Reid L. Neilson recently published a paper in his edited volume Joseph Smith Jr.: Reappraisals after Two Centuries entitled Joseph Smith and Nineteenth-Century Mormon Mappings of Asian Religions. Neilson weighs the question of how Latter-day Saints have made sense of Asian religions and proffers a new “theoretical plank” for contextualizing Mormons’ self-identity relative to (especially) non-Christian peoples, what he calls the “restoration inclusivist position” (214). At first glance, Mormons lend themselves to the “fulfillment inclusivist” group, but Neilson takes issue with calling Mormons fulfillment Christians by citing Mormons’ conceptions of their gospel. Simply put, Mormons see their gospel differently than do fulfillment-minded Christians, therefore, he wants to avoid classifying the two under the same heading.

He supports Mormons as restoration inclusivists with historical evidence, first pointing to Joseph Smith as a consummate inclusivist. Smith’s scriptural works, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, provide a framework for inclusivism (Alma 29:8; Moroni 7:16; D&C 93:2; D&C 84:45-47). Other Mormon leaders including Brigham Young, John Taylor, Orson F. Whitney and George Q. Cannon took up this light and spirit of Christ theory. Neilson cites the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions as the major point of contact for Mormon leadership with non-Christian religions and the site of a theoretical shift from the light and spirit of Christ theory to a diffusion theory that remains in force today for many (if not the majority of) Mormons. Regardless of their theoretical realignments over time, Mormons have maintained an inclusivist worldview and cosmology. To refine the category, Neilson adds the feature of restorationism to their inclusivism. This makes sense, given how unique Mormons are in their conception of the human family and how they go about “being inclusive” (for lack of a better phrase).

In a missiology sense, Neilson has done a service with this paper. Though I am averse to the clichéd “exclusivism/inclusivism/pluralism” system, I agree that Mormon theories of Self and Other need to be addressed and worked out. Neilson advances this theory with solid historical evidence but engages little, if at all, in the theoretical task of outlining what exactly sets apart restoration inclusivism from other inclusivist theories, or even what role the theory plays in constituting Mormons as self and their relationship to non-Mormons. Because I want to keep postcolonialism involved (for reasons I probably ought to explain in another post) whenever we go about theorizing Mormon missiology, mission history, or expansionism, I want Neilson (though he primarily engages in historical method) to take up the task of theory, and I don’t think this is too much to ask. (He is advancing and defending here a new theory which should have implications for our interpretation of Mormon identity, history, and mission.) In short, postcolonial theorists effectively destabilize Western assumptions when doing systematic analysis; they point out inherent violence in the discourse that all too often keeps the missionary in a position of power or domination. We can’t ask questions of mission or of Mormon identity without embedding all sorts of colonizing attitudes and apparatuses to our analysis unless we at least take some of postcolonialism into account. Postcolonial critique points out all of the embedded imperialism that is manifest at the moment one relates himself or herself to what he or she deems as Other. From this perspective, I’m not sure how restoration inclusivism would hold up. Do Mormons really behave and think like authentic inclusivists? Or do they, like so many other missional Christians, still want to bestow their gospel to others in a parent/child mode of transmission?