Review

Review

A Summary Critique: Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks. Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints. Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS Reprint Edition), 1992, 1998 editon. 255 pp. $12.95.

Reviewed by Kurt Van Gorden

(Note: This is the original copy of what was published in the Christian Research Journal.)

The coauthors of Offenders for a Word, Drs. Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, are part of a well-financed Mormon public relations campaign to Christianize the image of their church. Both gentlemen are professors at the Mormon church-owned Brigham Young University, which recently affiliated with an organization chaired by Dr. Peterson, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). In browsing the FARMS Internet site, which is purposed to defend Mormonism, I discovered an advertisement, “New Publication,” which had a “1998" book bearing the same title as one from 1992–Offenders for a Word (hereafter, Offenders).

Anticipation mounted with the hopeful prospect that the problems pointed out to these authors in the past would be properly handled and perhaps, for intellectual stimulation, new arguments replacing the old. Disappointment is an understatement for this new printing. It was page-for-page the same as the discontinued 1992 edition, including unedited mistakes, unchanged misrepresentations, and caustic name-calling. There was, indeed, much that could have, rather, should have, been improved over the former. Only the cover and two pages promoting FARMS was new.

The audience is hard to determine. The book appears to be written to Christians who write on Mormonism, since it presents a hard-sell appeal that Christians should 1) stop calling Mormonism a cult, 2) start calling Mormonism “Christian,” and 3) write better books on Mormonism. However, if Mormons are the targeted audience, the gestalt becomes senseless, since they exercise no direct control over the way non-Mormons write.

The emotive and loaded language portrays the authors’ sour-grapes attitude toward those who restrain Mormon propagandists by reminding them of unresolved issues in history and theology. While claiming that “good works” (31) and “ethical” (42, 47) Christianity is their modus operandi, it has self-righteous overtones when compared to the barrage of uncharitable counterattacks on their proclaimed “enemies” (30). Open the book at random, and you will be greeted at every turn with ridicule of Christians and virulent terms like anti-Mormon fundamentalists, Deckerites (4), hostility (6), militant fundamentalists (6), enemies (30), and dishonest (75), to name a few. Furthermore, they impugn the character of Christian writers by paralleling their work with “Nazi techniques” (6) and “Hitler” (12) sympathizers. Their cynicism betrays their hatred , which frequently focuses upon Ed Decker, Dave Hunt, John L. Smith, Gordon Fraser, and Walter Martin, the latter they accuse of racketeering, which, they say, “very accurately” describes the operation of his ministry. (11).

Aside from such sophomoric derision, the book isn’t a total loss. It did call my attention to the fact that some Christian writers should sharpen their skills in analyzing Mormonism. But, that becomes a double-edged sword in the hands of Drs. Peterson and Ricks. While slicing away at their enemy’s ranks, they carelessly overlooked that the sword cuts both ways. The book fatally wounds their presupposition, that they manifest the “good works” and “ethics” of Christianity. Legitimate issues were raised by the pair on how Christians should more carefully analyze Mormonism, but it became obscured in the rhetoric of their stalwart vengeance. In mimicking the people they criticize, they find nothing good to say about the opposition. In contrast, Joseph Smith, their prophet said, “Some of the Anti-Mormons are good fellows.” The book is also useful for those of us who witness to Mormons. We often hear Mormons cry foul when confronted with the truths of their belief system. For example, last week I received a letter from a Mormon stating how Mormons never write books on other people’s religions or beliefs. Offenders follows a host of recent vitriolic books that silence the unaware Mormon who sincerely believes that their ethics are superior to such diatribe.

The storyline in Offenders follows a path of two sincerely dedicated Mormons (Peterson and Ricks) who have grown indignant of Christian writers (anti-Mormons, as they prefer it) who in their estimation misrepresent Mormon history and doctrine. Opposition to the Latter-day Saints, they contend, comes in two ways: 1) manipulation of language, and 2) illegitimate semantical games; which makes the perpetrators “offenders for a word.” (xiii) Confident that their conclusions are based solely upon evidence and reason, they add an escape-clause, “it is inevitable that some unintentional errors may have crept in.” (xiii) Perhaps the same grace they request for themselves should have been extended to the very people they critique! Errors, it appears, are “unintentional” on their part, but throughout the book, it is attributed to dishonesty and sheer deceitfulness on the part of all Christians. Such is the caricature they draw.

“Christian,” as well as, “pagan,” “heathen,” and “heretic” are all subjectively determined by Christian writers. (1) There just isn’t any objectivity, it is purely arbitrational and unilateral when Christians apply these terms to outsiders. (2, 3) In contrast, and quite interestingly, one of their prophets, Joseph Fielding Smith, defined the terms precisely the same as what Christian writers do whom they condemn. Smith wrote, “The definition in the Standard Dictionary of a Gentile is as follows: ‘. . . Among Christians, one who is neither Jew or Christian; a pagan; heathen. . . Among the Mormons, one not a Mormon.” So, we find what Drs. Peterson and Ricks call subjective and arbitrary was well-understood by their tenth prophet as a standard definition. By Smith’s standard objective dictionary definition, it is well established that Christians define as “pagan” and “heathen” whatever is outside our realm, after all, it is our history and we do reserve the right to define our terms without intimidation.

The book journeys through a number of logical fallacies to arrive at straw man conclusions. They speak of semantics, yet they glibly switch categories without warning, committing the semantical fallacy they set out to expose. Case in point, they begin with a theological definition of Christian, then they equivocate that with the social definition, such as one who joins the military and declares himself Protestant, Catholic, or Jew. (2) The equivocation breaks down in that many in the armed forces who declare themselves as such do so on purely a non-theological social consensus.

Fundamental Christianity seems to be a thorn in the side of the authors, since they hammer on it frequently as a stand alone issue. The other burr is “conservative Protestants,” whom they occasionally refer to as “evangelicals.” Sometimes they equivocate these terms to illustrate the buffoonery of being Protestant. I have no idea whether these professors read the Brigham Young University Studies, but one article may have saved them some embarrassing flaws in their book. In 1988, BYU assistant professor of secondary education, Neil J. Flinders, wrote, “Evangelicalism is often equated with fundamentalism, but the terms are not synonymous.” He goes on to define his terms, but overall, this error in Offenders could have been avoided.

One tactic used by Drs. Peterson and Ricks, was to show extremist and bazaar activities of “Christians” (of whom we have no idea of their personal believes, but the authors assure us it is representative of Protestant fundamentalists without qualification or exception). One man in Indianapolis created a bazaar civil protest by wrecking a religious edifice. Another example was twelve Christian ladies in Tennessee who filed a lawsuit to rid their public school of the children’s books containing supposed witchcraft. The writers tell us, “other examples could be provided.” (7) This composition fallacy, claiming a part represents the whole, is disturbing to see promoted by these professors. Had they checked further than their filing cabinets, they would have found that most “fundamentalists” would also find these actions as extreme. By broad-brushing the innocent Christians and using guilt by association, these authors insult their trusted readers. Why do they trash fundamentalists? Simply because “they represent very much the mentality of many anti-Mormons.” (8) As an evangelical Christian with a wide scope of friends in many denominations, I find these professors’ attacks upon Christianity reprehensible, unprofessional, and totally unwarranted.

Two allies they have found useful in their crusade against anti-Mormon fundamentalists are the liberal Protestant writer Lloyd Averill, who, among other social issues, writes heavily against Christian fundamentalists, and Catholic apologist Karl Keating, who is also published on fundamentalists. They alternately pit each of these writers against Christians throughout the book in an effort to say that Mormonism is not a cult, it is just as Christian as other accepted denominations. (19-21, 62, 97, 127, 132, 183) The writers may have released their book too quickly without checking with Karl Keating about what he thinks of Mormons. They all too quickly snatched up his arguments against Protestants, but alas, his Internet site is a storehouse of information leveling Mormonism as “blasphemous.” What’s worse for their cause is their number two ally compares Mormonism to Fundamentalism! Yes, the bulk of their book falls down since Keating, whom they love, castigates Mormonism calling it exactly what Offenders calls others.

Exclusive Christianity and exclusion from the title are two items they address. Christians have no right, so they say, to exclude Mormons from the title Christian. (15) They use the shotgun approach with several arguments, hoping one will hit the target. First, it is not our term to distribute to whom we will, because we absorbed it from secularists at Antioch, which now everyone has rights to it. (25-27) Second, the term is historically a “broad” and undefined term, so they redefine it to fit Mormonism. (17). Third, through the centuries a number of heretics have enjoyed the term, so why can’t Mormons also enjoy it? (This is really their argument!) Among those Drs. Peterson and Ricks would define as Christian are Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Docetists, Gnostics, and Nestorians, to name a few. (47-53). The forth is a reversed argument. If the term Christian cannot be used of Mormons, then it must not include millions of others. (17) Fifth, the word “cult” is “virtually meaningless,” so a suitable replacement would be “Christian.” (12, 194ff.) Sixth, the usage of Christian by “fundamentalists” is an “imagined” biblical foundation, of which they claim the Bible is actually devoid. (20) Seventh, since the Bible does not “define” Christian (in their perception), then there must be another source Christian are using, like the Early Church Fathers. (34ff.) They set up a straw man that they easily knock down and then proceed to the next argument. Eighth, it has got to be Church councils and creeds as the real source of today’s exclusion. (43ff) This exercise in semantics, their subtitle, “playing word games” better describes their premise than what it does their opposition. Strangely, no mention is made as to how this neo-ecumenical Mormonism fits with Joseph Smith’s plan that their church is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1:30) Joseph Smith projected the exact kind of exclusivism their book speaks against, which may, in part, be why Keating calls the faith of these authors, Mormonism, a breed of Fundamentalists.

Skillfully crafted arguments like the above assure them that their conclusion is sound–Mormons are Christians, they say. What is left out of their equation is the many holes that are left from their shotgun approach. The body of the book takes on twenty-two arguments that are artfully culled from others works, to provide a virtual question and answer session covering 135 pages. One value of this section is the authors brazenly publish what few Mormons have put in print. In no uncertain terms they deny the Trinity of one God in three Persons. (63ff.) Then, like Joseph Smith before them, they replace the monotheism of God with the polytheism of three gods. What’s astounding is they openly embrace “tritheism,” calling themselves “modern trithests,” and that tritheism is “not an inappropriate term for Mormon teaching.” (67ff.) This is one of five sources that I am aware of where Mormons agree with what we’ve been saying for twenty years, that it, they are tritheists, believing in a triad of three gods. This, of course, is in addition to a universe of other gods with whom they apparently have no interaction.

This book has the veneer of a heavy-weighted presentation against so-called anti-Mormons, and it is venerated by some who see it as a catch-all in Mormon apologetics. One pretentious FARMS review of my book Mormonism (Zondervan, 1995) used a parallel column chart of Offenders with my theological discussions, as if just listing mere page numbers from Offenders wipes away solid biblical exegesis. That overstates the case for what Offenders accomplishes, for as James White so well documents in his book Is the Mormon My Brother?, Drs. Peterson and Ricks were told in advance that they misused Christian history and Christian apologetics, but the turned a deaf ear to the sounding alarm. The result? A book that is both untrustworthy and unreliable in its usage of Christian history and theology, which only amplifies the reason for why these two Mormons stand defenseless in giving a reason for why Mormonism should be called “Christian” instead of the cult that it is.

–Kurt Van Gorden

Kurt Van Gorden is a former researcher and missionary with the Christian Research Institute. He currently directs two missions to the cults, Jude 3 Missions and the Utah Gospel Mission. He held a Utah pastorate and has contributed to nine books on cults by Walter Martin, Josh McDowell Alan Gomes, and Ron Enroth. He wrote Mormonism (Zondervan, 1995) in the Zondervan series on cults and world religions.

Jude 3 Missions

P. O. Box 780 Victorville, CA 92393