But that raises the question, he said, of why Smith is to be believed but not the many other prophets of the same era who claimed to have received revelations from God.

"How do we know what is and is not scripture?" he said.

Balmer also cautioned LDS scholars against academic "circular arguments" where they attempt to use rational arguments to prove Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, by saying "because Smith told us so." Likewise the argument that the Book of Mormon is scripture "because the Book of Mormon tells us so."

The "enlightenment style" — and Balmer said evangelicals are guilty of the same theoretical misstep — is akin to "the serpent devouring its own tail."

Balmer and Mouw's comments came in response to a paper, "Joseph Smith Challenges the Christian World," presented by David L. Paulsen, a professor of philosophy at Brigham Young University, who argued that of all the tenets of faith articulated by Joseph Smith, "none is more fundamental than his claim to direct revelation from God."

The prophet, he said, "answered clearly and boldly" that the canon of scripture was not closed, that God had spoken to man again and that more truth awaited revelation.

"He agrees with, adds to and sometimes repudiates existing Christologies," Paulsen said.

But the differences between LDS doctrines and those of Protestant and Catholic faiths are not the polar opposites that antagonists on both sides have long claimed, said Robert L. Millet, a professor of religious understanding at BYU.

Millet argued the LDS Church has become increasingly accepted into the religious mainstream not because it changed its doctrines but because it refocused its emphasis toward Jesus Christ and the Atonement — doctrines that were there all along.

"Have we changed? Indeed we have," Millet said. "We may in fact be coming of age."

---

E-mail: spang@desnews.com