUK & ashley) ~ We’ll see. He tends to be unenthusiastic about people wanting to hear from him just because they think his wife is interesting. He doesn’t really like being “Mr. Bridget Jack Meyers,” if that makes any sense. But if John Larsen gets interested in doing such a show, I’ll see if I can talk him into it.

Following up on what Chris said concerning temptations to join the church, I wanted to say this. Of all the anti-Mormon literature I read, the two books that had the most influence on turning me away from the church’s message weren’t anti-Mormon books at all. They were Women & Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism edited by Maxine Hanks (1992) and In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Todd Compton (1997), both written by people who were believing members of the church. Even the best apologists tend to respond poorly on the two main issues explored by those books. On the latter, I had apologists trying to convince me that God really did give all of those teenage girls to Joseph Smith (hmm, maybe not the smartest thing to argue to a 17 year-old girl) and that his dishonesty with Emma Smith was unfortunate but justifiable because God had commanded polygamy. On the former, I was presented with a load of arguments ranging from the gilded cage to guilt trips for “coveting” the men’s roles.

Some apologists may read that and think, “That’s exactly why these issues must be kept from the membership! They’re known to turn people off from the Gospel.” But it’s actually quite the opposite. It’s how the church has avoided and minimized these issues that turned me off to its message. I find Todd Compton’s own testimony of why he believes in the church in spite of its historical problems absolutely riveting. Much more powerful than all of the well-meaning but naïve testimonies I’ve heard from TBMs throughout my life. And if the church were engaging the problems raised on how it treats women instead of silencing those who bring them up by excommunicating feminists, I’d be a lot more optimistic about that situation than I currently am.

I guess my bottom line is, I think Mormonism would be so much healthier and so much more attractive if it would change its narrative from “one true church that never leads people astray” to “flawed, sinful, and human but, by divine grace, still God’s church.”

Last thing ~ Concerning all this talk of romantically-induced conversions, let me just share this much: over five years ago, my husband told me he had changed his mind on interfaith marriage. That he wanted to marry a member of the church in the temple and wanted to get out of our marriage before children became a part of the equation. We became legally separated as he started the divorce process. In my grief and desperation, I very nearly converted to the church in spite of not believing in it.

My husband eventually changed his mind about wanting a divorce and we got back together, but my point is: don’t ever convert because of a romance. Especially don’t do it if they’ve given you a “convert or it’s over” ultimatum. It is absolutely not worth it.

Sorry for the wall ‘o’ text, thanks for hearing me out.

Hey Chris & Bridget thanks to both of you for engaging with my questions I really appreciate your comments.

Chris, when you write…”The important thing is not the truth or falsity of the theology, but its usefulness in reorienting the believer toward the other and toward God. Insofar as Mormonism increases the well-being of the person, infuses him or her with a sense of wonder, and moves him or her to love and service, it is a “true” Church”… you have articulated exactly my feelings on why I’m sticking with the LDS Church at the present. It does orient me towards God and I still feel a connection to the Savior here despite the problems with our LDS culture and beliefs (and I think I’m pretty much aware of most of the historical/doctrinal/cultural issues).Thanks for putting my thoughts into words.

Bridget, thanks for the explanation on inerrancy. I did get the point you were making in the podcast but your comments piqued my interest because the evangelical friends I met a few years ago were adamant that the bible was absolutely inerrant down to the last comma!! I was interested to hear your husbands take on interfaith marriage not just because you are interesting, which you are, but because his insight and experience could perhaps add another dimension to the discussion. Maybe John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories would be a more useful arena to explore this in? You have both obviously been through some challenging times with your relationship so I totally understand if he wants to preserve his privacy and yours, Mormonism can be intrusive enough as it is.

Thanks to both of you and to John Larsen and George for making this one of the best episodes of ME yet.

Glad my voice wasn’t too annoying for people to stomach.

Your voice is not annoying at all. Actually, I was extremely impressed by your empathy and ability to see things from other people’s perspectives.

I’d like to meet you, but I have no plans to be in your neck of the woods any time soon. However, if you have any plans to visit Switzerland, please contact me.

I guess my bottom line is, I think Mormonism would be so much healthier and so much more attractive if it would change its narrative from “one true church that never leads people astray” to “flawed, sinful, and human but, by divine grace, still God’s church.”

Amen and amen.

Excellent interview, I really enjoyed listening to the different points of view.

Thanks for this interview, I really enjoyed it. Having grown up one of the few Mormons among a multitude of evangelicals it’s refreshing to hear these subjects discussed in such a reasoned and empathic way.

Jack, I do detect a bit of Palin in your voice (similar accent maybe?) but your ability to express yourself coherently is far and above anything I’ve ever heard her say.

My two favorite neverMo (more like almost Mormon) bloggers in one podcast!
This was great. My only criticism (besides the fish bowl sounds)
is that it was too short. Please come back and do a series. I would love to see Jack speaking on issues like polygamy and Patriarchy in the church.

Jack, if it’s not too personal, what changed your husband’s mind about interfaith marriage? (what induced him to divorce and then return back) I’m only curious because I am married to a believer who has studied the same history and he came out on the other side.
(apologetic) As you know, I rejected the apologetic explanations. I think some of the ways you deal with an interfaith marriage could be helpful for NOMs or apostates married to believers.

Chris, I completely agree with you about Richard Bushman. I read his book “Rough Stone Rolling” after reading “In Sacred Loneliness” and was very turned off by the apologetics he cleverly placed in the polygamy section.
But I give the man kudos for having a more caring and compassionate approach to people who are shaken by church history. I’ve read quotes where he criticized fellow apologists for how they treat the struggling who feel shocked/betrayed, and publicly stated the church has covered up polygamy. He seems like an honest guy who really cares about the members leaving over church history. His attempt to paint a more realistic picture of Joseph Smith and inoculate the members is very commendable.

Great podcast. I’ve listened to it twice now. And very interesting discussion thread here. So many things I loved about the whole thing, but I really liked Bridget’s comment about the richness and depth of Mormon doctrine.

I was actually surprised to hear you say that, Bridget, mainly because I feel like that rich doctrine is so de-emphasized these days by most church members. I wish there was more room and freedom in church meetings (and minds) to really explore the depth and richness of these doctrines — to speculate and postulize and test the boundaries, regardless of how “real” or “literal” any of it might be, or how it might or might not prove that the chruch is true. That kind of speculative doctrinal dicussion — in my experience, at least — is lacking. I thought that John’s follow-up about the “Teachings of the Prophets” series was right on (the philosophies of modern church leaders, mingled with history).

So John, I guess this is really a plea for you — how about running a “Mormon Doctrine for Dummies” series for recovering McConkie geeks like me? (my old copy of Mormon Doctrine was marked up more than my scriptures ever were). I’d love to hear you and your guests get into the details and mine the veins of some of these uniquely Mormon doctrinal areas. Of course I love all the podcasts that you do, so keep them coming, and thank you for introducing me to people like Bridget and Chris who I would probably never get a chance to hear from otherwise. Good stuff.

JackUK ~ Since listening to this Podcast and reading people’s comments here, my husband has said that he might be up for an interview after all, if either John Larsen or John Dehlin takes interest. I gotta warn people though: he’s very “chapel Mormon”/TBM.

chanson ~ I’d love to meet you as well. Maybe someday we’ll both wind up at Sunstone together.

Seven ~ I blogged the tale of our almost-divorce here. The short answer is, interfaith marriage wasn’t really the problem. It was normal marriage problems, and he wanted to try to get out of it without confronting me on those, so he initially used the interfaith explanation as an excuse.

The biggest factors I find to making an interfaith marriage work are compromise and live and let live. For your own marriage? I imagine you’re more likely to have conflicts on what to teach the children about the church than anything else. If you decide to start attending another Christian church, that could complicate things further.

Glenn ~ I learned about the church largely from apologists and philosophers on the Internet, not in ward Sunday School classes, which probably explains why I was exposed to the diversity early on. I have found since leaving BYU and attending normal wards with my husband that there’s less diversity in the Sunday-to-Sunday life at the local ward.

It’s really a shame, and I think the awful correlation program is largely to blame. Personally, if I could get the church to study one of Blake Ostler’s or Stephen Robinson’s books for two years instead of the Gospel Principles manual, I would.

Does anyone with academic/critical “outside looking in” perspectives, like those of Chris and Bridgett, end up converting? I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who has.
——-

If I’m remembering correctly, Jana Riess did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Riess

John, you ever thought of interviewing Craig Criddle perhaps along with Chris Smith on the Spalding Theory. Maybe even Matt Jockers. With more publication in the pipeline this issue is not going to go away.

I don’t think I’m the one to do that, Noel. Dan Vogel and Matt Roper, however, would be excellent counterweights to Craig and/or Matt.

Good job Chris, it was great to learn new details about you.

Perry

I have a suggestion.

The Mormon Expression panel is comprised of a broad section of personalities who are knowledgeable, passionate, and interested in Mormonism . . .

. . . except a qualified NeverMo.

Speaking of someone from that demographic I think that it would awesome if you all added Chris, Bridget or another qualified NeverMo personality to the panel on a permanent basis.

I say this because on more than more occasion I have wished that there was such a person to provide a kind of “general population” baseline against that culture that we all find so fascinating and worthy of our time, money, effort, and passion: Mormonism.

Just my 2p.

P.S. If Chris or Bridget aren’t interested I’m sure that someone from the School of Mormon studies would fill the bill nicely. (see http://www.claremontmormonstudies.org/cmssa)