Post-Meeting Thoughts About Mormonism
I just spoke to a few Mormons for an hour in my living room. It was quite interesting. As a person relatively ignorant of Mormon theology, I was legitimately interested in hearing them out, learning what they believe and why, not counter-proselytizing them. These young guys were very well informed, humble and gracious. Overall, I was very impressed with them and genuinely grateful for their time.
While I could tell they were accustomed to following a routine of sorts—explaining the Bible’s gospel message at first, then moving on to how that was corrupted during the apostasy of the church and how God finally restored the church in 1820 through the prophet Joseph Smith, I kept on butting in asking tough questions. However, I intended to do so without any agenda or intent to make an “apology” for my own faith. This would be a simple theological discourse. I wanted it to be as free from scripts or formalisms as possible, and for both "sides" to approach the topic with openness.
As they presented the Mormon story, I noted the similarity between Joseph Smith’s revelatory episode that restored the true church and subsequent miraculous translation of a second revelation (the Book of Mormon) and the story of Mohammed and the formulation of the Qu’ran. I asked why I should believe Joseph Smith and not Mohammed. Related to this topic, I asked about which translation of the Bible they used and why. They use the King James Version because it is the most accurate. I explained that this is plainly false, according to my understanding, because the KJV is based on more recent manuscripts, while newer translations draw from far older sources that were discovered post-King James (and Joseph Smith for that matter). The sheer quantity of manuscripts and variant redactions of the Biblical text lends itself to its reliability, I explained. What accounts for the reliability of the Book of Mormon, which essentially anathematizes 1800 years of church history and my own faith in Jesus Christ (apparently, but I’m not sure—I hope to get some clarification of this on Friday) was the authority of the prophet Joseph Smith, as evidenced in the Book of Mormon itself.
They were exceedingly gracious, as I explained, and took all of these questions in stride. They talked a lot about evidence but could provide none—though they were humble enough to admit it, to their credit. The evidence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon, they explained, had come to them individually through prayer answered by the Holy Spirit, providing a kind of spiritual “stamp of approval” to their faith. This seemed to me dangerous, as self-verification seems like little proof of anything’s reliability, as it is cyclical (“the Book of Mormon is true because Joseph Smith received a revelation because it says so in the Book of Mormon”). This is one of the major problems I have with flat readings of the Qu’ran, the Book of Mormon and the Bible. If these Scriptures are believable based on their own account, then I’m not buying it. I think Mormons have accounted for this by interjecting the “feeling of faith” instilled by the Holy Spirit to prove the text’s believability. Again, I appeal to the historical, contextual, temporal, geographical and human construction of the Bible as proof of its reliability. I think because it is NOT simply handed down from a divinity as though off a heavenly bookshelf or ratified by a singular prophet or leader, but was canonized by the discernment of the Church in conjunction with the Holy Spirit that I find Orthodox faith and the Jesus of the Bible reliable and sufficient--the best Way to live.
I’m sure I’ll have more to say this Friday after our second meeting. An additional cool thing: they gave me a Book of Mormon for free, which they asked me to read and pray about... I plan to do this. In all, I found it entirely enriching (hopefully for everyone involved), and I sincerely pray for our collective guidance on this road of faith in obedience to Jesus Christ our Lord.
