By Don Veinot
Recent years have made the answer to this question less certain amongst some Evangelical leaders. The problem can be seen in the recent Christianity Today article Most Improbable Dialogue.
Our friend Bill McKeever was interviewed for this article and quoted several times. One of his points has to do with the LDS attempt to cover up their past doctrinal stand against blacks in the priesthood:
To McKeever, all of this typifies problems with the friendship efforts. “If Mouw really believes that, it shows he’s not qualified to be in these discussions,” he said. “That is still a major teaching in LDS theology.” He also rebuts Mormon assertions that the church’s ban on full membership and priesthood for blacks—which was abolished by a 1978 revelation—was never an official doctrine. “That’s just utter nonsense,” he said; if it weren’t doctrine, no revelation would have been needed.
McKeever is right on target when he said:
For instance, Bill McKeever, veteran director of the Utah-based Mormonism Research Ministry, attended the Zacharias address and issued a lengthy rebuttal to Mouw. McKeever says while he doesn’t oppose dialogues as such, they must be “brutally honest” in addressing historical and theological problems.
If we are not “brutally honest” there is little point in the “dialogue.” In the end either Mormonism is right or the Evangelical understanding of the nature of God and the gospel are right. Being honest about past and current doctrines is essential to any real communication if the point is to get to the truth and proclaim the saving gospel. At present many Evangelical leaders are sending out mixed and cloudy messages.
This article was written by Don Veinot, President of Midwest Christian Outreach. It was first published in the Nov. 5, 2009 e-letter The Crux, published by MCO [Subscribe], and is re-published by Apologetics Index by permission.
The Crux is also the name of MCO’s blog.
Research resources on Mormonism