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.
7 comments:
Hey a couple thoughts on your post.
A major difference between the Book of Mormon (BOM) and the Koran is that the Koran does not purport to be a book that is in fulfillmenmt of ancient Israelite prophecy, nor does it teach that Jesus Christ is the Messiah- the Saviour of all humankind and that the book was given by his direction. The BOM does.
My other point is in finding spiritual truth in rubble. Yes the Bible is translated from records that can be shown to be actually old, and many of the places and historical events can be shown to be actuality. Fine enough. The same can be said of many places and people of many ancient texts froma myriad of religions. But these historicities alone do not prove of the divine and supernatural aspects of the religious teaching in the texts. That witness belongs to the Holy Spirit. One must experince the divine to know of the divine. Divinity is not proved in rubble or old parchment, it is a living thing between a living soul and a living God. Many people have careers spending all their time studying religious antiquities and still do not believe.
I hope to hear more about your meeting with the Elders.
Do read and pray about that BOM. It is a spiritual litmus test given for our day. It has changed my life and helped me to have a deeper relationship with Jesus.
Looking forward to more,
Nivek
That Mohammed is to the Qu'ran as Joseph Smith is to the Book of Mormon is a dead on analogy. You're not implying that the contents are similar, but that the manner in which the holy books came into existence is essentially the same. The lack of a verifiable context for their contents is what sets them in an entirely different category from the Bible.
What makes the message of the Bible so dynamic, apart from its inherent spiritual power, is its historicity. God does not intend us to leave our reason behind when entering a relationship with him. He appeals to us through the space-time historical event of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ--i.e., the gospel. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not the Qu'ran, the BOM, or any other holy book or religion. The Bible - primarily the New Testament - contains the complete account of that space-time event, and is sufficient to lead its hearers to faith in Christ and salvation through him.
Any religious system that encourages would-be followers to set aside God-given powers of reasoning in favor of subjective feelings is extremely suspect, regardless of whether its adherents testify to life-changing benefits or not. Ultimately, one's faith-relationship with God must be firmly grounded on the rock solid foundation of the gospel of Christ. The Bible contains that gospel record, and the Bible is therefore the only "holy book" we need.
I have several things that have been brought up that I would love to discuss. I am sorry that I am a little tight for time right now, but let me try one point to start. The analogy of Joseph Smith and the BOM to Mohammed and the Koran suffers from one major flaw and one minor one.
First the minor flaw is that while the Koran is a combination of what the Angel Gabriel told Mohammed to read and copy down again and all the revelations he later received as he founded and grew Islam, the BOM consists only of what was translated from the golden plates that the Angel Moroni directed Joseph Smith to find buried in the hill in New York. Therefore, the BOM would only compare to the transcripted parts of the Koran, not all the rest of the parts have have to deal with the other revelations Mohammed received throughout his life. If you wanted to fix this flaw, you only need to include the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price along with the BOM.
The major flaw in the analogy comes by witnesses. Mohammed never had any person that claimed to have seen the Angel Gabriel, the scroll that he was told to transcribe or anything else related to the Koran. Except that when Mohammed heard from Allah, his face would get red and flushed.
This is in contrast to Joseph Smith. The first two pages of the BOM have two sets of names of people who claim to not only to have seen the golden plates, but also have seen them in the hands of the Angel Moroni. They also claim to have heard him speak in testifying of the plates and Joseph Smith. Some of these people even left the church later, but not one ever recanted their testimony of what they saw, heard, and put on paper.
There is more that I could say on that last topic, but my time is up. If you would like to continue hearing from me, just let me know here. Otherwise, I will leave this in peace and wish that God be with you.
I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Jesus Christ is his only Begotten Son, by whom and only by whom we may be forgiven of our sins and be reconciled to God. He is our mediator, our Lord and Saviour. I also believe that the Book of Mormon is also the Word of God and I think it was necessary to come forth.
God Bless you. Good night.
Scott
There is another problem that I feel the Elders perhaps don't realize themselves. What they said about the KJV is only THEIR opinion, and not LDS doctrine in any way. In fact, as so many LDS critics like to point out, Joseph Smith said he believed in the Bible so far as it is tranlated correctly. What he meant by that is anyone's guess - and everyone has made a guess they like to call fact. I think he would have been thrilled by the examination of older texts, although perhaps not worried about finding some "best" translation.
I would like to tie this into your wanting to talk about more than just the "scripted" lessons. Although they represent the LDS Church, they are also individuals with their own opinions and ideas about less "scripted" and even some "scripted" teachings. That is another thing that most people mistake about LDS doctrine; there are very few set dogmas. In other words, it is a very self taught and flexible religion. You need to keep that in mind.
A good follow up question would be, do you know any other ideas Mormons have on that question? They may or may not be able to answer that with a yes. After all, these are amatures and not true theologians with years of doctrinal study. They are sent to teach Faith in Christ and the Restoration, Baptism, Repentance, and a few basics. They are not sent to teach the intracacies of the KJV compared to other more reliable translations.
I did not mean to imply that the Book of Mormon is the same as the Qu'ran. I only perceived some similarities in the manner of its intent and transmission, which are unique among the world's religions (to my knowledge). I agree that science does not prove faith. What I meant to convey in the blog was that the claims about an Israelite culture in the Americas and some of the other claims of the LDS church seemed unbelievable to me. They have since provided me with some additional materials that offer a kind of apologetic for some of the historical claims of the BoM. And the missionaries have gotten much more comfortable and gotten off the "script" at this point. I meant to say that they were headed in that direction when we first spoke, and I wanted them to relax and be personable with me, which they have done. Thanks for the clarifications, all.
Very thoughtful and inspired comments from all sides. As a Latter Day Saint, I am of course somewhat biased. My understanding of how God gives truth to His children is that he expects all to use their God-given faculties and the Holy Spirit together to find His will. We ignore either gift at our peril. Saul was relying only on his intelect when he persecuted early Christians- his intellect told him that followers of Jesus were heretics. He needed direct revelation from God to find truth. But others can totally discard their reasoning in favor of spiritual zeal- and all manner of false doctrine can arise- think of some televangelists and their flocks. I do believe that if a person is truly seeking God's will, reasoning out the Bible and Christ's teaching found there, he will see that God is a God of miracles, that loves His children more than we can comprehend. That reasoning will lead to the understanding that God would not stop revealing His word to us. The heavens are not closed, that in addition to personal revelation, He would send prophets, seeing as we have not yet "come in the unity of faith" (Ephesians 4:11-14). That reasoning would be the start, and the Holy Spirit would confirm God's will to us. Again, all Christians should be happily willing to recieve more information about Christ- we claim there is more, and invite all to come and see for themselves.
It is useful to try everything in practise anyway and I like that here it's always possible to find something new. :)
Post a Comment