This article first appeared in Christian Research Journal, volume 30, number 04 (2007). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
Since the time Joseph Smith, Jr., founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints (Mormon or LDS) in 1830, Christians have recognized this organization as a heretical religion that does not represent biblical teachings. Not long after Smith’s death in 1844, Brigham Young led his followers into the Salt Lake Valley. For many years Christians have considered the state of Utah to be a ripe evangelistic field. In the early years, LDS leaders prized their uniqueness and didn’t seem to care what outsiders thought about their beliefs, which separate them from the rest of professed Christianity. In the past few decades, though, this attitude began to change. Today Mormon leaders try hard to portray their church as more mainstream rather than extreme, sometimes making it tremendously difficult to discern the differences between the two faiths. In recent years, traditional evangelistic methods to reach the Mormon people have been criticized as being too “confrontational” and, therefore, counterproductive. In order to better understand Mormonism, two types of dialogues have been initiated between evangelical Christians and Mormons. One involves private scholarly dialogues. The other includes a casual “bridge‐building” dialogue that is geared more for a lay‐level audience. Some in Utah wonder, however, if this new paradigm is actually hurting rather than helping evangelistic efforts in the Beehive state. In the late 1980s, an Arizona Mormon by the name of Darl Anderson realized that one of the biggest hindrances to the efforts of Mormon missionaries was Christian ministers who were speaking out on Mormonism from their pulpits. Anderson concluded that he could “neutralize” what he called the “ground swell of anti‐Mormonism” in his area if he could only befriend these outspoken Christian leaders. He self‐published a book in 1992 titled Soft Answers to Hard Questions and began giving a lecture series to fellow members called “Win a Minister and Influence a Thousand.”
Anderson’s approach began with the assumption that Christian ministers do not understand the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints, but he did not hide the fact that the ultimate goal was to win the ministers’ flocks to Mormonism. In his lecture he acknowledged, “Some LDS question the integrity of making friends with ministers while ‘out after their sheep.’”1 Anderson came to be unofficially known in LDS circles as the “missionary to the ministers.”
Darl Anderson’s legacy lives on in the person and work of Dr. Robert Millet, a Brigham Young University (BYU) professor who was called by the LDS Church in 1991 to “build bridges of understanding” with those of other faiths. In 1997, Millet befriended Christian Greg Johnson, an ex‐Mormon who graduated from Denver Seminary and has served in three different Christian churches since moving to Utah in 1992. Johnson eventually left the pastorate to run a parachurch ministry that he started in 2001 called Standing Together.
Standing Together is united around the themes of service, prayer, and strategic evangelism. “There is a growing sense among evangelical pastors and churches that indeed it is time to change our methods, change our strategy, change our perspective, humble ourselves before each other and our culture, and believe God to do what He alone is capable of doing,” Johnson wrote in late 2004. “We needed to set aside our own agendas and attitudes that the agenda and heart of Jesus Christ might prevail in this incredible, wonderful, amazingly beautiful place called Utah.”2
While acknowledging that there are definitive theological differences between Christianity and Mormonism, Johnson believes it is “how we engage over those differences that often cause offense.” He laments the fact that he once was a “youthful zealot” involved in what he describes as “confrontational methods of apologetics and evangelism” and apparently blames Dr. Walter Martin, at least in part, by saying that “from the late 60’s to the late 80’s Walter Martin and the ministry he lead [sic], Christian Research Institute or CRI, gave new life to tensions between evangelicalism and Mormonism. Walter Martin became the man every Mormon loved to hate, as he denounced and regularly challenged Latterday Saints and their doctrines as non‐Christian during his radio broadcasts.”3
Johnson’s strictly relational approach is not without controversy. One strategy, called “Mission: Loving Kindness,” was started in 2004 to offset the efforts of a group of street preachers who regularly attend the semiannual LDS general conference meetings in Salt Lake City. Christians volunteering for “Mission: Loving Kindness” are forbidden to engage Mormon attendees in any type of “doctrinal debate.” Rather, they are instructed to “offer greetings of kindness and smiles of love to those passing by on the walkways.”4
Johnson believes that there are two types of evangelical Christians in Utah, with the first employing “techniques of debate and confrontation”; those who employ this type of model, he says, are guilty of “kicking over the beehive.”5 The second model involves speaking to Mormons “more relationally, as bridge building, and uses friendship and dialogue to engage with individuals whose beliefs are outside of biblical orthodoxy.”6 The latter model, he says, is a better approach that ought to be practiced by Christians in Utah.
Jerald and Sandra Tanner founded the Modern Microfilm Company in the 1960s, specializing in the reproduction of hard‐to‐find Mormon literature.7 Today Sandra—who is a direct descendant of second LDS president Brigham Young—operates Utah Lighthouse Ministry and is considered by many to be the foremost Christian expert on the LDS religion. She believes that the problem doesn’t lie so much in the methodology of evangelism in Utah as it does the lack of evangelism altogether.
“Very few Christians in Utah have been involved in any sort of confrontational evangelism to Mormons,” she said. “Most are already trying to be good neighbors and not give offense. So the question is, how is [Johnson’s] approach different from what the average Christian has been doing in Utah for the last 100 years?”8
A MORMON AND EVANGELICAL IN CONVERSATION
In 2003, Johnson and Millet took their private theological discussions into the public arena. The dialogues—called “A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation”—are usually held in churches and have given Johnson and Millet national attention. The Johnson/Millet dialogues are supposed to model how Christians and Mormons can engage in “convicted civility,” but Tanner is among several Christian pastors and missionaries to the Mormon people who feel the discussions tend to cloud the distinctions between the two faiths. “In his public discussions with LDS people, he [Johnson] seems to be more concerned with friendship than with establishing clarity of beliefs,” Tanner said.9
Ross Anderson, who has 24 years of pastoral experience in Utah and currently serves at the Wasatch Evangelical Free Church, believes that the dialogues give a false impression of what serious discussion between friends should be.10 “It’s not appropriate to hold a friend accountable in public in the same way I would approach him in private,” he writes. “So Greg’s dialogue with Bob on the public stage is not really a valid model of a civil discourse between real friends. Simply for the reason that it is public, there’s no way it can model the depth of confrontation true friends sometimes have.”11 Anderson notes that “the New Testament does not promote interfaith conversation simply for the goal of mutual understanding. Any understanding gained through dialogue must always be seen as being in the service of evangelism.”12 Another problem perceived by some Utah pastors is that Millet’s explanation of Mormonism does not accurately reflect the beliefs of either LDS general authorities or average Mormons. Marv Cowan, who has served as a missionary/pastor in Utah since the 1960s, believes that “what Millet says in the dialogues with Greg is not what most of the LDS leaders have taught.”13
Daniel “Chip” Thompson, the former pastor of Ephraim Church of the Bible and current director of Tri‐ Grace Ministries in Ephraim, has ministered in Utah for 15 years and personally participates in evangelistic efforts at LDS events, such as the annual Mormon Miracle Pageant in Manti. He says he has “entered into dialogue with literally hundreds of Mormons—missionaries, bishops, seminary and institute teachers—and I can honestly say that I have never heard a Mormon explain Mormonism as does Robert Millet.”14
That the discussions are confusing is especially troubling to Thompson, who said that “on several occasions I have heard Greg Johnson say that his meetings with Bob Millet are ‘risky, risky for the Christian church and risky for the Mormon Church.’ I think it is important to note that Jesus Christ and his apostles never gave anyone permission to put the body of Christ at risk by exposing them to cult teachers. On the contrary, we are admonished over and over again to remove false teachers from our midst and to protect the body of Christ from heretical doctrine.”15
Paul Robie pastors South Mountain Community Church in Draper, Utah, which is one of the largest churches in the Salt Lake Valley. He feels that Johnson allows Millet “to get away with ‘murder’ (theologically). Greg is not a theologian and is therefore out of his league.”16
Johnson disagrees with this assessment, saying he purposely points out differences between Mormonism and Christianity while asking tough questions. “I have called him [Millet] on things that I thought were misleading or unclear in our meetings and in private,” he said.17 Denver Seminary professor Craig Blomberg, who coauthored How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation with Mormon scholar Stephen Robinson,18 concurs, saying, “Greg has been very hard‐hitting in all the forums I’ve heard him at.”19
Addressing an audience in April 2006, Johnson explained that he did not want to “do the debate thing” and chided critics who claim he does not adequately cover the topics, saying they “just want to see a little blood.”20 Johnson tries to draw a parallel between what he does and what the apostle Paul did in the book of Acts; however, scripture clearly shows that Paul went to the synagogues with nothing else in mind than to present a gospel message that he knew would probably offend his audience. Paul angered his listeners on many occasions and was even severely beaten by them, so it is difficult to draw such a comparison.21
Johnson claims that someone like Millet could help bring change to a younger Mormon generation. He likes the potential and says that “we should be encouraged by the emphasis he has focused on in his writings and public remarks about grace and the centrality of Jesus Christ in personal salvation.” He also says, “If more and more Mormon students hear their religion professors stress the unmerited nature of biblical salvation, I say this is a good thing and that evangelicals should be hopeful about this development.”22
Though Millet often uses the word “unmerited,” his various explanations of that term come short of orthodoxy. This is probably best exemplified in his book Grace Works,23 a book that Johnson encourages Christians to read. To a person unfamiliar with LDS terms and nuance, this book can at times give the impression that Millet (and Mormonism?) is embracing Protestant thought when it comes to the relationship between grace and works, but Millet is hardly consistent on the issue. For example, on page 117 he writes, “Do we as Latter‐day Saints believe in salvation by grace alone? After much reflection, I have concluded that the only real answer is a solid yes and no!” Mormon General Authority Bruce Hafen insisted that a Protestant comparison should not be made at the Spring 2004 LDS general conference. He declared that those who “think our church is moving toward an understanding of the relationship between grace and works that draws on Protestant teachings” are mistaken.24
Millet has a propensity to use his leaders and scripture out of context. For example, when discussing LDS President Brigham Young’s infamous Adam‐God doctrine,25 Millet told an audience that Latter‐day Saints do not believe in either apostolic or prophetic infallibility and insisted that LDS leaders can say things that “in the long run” can turn out “not to be true.” He bolstered this position by saying, “As Joseph Smith once said, ‘I never told you I was perfect.”26
There are several problems with such a simplistic answer. First of all, Young certainly didn’t think his teaching was false. In fact, Young insisted on a number of occasions that his sermons could be considered scripture, saying he was never wrong when giving counsel to the Mormon people.27 Millet’s quotation by Joseph Smith also stops short of giving the audience a proper context. Smith actually said, “When did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no more seen. I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.”28
Even the subject of prophetic infallibility is vague in LDS theology. Speaking in general conference, Mormon Apostle Joseph F. Merrill stated, “Is anyone so simple as to believe he is serving the Lord when he opposes the President? Of course, the President is not infallible. He makes no claims to infallibility. But when in his official capacity he teaches and advises the members of the Church relative to their duties, let no man who wants to please the Lord say aught against the counsels of the President.”29
Are we really to believe that men like Young were not speaking in an official capacity when they stood behind the pulpit in conference? If living prophets like Young can teach things that are “proven to be untrue,” then isn’t it inconsistent for Mormon leaders to continue to insist that God will never allow the living prophet to lead the LDS people astray?
Millet jokingly tells the story of an angry Mormon woman who approached him after one of their dialogues.30 “You lied to us tonight,” she said. “You said we believe in the Virgin Birth.” Millet replied, “We do.” The woman told Millet she had been taught as a Latter‐day Saint that “God had a physical relationship with Mary and that’s how Jesus was conceived.” Millet admitted he was acquainted with the quotes that supported her complaint, but he then dismissed them by insisting that “it was not a doctrine of the church.” The disadvantage to those listening to this explanation lies in the fact that several LDS prophets and a number of church manuals definitely support this woman’s premise.31
Millet also tries to soften LDS truth claims that he knows are particularly offensive to Christians. For instance, when discussing Joseph Smith’s claim that the LDS Church is the “only true and living church,” he cites Mormon Apostle Jeffrey Holland who once told a group of Christian pastors, “I think that’s probably one of the most misunderstood, misconstrued ideas in our history.”32 He goes on to insist that no “thinking Latter‐day Saint” would say “we are the only true Christians.”33 While this is certainly a phrase many sensitive Latter‐day Saints might avoid, it is one that has been used. In a message titled “Keeping Political Perspective,” Joseph F. Smith, then a member of the LDS First Presidency who later became Mormonism’s sixth president, said “that the Latter‐day Saints are the only good and true Christians, that I know anything about in the world. There are a good many people who profess to be Christians, but they are not founded on the foundation that Jesus Christ himself has laid.”34
Those in the audience who are unaware of scores of comments made by LDS leaders alleging a “great apostasy” of the early Christian church might easily believe Millet’s overly simplistic explanations, but can we really expect Millet to be totally forthright when speaking in front of nonmembers when he claims “never” to answer questions he deems to be antagonistic? Rather, he says, “I answer the question they should have asked.”35
WHERE IS THIS BRIDGE GOING? TENSION IN THE TABERNACLE
Johnson and Millet’s friendship played a strategic role in getting Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias to speak in the historic Salt Lake Tabernacle in November of 2004.36 Many evangelicals were excited to have such a renowned speaker come to Salt Lake City, but others were concerned that the Mormons would use the event, touted as “An Evening of Friendship,” to propagate a “mainstream” image.
Their worst fears were realized when Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary in Southern California, took the pulpit and accused Christians of bearing “false witness against our [Mormon] neighbors.” Many local Christian pastors were extremely offended by Mouw’s remarks, which they believed marginalized Zacharias’s sermon and sullied the reputation of many ministries. Indeed, the Utah media spent the next week focusing more on the apology than the gospel message as presented by Zacharias. The result, says Chip Thompson, was the misleading of “both Mormons and uninformed Christians into thinking that Mormonism had been grossly misrepresented over the years by numerous counter‐cult inistries.”37 Paul Robie called Mouw’s remarks “the low point for Evangelical Christianity in Utah.”38
Marv Cowan felt that Mouw “insulted many Christians who spent their lives trying to help Mormons understand biblical Christianity. His comments were hurtful to Christians who wanted to better understand Mormonism because they clarified nothing and charged Christians with deliberately misrepresenting Mormonism.”39
Dr. Ronald Huggins, a professor at Salt Lake Theological Seminary, has called Mouw’s type of approach the “pander/slander method.” “If you want to pander to the Mormon apologists not ready for real dialogue, the cost is going to be a willingness to slander the Christian brethren that went before you.”40 Huggins was not totally surprised by Mouw’s comments. He notes that “Salt Lake Theological Seminary (SLTS) had communicated with Dr. Mouw in August 2004 and expressed concern that he avoid following the pattern he had established in writing and public events during the past few years of disparaging earlier Christian efforts to reach Mormons for Christ. Regrettably, Dr. Mouw ignored the SLTS faculty’s concern.”41
In an editorial for Christianity Today, Mouw wrote that if we are to “criticize Mormonism, it should be on matters that they actually believe, not on what we think they believe.” He went on to say that “the best way to know Mormon beliefs is to actually engage in dialogue with Mormons.”42 On a personal level, this is absolutely true; however, if Christian scholars hope to understand what the LDS Church teaches as an institution, this type of thinking is extremely flawed. BYU professors are not the final authority when it comes to doctrine in the LDS Church; this is the job of the First Presidency. While “folk Mormonism” certainly exists among Latter‐day Saints, our experience shows that most members will readily accept the words of their general authorities over a conflicting BYU professor. Ross Anderson’s apprehension is warranted when he says, “My concern is that the Mormonism discussed and experienced in academic dialogue is far different at key points with rank and file ‘street’ Mormonism.”43
When asked for specifics regarding his charge that Christians have borne false witness against Mormons, Mouw wrote, “I have received emails in the past few days where evangelicals have said that Mormonism teaches that God was once a human being like us, and we can become gods just like God now is. Mormon leaders have specifically stated that such a teaching, while stated by past leaders, is something they don’t understand and has no functioning place in present day Mormon doctrine.”44 Mouw cites Robert Millet and Stephen Robinson—neither of whom is an LDS general authority—as his sources. As Huggins demonstrated in a paper published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, this concept is still very much taught in the LDS Church today.45
There is no question that the LDS Church has received plenty of positive publicity from this recent relationship with evangelicals. Ross Anderson cautions that “the LDS Church is well known for its tendency to seek public relations advantage from its activities.”46 Dr. Phil Roberts, who is the president of Midwestern Baptist Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri, agrees, saying, “If there is no PR value, they don’t want to talk to you.”47 Such suspicions should not be easily dismissed.
We wonder whether LDS leaders would allow these dialogues to continue if they felt they did not further the Church’s agenda. For example, a Fuller Seminary student described his experience after attending a Standing Together class held at BYU. He wrote, “Greg and Bob spoke to an audience of BYU students and visiting evangelicals, dispelling myths and providing a basis for further discussion that afternoon. They agreed that Mormons do not have a ‘different Jesus;’ the Jesus of the Mormons is obviously the same first‐century figure that is found in the Bible. And both sides agree that salvation is only by the unmerited grace of God.” The student ended the blog this way: “I praise God for the wonderful time we had with our Mormon brothers and sisters in Utah.”48 A perception like this clearly is helpful to a Church that wants very much to be known as a Christian organization.
Because the dialogues fail to define clearly the serious differences that prevent Mormonism from being a saving faith, the sense of urgency to speak with the Mormon people is lost. It is noble and biblical for Christians to be gentle and respectful when sharing their faith with their LDS neighbors, but why should they feel compelled to share at all after hearing Johnson and Millet trivialize issues that are supposed to have eternal consequences? How does this help the Mormons in attendance? We are among those who feel that, from a Mormon perspective, Millet wins the day hands down. If Mormons leave the auditorium thinking Millet’s explanations withstood Johnson’s comments, why should they feel compelled to look any further into the biblical claims that have for 177 years prevented the LDS Church from being accepted into the Christian fold? The confusion it tends to generate seems far to outweigh the “potential good” its proponents hope to achieve.
RELATIONAL OR CONFRONTATIONAL?
The word “confrontation” has been given a bad connotation. It is inaccurate to assume that those who actively share their faith without building a long‐term relationship automatically exhibit a lack of love for the Mormon people. Many times we have seen Latter‐day Saints lovingly “confronted” with challenging information that has led to long‐term relationships and even conversions.
Is the use of a more “confrontational approach” really hindering Mormons from coming to a biblical faith in Christ? Contrary to what some might say, the use of provocative information that gets to the heart of the matter does work. For example, one Mormon apologist admitted that “more member testimonies are shaken when challenging information is introduced from critical sources.”49 Another Mormon mentioned on a BYU blogsite how “potential converts are abandoning the missionaries once they consult the Internet for more information.”50 It is no secret that the Mormon Church, and Mormons in general, loathe criticism. It is also no secret that evangelism is affected when Christians become hypersensitive to offending individuals. For example, fear of offending Mormons resulted in Standing Together taking a critical position to an effort by Utah churches and ministries wishing to blanket the state with a new DVD titled Jesus Christ/ Joseph Smith in early 2007.
Despite the fact that the DVD lovingly explained the differences between Mormonism and Christianity, Standing Together associate Erik McHenry called this effort “not honorable” and admitted to encouraging “churches and individuals” to whom he had spoken to “not participate in this distribution.”51 Criticism of such an outreach fails to take into account that the majority of those who received the DVD in the Salt Lake Valley are not LDS. Should warning potential targets of the Mormon missionaries be sacrificed because some Mormons might become upset? If that is true, was the distribution of millions of Jesus videos by the Jesus Project also wrong because of the potential to upset Jewish, Muslim, and atheist sensibilities?
We believe the Bible allows for a wide variety of approaches and certainly agree that a respectful demeanor is essential;52 however, any evangelistic approach is lacking if it fails to include compelling information that would challenge the Mormon to critically evaluate his or her position. Unless the Body of Christ comes to understand this, Darl Anderson’s dream of neutralizing the Christians will come true.
- Darl Anderson, Win a Minister and Influence a Thousand lecture series, “Love Thy Minister Neighbor” (lecture notes, n.p., n.d., under the heading “Excuses”).
- Gregory C. V. Johnson, “Imagine What God Could Do: Loving Our Mormon Friends,” Standing Together,
- Gregory C. V. Johnson, “Mission: Loving Kindness III,” April 1, 2006, Standing Together,
- Johnson, “Imagine What God Could Do: Loving our Mormon Friends.”
- Jerald Tanner died in the fall of 2006.
- Sandra Tanner, e‐mail to Bill McKeever, January 25, 2007.
- In an e‐mail message to the authors (January 16, 2007), Anderson says he considers himself a “partial supporter” of Standing
Together but has “never supported their philosophy of ministry toward Mormonism.”
- Ross Anderson, e‐mail to Robert M. Sivulka, posted on News and Info, Discussion, “Bob Millet and Greg Johnson Dialogues,”
MormonInfo.org, http://mormoninfo.dardenelle.com/ index.php?id=165.
- Ross Anderson, “Caveats in Evangelical/Mormon Dialogue” (unpublished manuscript, 2006).
- Marv Cowan, e‐mail to Bill McKeever, November 18, 2006.
- Ibid., December 16, 2006
- Marv Cowan, e‐mail to Bill McKeever, January 9, 2007..
- Marv Cowan, e‐mail to Bill McKeever, January 2, 2007.
- InterVarsity Press, 1997.
- Craig Blomberg, e‐mail to Bill McKeever, November 14, 2006.
- Greg Johnson, “A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” (address, Mt. Olympus Presbyterian Church, April 23, 2006).
- For instance, see Acts 9:20–22, 29; 13:42–52; 14:1–7; 17:1–15.
- Greg Johnson, e‐mail to Bill McKeever, January 2, 2007.
- Robert L. Millet, After All We Can Do…Grace Works (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003).
- Bruce Hafen, “The Atonement: All for All,” Ensign (May 2004): 97.
- See Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:50, 51. See also Bill McKeever, “”Adam‐God” ‐ Brigham Young’s Theory or Divine Doctrine?” Topics, God the Father, Mormonism Research Ministry, http://www.mrm.org/topics/god‐father/adam‐godbrigham‐youngs‐theory‐or‐divine‐doctrine.
- Robert L. Millet, “A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” (address, Mt. Olympus Presbyterian Church, April 23,
- Journal of Discourses 12:127; 13:95, 264; 16:161.
- Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1977), 368; also cited by Neal A. Maxwell, “The Wondrous Restoration,” Ensign (April 2003): 36.
- Joseph F. Merrill, General Conference Report (April 1941), 51.
- Robert L. Millet, “A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation .”
- See, for example, Joseph F. Smith, Family Home Evening manual (Salt Lake City: 1972), 125–26. See also Bill McKeever,
“Mormonism’s Teaching Concerning the Virgin Birth,” Topics, Jesus Christ, Mormonism Research Ministry,
- Jeffrey Holland (address, n.p., n.d.).
- Robert L. Millet, “A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation .”
- Joseph F. Smith, “Keeping Political Perspective,” in Collected Discourses (Burbank, CA: B. H. S. Publishing, 1987), 2:305
- Robert L. Millet, “(Video) Religious Scholar Addresses how to Handle Anti‐Mormon Criticism and Questions,” (address,
Missionary Preparation Club, Brigham Young University, March 11, 2004), BYU News Net, http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49068; flash video file available at
- The address was titled, “Who Is the Truth? Defending Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (Mormon Tabernacle,
Salt Lake City, November 14, 2004).
- Chip Thompson, e‐mail to Bill McKeever, December 16, 2006.
- Chip Thompson, e‐mail to Bill McKeever, January 9, 2007.
- Paul Robie, e‐mail to Bill McKeever, November 18, 2006.
- Ronald V. Huggins, “An Appeal for Authentic Evangelical‐Mormon Dialogue,” Mormons in Transition, Institute for Religious
- Richard Mouw, “Shoot‐First Apologetics,” Christianity Today, November 2006, 98.
- Ross Anderson, “Caveats in Evangelical‐Mormon Dialogue.”
- Richard Mouw, “Response to Criticism of Richard Mouw,” letter, posted at Standing Together,
- Ronald V. Huggins, “Lorenzo Snow’s Couplet: ‘As Man Now Is, God Once Was; As God Now Is, Man May Be’: ’No
Functioning Place in Present‐Day Mormon Doctrine?’ A Response to Richard Mouw,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 49, 3 (September 2006): 549–68. See also Bill McKeever, “Does Lorenzo Snow’s famous couplet no longer have a
functioning place in LDS theology?” Topics, God the Father, Mormonism Research Ministry, http://www.mrm.org/topics/godfather/does‐lorenzo‐snows‐famous‐couplet‐no‐longer‐have‐functioning‐place‐lds‐theology.
- Ross Anderson, “Caveats in Evangelical‐Mormon Dialogue.”
- Phil Roberts, telephone conversation with the authors, January 18, 2007.
- Mark Thomase, “Mormons and Evangelicals Together,” blog (accessed Thursday, April 20, 2006; blog now discontinued).
- Michael R. Ash, “Information Inoculation: Helpful or Harmful?” Sidebar, Sunstone 143 (November 2006), 38.
- Larry Burkdall, entry, The Collegiate Entrepreneurs’ Organization of BYU blog, http:// ceo.byu.edu/ (blog now discontinued).
- Erik McHenry, e‐mail to Chip Thompson, February 7, 2007.
- For more information, see Bill McKeever, “Witnessing Rules of Engagement,” Topics, Evangelism Issues, Mormonism
Research Ministry, http://www.mrm.org/topics/ evangelism‐issues/witnessing‐rules‐engagement.