Round 2
I talked to the Mormon missionaries again today. Good conversation on the whole, as before, without any startling new revelations. Before they arrived, I spent a good amount of time today reading the Book of Mormon and taking some notes, filling out a pamphlet and praying as they asked me to do. However, I have yet to convert.
The main unresolved issue for me is the reliability of the Book of Mormon as a source of revelation or correction to my beliefs (which are apostate). Like the Qu'ran, there is no record of original manuscripts and no context in which they were written. Instead, they were handed down to a single prophet and a few lucky onlookers who attest to the miraculous and divine nature of the documents as well as their reception and transcription. Redactors throughout history have tried to edit difficult texts in the Bible, and it may be the case that Joseph Smith fits into that lineage with one of the greatest examples of oversimplification in history: the Book of Mormon. The sheer straightforwardness and simplicity of the text was enough to make me doubt it from the start. In short, it's an "easy" Scripture, and that rings alarm bells in my head.
I read through the three books of Nephi in the Book of Mormon, which recount how a Jewish man and his family sail from Palestine to somewhere in South America and begin a new, flourishing civilization that expresses faith in the (yet to come) Messiah, Jesus Christ. This, because special prophecies had come to the patriarchs providing extremely (and suspiciously) specific details about the coming of Jesus, and all this covering a period of about 600 years B.C. and some 400 years beyond. But, I thought, how on earth could a Christian civilization thrive in the Americas for a thousand years and leave no discernible trace of its existence? Shouldn't there be monumental evidence of a Hebrew people who worshiped Jesus and encountered the risen Christ after his Resurrection? I mean, what happened to these people? How could Christ and his disciples (in Israel) change the course of human history and leave a tremendous wake in the ocean of humanity for going on 2000 years, yet leave no evidence of their presence in the Americas until 1820? Curious.
So this led to a discussion on the nature of "faith," which was described to me as "a burning feeling" or "a feeling of conviction" or the "fruits of the Spirit" or "hope." However, there was nothing very substantial to faith as they described it. I, on the other hand, think faith is quite substantial and based on demonstrable acts of integrity, grace, provision, etc. The example I concocted on the spot was of a little boy standing at the edge of a pool while his dad encourages him to jump in because, after all, he'll catch him. If the father is a good man who has demonstrated time and again his strength, protection and reliability to his son, the boy will put his faith in him and jump. However, if dad is abusive, apathetic or easily distracted, the boy would have no faith in him. The simple fact that dad is dad means nothing. The term is loaded with freight, either good or bad, prompting either faithfulness or faithlessness in his son. If his dad really isn't reliable or "true," but the boy nonetheless places all of his hope in him, when he jumps, he'll still drown. Hope can be an empty and lifeless thing. Discussions about justification aside, this is what I believe James is talking about in his epistle: "Faith without works is dead." So in my understanding, faith is really more like trust than hope, and it is certainly not blind. In fact, I believe faith is clear sight. In short, I don't think I'd have faith in Jesus if it was devoid of substance, if there was nothing demonstrably good or trustworthy about Him, or if I'd never seen or known anything on a profound level.
One of the last questions I asked concerned an upsetting text I ran across in 2 Nephi 5:21, which describes the American Israelites as "white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome." A group of faithless people are cursed by God with "a skin of blackness," and made to be "loathsome," and God cursed the "mixing of their seed." I brought this up with the disclaimer that I'm well aware of uncomfortable texts in the Bible as well, and that this might well fit into the category of misunderstood texts. One missionary explained that it was not meant to be a racial thing, that it was merely a curse which was eventually lifted. This was a satisfactory explanation to me, but with one important qualifier. I proposed: what if this book was not the work of a 6th century B.C. Jewish prophet in Central America but the work of a 19th century North American white guy from New York? If so, that would make a text like this a powerful justification for bigotry. The missionaries wholeheartedly agreed, granting that if the Book of Mormon was a human product, then the entire enterprise of their faith was a sham and something like 2 Nephi 5:21 would be a very disagreeable text. Though again, faith had disallowed any such notions.
Another question I asked that generated an interesting response was: "Is the Book of Mormon an accurate historical record of an ancient peoples of the Americas?" The answer: yes. So, this could be taught to children in school about American history? Again, after some thought, yes. Now, I know that there are plenty of Christians out there who would say the same thing about the Bible, but I would not. The Book of Mormon is apparently deeply entrenched in its historicity, yet there is no discernible evidence of the reliability of its text (as it was taken from a single set of unavailable plates) or the presence of a Judeo-Christian civilization in the Americas that spanned a millennium. The Book does bear some important insights into the nature and failings of the Christian church, but that in itself is not nearly enough for me to stake my life in its claims. The Book of Mormon seems meaningful in the same way that the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Qu'ran or the Dhammapada are filled with beauty, mystery, and (yes) truth but lack a substantial basis for faith. As I said previously, it's precisely the historical, contextual, geographical and human construction of the Bible that compels me to put my trust in it and give my life to the Jesus within (and without). I believe Jesus provides the clearest image of God and teaches us the best way to live, which is life in the "Kingdom of Heaven."
I hope I haven't trivialized the matter in any way, but those are my thoughts for now... Grace and Peace.
7 comments:
It sounds like you did well in your conversations with the missionaries. The Mormons have never been able to produce any substantial historical evidence to corroborate the story in the BOM. That's why they have to rely on readers' burning spiritual feelings instead of the kind of faith that is described in the Bible. The issue of racial prejudice comes out of the social millieu of 19th century America which was becoming polarized politically and socially over slavery and the "Negro Question." We can hand it to the Mormon leadership for the "revelation" in the 1970s that allowed blacks into the priesthood and okayed interracial marriage. Attempts at racial reconciliation are better late than never, I suppose.
Here is the thing about the Book of Mormon. It can be read in more than one way. Many have read it as a very "simple" story. However, the more I read it, the deeper it becomes in what it says. There is a reason why it is such a simple book. Everyone WANTS to read it simply - both Mormon and non-Mormon. However, I believe that is a deceptive way (in the same way as Christ using parables) to hide its profound readings from those who refuse to take it seriously.
I know this smacks of self-promotion, but I wouldn't mind you reading some of my blog. I did a series on the teachings of the Book of Mormon several months ago that tried to examine it more in depth. If you have any questions, you can always ask me or anyone else in what is called the "Bloggernacle."
Don't take this wrong, but I don't think you are approaching Mormonism with enough seriousness. Your "concerns" sound rather trivial and less than thoughtful. Mind, I don't think Mormon missionary discussions are meant to bring out more than a rudimentary introduction to Mormonism to start with. That is why I am uncomfortable with the suggestion of inviting the missionaries over when I know someone is looking for more intellectual discussions. They are there for spiritual and not scholastic or philosophical reasons.
I apologize if it sounds like I have been trying to trap the missionaries in some sort of intellectual snare and prove them wrong. I probably used too many quotation marks, making it look like I was being sarcastic, or used language that seems condescending. If that's the case, I thank you for pointing it out and I will try to avoid it in the future. Our conversations have been quite friendly and informative. They've even brought over a couple local LDS members to add to the discussion. What I've come to believe is that I have no problems labeling Mormons as "Christians" and I've said the same to my missionary friends. If I've misrepresented the Book of Mormon or the LDS church, it's the result of my own ignorance, not theirs. The missionaries have been exceedingly gracious and humble. Perhaps I have not returned the courtesy (at least in my blog postings). But please understand this as well: the blog represents my on-the-spot reactions, not a fully-informed opinion or perspective on these matters.
Another thought: when I said the BoM and the Upanishads, etc. are filled with great stuff but lacking substantial basis, I do not mean to relegate these scriptures to the trash. Instead, I'm doing my best to elevate them to a very high place. There's no doubt they have inspired much faith (not illegitimate or counterfeit) around the world for thousands of years. The substance I'm talking about is a concrete connection to the real world we inhabit. I'm okay gleaning important insights from the poetry of the Dhammapada, for example, but I'm not willing to stake my life on it. It's a beautiful book which seems too detached and insubstantial to be a reliable guide for life. I understand that may be offensive but it represents my authentic thoughts and feelings at the present moment.
"The substance I'm talking about is a concrete connection to the real world we inhabit. I'm okay gleaning important insights from the poetry of the Dhammapada, for example, but I'm not willing to stake my life on it. It's a beautiful book which seems too detached and insubstantial to be a reliable guide for life."
I think I understand where you are coming from here. I would probably say the same thing about the Dhammapada or the Koran. There are many who have said the same thing about the Bible if the unbelievers give it any credit at all.
Sorry, but I am going to have to go into testimony mode for a moment. The Book of Mormon saved my spiritual life. When I was in high school my personal choice was between God and Nihilism. When a friend suggested I read the book so I could decide things for myself, I did. As I lived what it taught, my life and attitude improved considerably. The trials of life were less disconcerting. Although still not a positive thinking person (I kiddingly consider myself a Calvinist Mormon), I do have Faith that sustains and guides me in my life. As for any criticism that if I had read the Bible for the same reasons that would have helped, probably not. It was the Book of Mormon that helped the Bible make any sense to me as more than what you call a beautiful and yet insubstantial book.
My point is tangently about the Book of Mormon, but also something else. I would hope that regardless of what you might think about other religions and their texts, that you will also consider that just because you don't find somethng of a particular worth, that doesn't mean others don't. To be honest, that is something I have to work on myself. This isn't about relativism or political correctness tolerance, but about charity. Never despise what improves others, but only those things that destroy.
Again, to clarify, I'm adamantly NOT saying the BoM or the Qu'ran are insubstantial books. I am saying the opposite. I think they are full of good stuff. I'm very glad that you and many other people have benefited so greatly from the Book, in the same way I'd be happy for a Muslim or a Buddhist. I don't despise these texts in the least and I'm not sure what I said to make anyone think that I do. To be precise, I'm saying there seems to lack a sufficient grounding in history within these texts--this is what I mean by "substantial." I cannot speak for anyone but myself--and that's what I thought something like a blog was for: expressing my thoughts, concerns and even doubts in a public forum. I've spoken at least as critically of my own church experiences in a couple posts and I don't feel that I am somehow biased against Mormons or other faiths and somehow predisposed to "my own religion." Just understand my reservations about embracing a book that sprouted up in the 19th century full of obscure Jewish names and historical events that seem to be largely unsubstantiated. These reservations I have don't void the texts altogether but they diminish my trust in them as Scripture. In fact, I'd probably have an easier time of it if the text was largely non-historical, like many scriptures of the Eastern faiths, rather than the BoM which is so firmly rooted in history.
Of the three extra-biblical canonical Mormon texts, the BOM is the most "palatable" to non-Mormons. While it contains the historically questionable account of the Nephites and Lamanites, it contains few of the distinctively Mormon doctrines of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price - the doctrines that most set Mormonism apart from the orthodox Christian faith. So, to debate Mormonism as regards the BOM is one thing; to go beyond to the later writings of Joseph Smith and subequent prophets is another.
One can argue that any religious or philosophical system that leads to a happier, more fulfilled, life for its adherents is to be preferred to a range of less attractive alternatives - such as nihilism. But the deeper issue remains: Is it the truth of God? The historical reliability of the canonical texts doesn't prove that they are that truth, but it does establish an essential condition that makes their truth claims far more plausible. I would rather base my life on a revealed word set in an actual historical context than to trust my eternal soul to the word of a self-proclaimed prophet.
Post a Comment