When LDS Missionaries Read the New Testament Like Children

Dear Mormon Missionaries (A Third Question)

[Note: Like the previous two letters in this series, a draft of the following was written between my first and second meetings with the LDS missionaries.  I wrote the three letters because writing helps me to get clarity about what I'm thinking and also because I hope to inspire good conversation.  My intention is to gain greater understanding by raising sincere questions about things that don't make sense to me in a way that is respectful and not bashing.  I hope I have succeeded in maintaining such an attitude here.]

Dear Mormon Missionaries,

When we met the first time a few weeks ago, I asked the two of you how you make sense of LDS incongruities with historic Christianity as well as apparent inconsistencies within LDS history.

Given these apparent incongruities and inconsistencies, I asked, how did you come to believe that Mormonism is the true faith?

At the time, you gave a very interesting answer: Elder B said he prayed and had a supernatural experience that seemed to confirm the Mormon faith to him.  This is an answer I have heard on several occasions from LDS representatives.

And after your experience, I wanted to know, did you also come to answers or explanations of the doctrinal incongruities.  Neither of you had come to nor were able to give answers or explanations at the time for the incongruities I described. 

I asked if that bothered either of you that there were significant incongruities within and without for which you could give no account.

Elder A explained that Latter Day Saints teachings are a matter primarily of faith and not of reasoning.

If it’s a matter of a personal faith experience, I wondered, how do you adjudicate the contradictory claims of such subjective religious experience?  For example, I pointed out that individuals of various faiths have personal mystical experiences that, in their minds, confirm the validity of their respective religions.

How would you recommend the Mormon faith to me when others could recommend faiths as diverse as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism to me each on the same basis of their own personal faith experiences?   We also factored in my own religious experiences that seem to confirm for me the faith that I currently hold. 

Why should I accept Mormonism on the basis of your experience?

Of course, you didn't want me to accept it on the basis of your experience; you wanted me to read the book of Mormon myself and pray and ask God to show me if it were true.

I wanted to know why should I spend time reading the Book of Mormon, when I currently have little reason for thinking that it is true and several reasons to suspect that it is false including my own religious experiences within my current faith tradition?  

We agreed that neither you nor I felt compelled to read the Koran and pray and ask God if it were true in order to rule out the Muslim faith for ourselves.  Is this a double standard?

I suggested that it would be reasonable to expect you to first provide me some reasons to think that Mormonism is true such that I would be motivated to continue to investigate.  You agreed.

Christianity, after all, is the religion of evidence, firmly and inextricably rooted in the history of time and place.  The Gospels tell us that Jesus was born in the days of “Caesar Augustus . . . while Quirinius was governor of Syria,” and that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.  The names, the times, the places are all independently verifiable historical facts.

In this vein, Saint Paul makes it clear that Christian belief is based on the historical evidence of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Saint Paul makes reference to more than 500 eyewitnesses, contemporary with his original epistolary audience, to corroborate the veracity of the resurrection and concludes that, if the evidence is faulty and the history inaccurate,

if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, [. . .] and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. [. . .] If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:3-19, esp. vs. 14-19)

I find what Saint Paul says as interesting as what he does not say.  Why does he not simply urge his readers to pray and ask God to reveal to them whether Christianity is true and whether Jesus rose from the dead (or remind them of such personal experience that they may have had at conversion)?  Certainly God has the power to give direct special revelation to whomever he chooses.  So why would God's chosen apostle Paul—who himself had received a powerful direct revelation of the resurrected Christ—present an argument from eyewitness testimony/historical evidence? 

This is the same Paul who draws on the sacred and secular traditions of his various audiences in order to present sophisticated and compelling arguments for the faith. For example, in Acts 15, Saint Paul uses different apologetic approaches with different groups.  First he goes to the Jewish synagogues in Thessalonica and Berea and "reasoned with them out of the scriptures [the Old Testament Law and Prophets], opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead" (Acts 15:2b-3a).  In Athens, in contrast, Saint Paul "disputed [. . .] daily with them that met with him" (15:17), eventually presenting a philosophical argument in Mars' hill wherein he cited the Greeks' own religious and literary traditions in order to make his case (15:22-31).

In light of an apparent apostolic tradition of missionary work that unites both reasoning and faith, why do Mormon missionaries seem to emphasize the latter in contrast with the former?

When I met with you for the second time (by appointment) and third time (by happenstance), you maintained a position of faith on the basis of your personal religious experiences and the claims of Joseph Smith and did not have any further explanations for the incongruities I had wondered about.  Since it is the claims of Joseph Smith that are under consideration, it would be rather circular for me to believe that his testimony and revelations are true because he says they are.   So that leaves subjective religious experience as the recommended basis for belief.

You explained that, as missionaries, you are trained to lead people in the process of pondering and praying and that you are not equipped to provide (or perhaps even interested in providing) other evidences or answers to questions such as mine.  (I also note that you do not have access to the Internet during your mission and therefore cannot do any independent research on questions that are raised in your conversations.  Why is this?)  I expressed sincere sadness that your missionary training and approach would be what seems to me, rather one-sided.

The God I know from Scriptures, from Christian tradition, and from my own experience, is a God who created and values all my various capacities, who invites me to engage with him fully, completely, and holistically with all that I am.  Faith and reason are not at odds with each other in God’s orderly cosmos.  It seems to me, then, that subjective religious experience is a necessary but not a sufficient ground for faith and belief.

I expressed that, while God is ultimately a mystery and faith is essential to our relationship with him, I am uncomfortable with any religion that asks me to leave my mind or “logic” at the door.

At the end of our first meeting, I told you honestly that your appeal to pray and ask God if Mormonism were true felt somewhat manipulative to me; although I am sure that was not your intention.  For me to pray that prayer would seem to me to be insulting God by second-guessing the natural and supernatural revelations he has already made plan to me. 

If I perceive significant objections to Mormonism and I currently experience God in my present faith while also having good reasons for believing as I do, why would I ask God if something contradictory is true?  Wouldn’t that be akin to asking God to reveal to me whether 2 + 2 equals 5?  He has already revealed to me through the natural revelation of reason that 2 + 2 equals 4, and that, therefore, it does not equal 5. 

Why don’t Mormon missionaries simply pray that God would grant us wisdom and guide us into all truth?  Why aren’t Mormon missionaries trained and equipped to provide corroborating evidence that LDS claims are true?

In any other area of life, wouldn't I be considered imprudent if I formed beliefs on the basis of personal phenomenology to the exclusion of other evidence?  Why would we think that our process of belief formation in the area of religion would be fundamentally different from how we form beliefs in the rest of life?  Using reason seems one important way we are to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1).

When I ask for corroborating external evidence, I am perplexed when no such evidence is provided.  I am doubly perplexed when I am then cautioned against over-relying on reason or logic or being “carnally minded.”  Surely you would not say that Saint Paul was being carnally minded when he presented arguments and evidence that his audiences would understand and find compelling? 

If I discover reasons to suppose that my current beliefs are false or inadequate and that the LDS church offers a truer picture, I will pursue it. 

So I continue to ask my third and final question: What corroborating evidence or reasons are there, besides personal experience, for thinking that the Mormon faith is true?  For example, are there corroborating reasons to suspect the early Church experienced apostasy?  Is there any archeological, historical, or DNA evidence to support the historicity of the stories recorded in the Book of Mormon?  Is there external (non-LDS) corroborating evidence to show that the “reformed Egyptian” manuscript Joseph Smith used as his source for the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price is correctly translated? Etc.  If my current beliefs are false, I want to change them and conform myself to the truth.

I want to be quick to reiterate what I have said a few times during our discussions: while I have questions and doubts about the LDS faith, I am not attacking any LDS members personally.  I deeply sympathize with where you are at and respect the good will and zeal that motivates you to serve God and practice the faith that you've been taught.  Every Mormon believer I know is warm, generous, and friendly.  I am fortunate to have several Mormon neighbors who make living where I do very pleasant.  I am grateful to be able to share many familial and social/civic values with the LDS community and am glad to work together on matters of mutual concern politically and around the neighborhood.

As we ended our third conversation, Elder A said that he loved the Book of Mormon, and I believe that love is real and sincere.  As I said when we parted, if you truly believe that Jesus is there in his fullness in the Mormon faith, that is where you should be. 

I cannot know to what degree your belief is honest and well-founded, but I am sure that what it means to have well-founded belief changes as we mature and age and encounter new evidences for and against our beliefs.  A child is certainly justified in believing what his parents teach him simply on the basis of it coming from them.  Adult belief, in contrast, requires further justification. 

I believed you when you said that you were on a journey and that you intend to learn more and more about what you believe and why.  Such an attitude is commendable, and I hope that I, and everyone who reads this letter, will embrace the same in our own lives.

I do enjoy debating and sparing, but our conversation is not about that; it's about what is true.  It is a discussion worth having because what is at stake is, well, everything of value in this world and the next.

Yours in Christ,

Jen

Dear Mormon Missionaries (A Second Question)

[Note: This letter was written after my first meeting with the missionaries and before my second.  I am publishing it now because many of my questions remain unanswered, not least because we ran out of time (and were distracted by lots of little people wanting attention).]

When you stopped by the other day, in addition to asking for your take on the incongruities between Mormon teaching and traditional Christianity, I also asked how you deal with apparent inconsistencies within Mormonism itself.

Again, I ask in all sincerity and hope I do not give offense.  

From my outsider's perspective, it seems that LDS prophets/presidents have given differing teachings on certain issues.  Two such especially troubling issues are those of ethnic groups and of polygamy, respectively.

Here's what I see from my perspective . . .

From my reading of 2 Nephi 5:20-25, the Book of Mormon teaches that, in contrast to those who are "white [. . .] and delightsome," "dark skinned" people are "cursed," "loathsome," and inferior ("And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed" v.23).

I've also seen some quotations attributed to previous LDS leaders, directing such a sentiment toward African Americans and other specific ethic groups applying the "seed of Cain" doctrine to say that dark skinned people are spiritually inferior and that (white) Mormons should not intermarry with them.  (I know that not everything one finds on the Internet is reliable, but it looks like at least some of the citations given in the link above check out.  Please let me know if my information is bad.)

I understand that current LDS teaching does not endorse the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another, but I am troubled by the fact that blacks have only been able to hold the LDS priesthood since 1978.  I am also confused by the apparent incongruity between the statements of previous LDS leaders and the current position.  The previous teachings are deeply disturbing to me.  

Can you help me understand how you reconcile yourself with the past teachings and policies of the LDS church on the issue of race and ethnicity?

Also, while polygamy is not endorsed for present practice, it was previously an endorsed practiced.  It also seems that the current ban is temporary, that it will one day return, and that it will ultimately be practiced in the highest level of heaven.  At least such is the view I see when reading through Doctrine and Covenants 132 as well as other LDS publications.

In one LDS publication, The Desert Weekly (v.43, p. 540), quotations from the 1890 General Conference regarding polygamy are given along with the following summary of that assembly's decision to suspend the practice of plural marriage:

"Such is the authoritative position of the Mormon Church. Briefly summarized it may be read in this way:

The revelations of God given to Joseph Smith, including that on plural marriage, are binding upon the people, unless 'their enemies came upon them and hinder them from performing that work.' 

They performed their 'work' in establishing polygamy until 'their enemies came upon them and hindered them,' and disobeyed the law of the land until through persecutions and punishments they were compelled to conclude that 'it is not wisdom to make war upon sixty-five millions of people,' nor 'to carry out this principle against the laws of the nation and receive the consequences.' But it is yet to be re-established, for 'all that He has promised in this code of revelation has been fulfilled as fast as time would admit.  That which has not yet been fulfilled will be."

If polygamy is a holy state and one that is central to LDS eschatology, can you help me understand the change in emphasis today which seems to downplay the importance of plural marriage in LDS history and doctrine?

Can you help me understand the LDS position on polygamy?  I find it quite confusing.

Why do only men receive the priesthood in the LDS church?  Is the "patriarchal grip" in the marriage ceremony symbolizing that women have to enter heaven and achieve divinization through their husbands?  From some of my readings of LDS texts, I am uncertain whether women can actually become gods in the celestial kingdom or just men.  What is the official LDS teaching on this matter?

It's possible I'm reading it the wrong way, but when I read Doctrine and Covenants 132, I can't help but feel concerned by the apparent tone and attitude toward women.  It appears that Joseph Smith is informing his wife, Emma Smith, that God "commands" her to "receive all those" her husband "has been given" or else she "will be destroyed." From the context, it looks as though Joseph is being called "a ruler over" all the "virgins" given to him as "his property'; that a man's wives "belong(eth) (un)to him."  Am I reading this right?

There also seems to be some contradiction within the passage.  First it states that a man's first wife must "give her consent" before her husband "espouse the second."  However, shortly thereafter it says that if any man have a wife [. . .] and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood," and she doesn't

"believe and administer unto him, [. . . ] she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor"  (Doctrine and Covenants 132, especially 51-66).

From my outsider's perspective, it's difficult to see how this attitude toward marriage and toward women is of God.  Am I missing something?  How does LDS teaching handle this passage and the church's past practices of polygamy?

I have great respect for you and where you're coming from and do not intend to bash the LDS faith.  I ask these questions sincerely.  Understanding that you come to my door to tell me about your faith, I present you with my honest questions.  I would like to understand your position on these important issues.

Yours in Christ,
Jen

Dear Mormon Missionaries (A First Question)

Thanks for stopping by the other day and taking the time to talk with me.  I appreciate your zeal and commitment to your faith that leads you to dedicate your time to telling others what you believe.

I am glad you took down my phone number and look forward to meeting with you again soon.  While I am not looking to convert, I do have genuine questions about the faith that you profess.

When we spoke, I explained why I have a hard time considering the Mormon faith as an option.

The church I attend now is not the church I grew up in.  I was raised in a cultish house church that identified itself as a non-denominational Christian community; it was in a vein similar to what is commonly called Evangelical Protestant with loose roots in the Seventh Day Adventist tradition.

While not a full-blown cult, it was cultish in several ways.  There was a powerful "them versus us" attitude toward all other Christian communities that bred judgmentalism, feelings of superiority, and proselytizing zeal.  This attitude kept us closed off from interacting with others in a genuine and open way and thereby limited our ability to learn from them or see ourselves in a true light.

The definitive theology of the group was largely the invention of one or two leaders whose sway was established through power, charisma, and manipulation; their personal histories and (lack of) education did not recommend them.  The theology preached had significant holes and incongruities; when questions were raised about these holes and incongruities, the leadership became defensive, dismissive, or patronizing.  The group was controlling and emotionally incestuous.  Uniformity was often equivocated with unity.

I accepted the doctrines and disciplines of my childhood church wholeheartedly and did not question or test them until they started to collapse around me when I was well into college.  In high school and as a freshman and sophomore in college, I was a hot-handled proselytizing zealot.  I was probably about your age when, like you two, I went about trying to convince other Christians of "the fullness of the faith."  I believed it was my righteous duty to enlighten the benighted.  (The zealot is still in me—old habits die hard—but, by God's grace those habits no longer rule me.)

Later, in a graduate psychology class I learned the technical term for what I had experienced: foreclosure.  It's what happens when a child makes a premature commitment to a life identity.  The problem is not in adopting the beliefs of the parents but rather in defining the direction of one's adult life on a trajectory that has not been sufficiently tested against the alternatives, that has not been given time to mature into an adult belief system.  Directions are chosen too soon and without sufficient exposure to alternatives.

After taking a class in child development, my college roommate wondered what would happen if you taught a child the opposite names for all the colors so that they believed red was green and so forth. She thought it would be an interesting experiment (one that, of course, she would never really undertake).  I think I know what would happen because it is similar to what happened to me.  When I learned that what I had been taught about the world and the church was false, my world turned up side down and I was disoriented and depressed for quite a while.

I eventually joined the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church because it offered an essential ingredient which my childhood church lacked: secure moorings in truth evidenced by two centuries of doctrinal and pastoral continuity.

That brings me to my first question about the LDS faith: I would honestly like to know how you explain the disjuncture between the doctrine and discipline of the LDS church, on the one hand, and traditional Christianity on the other hand.

While Mormons and traditional Christians use some of the same words, we do not mean at all the same thing when we speak of Jesus Christ being the begotten Son of the Father.  Your own president/prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, agreed that we define our terms differently when he said, "The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak."

Before Joseph Smith, no one taught or believed the set of beliefs taught by the LDS, especially (among other beliefs) that God the Father has a body, that Jesus and Lucifer are brother sons of God, that we pre-existed as God's spirit children in heaven before we were born, and that we will have our own planets to populate (in polygamous marriages) and be God over in heaven if we are properly sealed and sufficiently righteous in this earthly life.

One of the watershed experiences in my conversion process was reading the works of the Apostolic Fathers—the generation of church leaders, such as Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who were discipled and appointed by the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ—as well as successive Church Fathers, such as Saint Athanasius and the Capadocian Fathers: St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus.

From my reading of the historical documents—the letters, cannons, teachings, scholarship, and creeds of the Church—it seems that the teachings regarding church leadership and hierarchy, the sacraments, the eternal Triune Godhead, the two natures of Christ, the incarnation and passion of Christ, and the nature of salvation and sanctification have all remained consistent over the Church's life being affirmed by the seven Ecumenical Councils of the "one, holy, universal, and apostolic faith."

Can you tell me what the Mormon church teaches regarding the Church Fathers? I've not been able to find a specific date as to when the apostasy is supposed to have begun—do you know of one? Are there any explanations offered as to why the apostasy would have lasted so long, and, if so, what has been offered to support this interpretation of events?

These are honest questions I have; I do not mean to personally attack you or any LDS faithful. I am always open to discussing religion or any other topic that brings us closer to understanding the truth.  Jesus claimed to be the Truth, and it is my joy to seek and conform myself to Him.

Yours in Christ,
Jen