sides
So I guess I need to report on my lunch with my two new LDS friends. I first met them on my roof.
Let me tell you what I love about the LDS missionaries. They are kind. You won’t find a nicer bunch of people. They are disarming in their demeanor. True, you can spot them a mile off (and Wayne, this crew had traded in their bikes for a 2006 Chevy Lumina sedan) with the backpack and ties but I often wonder if that works to their advantage. There is no way one could be proud and haughty dressed like that. They unashamedly want to talk about Jesus and what he’s done for them. They are not pushy. They’re intelligent people capable of incredibly deep conversations.
These two guys knew I was a pastor and still wanted to talk. Seeing how they believed enough to be a missionary for 2 years and I believed enough to be a pastor, we both realize that there is no way we’re going to ‘convert’ the other in less than 2 hours. So my goal in the discussion is really two things.
First, to create enough dissonance in them to really think and investigate their faith on their own. It’s never good to just take the party line because it’s easy and you “ought” to and your parents believed it. Investigate on your own, then make a decision.
Second, to keep the conversation on Jesus. Nothing else. Jesus alone.
This isn’t a transcript…just the highlights.
After we swapped faith journey stories, I highlighted the common points. We both love Jesus. He’s the most important, significant person that ever walked on the planet. Ever. He’s the only way to the Father - John 14:6. He’s the fulfillment of the Scriptures, the Messiah, the Christ.
Now what exactly am I missing if we all agree on Jesus?
That’s when I learn that the church needed to be re-established and restored because it was apostate and its authority needed to be restructured. I learn that Joseph Smith was God’s chosen prophet for this and what he was told by the angel Moroni was written in the Book of Mormon, another testament to the Bible. That part of this testament is the story of how Jesus appeared to the North American Indians.
Here’s where a lot of people begin to argue: question Joseph Smith’s character, start dissecting Mormon beliefs, and talk about the holy underwear. It’s possible to do that and possibly “win” the argument, but all of a sudden you’re talking about a lot of weird stuff and people - none of which has a whole heck of a lot to do with Jesus.
So I point that out. What happened to Jesus? If I don’t believe all that stuff, can I still have a relationship with Jesus? If I can’t, then we have some major issues. First, it completely contradicts Jesus himself - John 14:6 plus that would be “another gospel” that Paul tells me to run away from and dispute (2 Corinthians 11).
Lot’s of questions back, here were the big topics and my take on it.
1. The Need for Restoration of the Authority of the Church
Jesus loves the church, it’s HIS church, He builds it up. When Jesus talks about the Church in scripture - it’s not about structure or authority. It’s about a movement of the “called out ones” who are joining God at work. A movement of service and redemption in Jesus’ name. No one else’s name is important. Not Peter or John or any other human. Jesus said as much in Matthew 18.
Second thing to consider, whenever in church history the church has concerned herself with authority and restoration, great harm has resulted. From the Spanish Inquisition, the Reformation, the Anabaptist Movement, the Pilgrims - whenever any group of people began to concern themselves about authority or control of the church, the gospel was ignored and great harm resulted. The emphasis by LDS on church structure and authority sounds eerily like those movements.
2. The Authority/Credibility of the Book of Mormon as Scripture
Problem 1: In the New Testament we’re told that the next time Jesus was going to show up on the earth, he would bring judgment, a sword. That’s not what Book of Mormon portrays. Which means one of two things - either Jesus lied to us back in circa 30 AD OR he didn’t show up again.
Problem 2: No extra-biblical support for BOM. Most of the New Testament can be verified/affirmed by other sources outside of scripture. There was a Jesus of Nazareth, there was an “uprising” concerning the “belief” that he rose again. Old Testament sites of Jericho and it burning down have been confirmed. While archeology may not prove any of the miracles, it affirms dates and times and persons. None of this exists for the Book of Mormon. (Key word - extra-biblical sources, not sources that other Mormons or Christians have written.)
Problem 3: All ancient texts are subject to the same tests of credibility. How many copies do we have? How many variants (differences) are there between the copies? How close in time are the copies to the original? For the Book of Mormon to have been written so close to our time frame (relatively speaking) and us NOT have originals or the copies not be available to be examined by critical scholarship is very disturbing. The manuscripts of the OT and NT are available for any scholar to investigate. Any and all variants are noted and discussed.
We don’t have any of that opportunity with the writings of the LDS.
Problem 4: There is a unity between the Old and New Testaments. Scriptures in the Old Testament are either fulfilled or confirmed in the New Testament. There isn’t a New Testament vs. Old Testament issue. They don’t fight against each other but both stand as canonical. LDS stresses the importance of the Book of Mormon over and above the other Testaments. Something that Jesus never did - He said he was the fulfillment of scripture, not the author of new ones.
Problem 5 (and perhaps the most important issue on the table): The biggest reason for the “need” for new scriptures is this “need” for the restoration of authority to the church. Paul and his correction of Apollos is given as the proof-text of this.
But Paul was correcting an incomplete theology, a theology that was lacking Jesus. Apollos was baptizing for repentance but NOT in the name (or authority) of Jesus. He didn’t know about Jesus. So Paul teaches him about Jesus.
This is why we have MOST of the New Testament in the first place. It’s correcting theology, not church structure or authority but making sure that Jesus stands alone as the center of “Christianity.” It should, must, and always will be Jesus and him alone.
Whenever anything is added to the gospel of Jesus -it’s wrong. It’s not of God. At first it was the Jews - they said Jesus plus Judaism equaled salvation. God said - no, it’s only Jesus. The Gnostics said it was Jesus plus a secret knowledge. Paul wrote to correct that. Then we had Jesus PLUS hedonist philosophy - so Paul writes to correct that.
It’s Jesus and only Jesus. Whenever anything begins to compete with the exclusivity of Jesus, it’s wrong. It may look like Jesus, smell like Jesus, and even feel like Jesus but it’s not of Jesus.
So here’s the question I left with the guys, “So if Jesus heard that salvation was Jesus PLUS Book of Mormon, PLUS certain rules, PLUS a certain prophet, how do you think he would have responded? How would have the apostles responded? What would have Paul written about that?”
That is the wrestling match I want those guys to have - does anything compromise the exclusivity of Jesus? If it does - it can’t be of God.
We’re supposed to meet again in a couple of weeks. We’ll see how that goes.
13 responses so far ↓
1 wayne // Oct 7, 2007 at 3:37 pm
good stuff, G — I still think you should have met them on your bike though.
2 Kitty // Oct 7, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Thank God for those hornets’ nests that you’ve been hating all year. You amaze me with your ability to handle the Scripture. God has given you a special gift in teaching others. I’m going to be reading through this blog several times to try to get a grasp on all of this. Thanks for the message and for taking advantage of a major God opportunity!
3 robert // Oct 7, 2007 at 7:49 pm
wow grant. wow.
4 Denise Nesbitt // Oct 7, 2007 at 11:24 pm
The year was 1978 and I was finishing up my freshman year of college. I had a serious crush on a guy I met on campus. Nice. Decent. Funny. Great family. Mormon. Ron had just returned from his 2 year “missionary” stint and had great stories to tell. (They don’t always like who they get paired up with!). Before the semester was over, he had decided to move to Denver. But before he left, he wanted me to meet with two girls who were doing their 2 year stint in Little Rock. On the first meeting, the only scripture they shared was James 1:5- “But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” This was their foundation that the Book of Mormon would be the “wisdom” I needed. We met the next week where more doctrine and LDS beliefs were shared. I was born and raised in the Methodist church and I knew my life with Christ had not been perfect, but so much of what they shared sent off alarms. So I did what they asked. I asked God for wisdom and knowledge. They were really bummed when by week 3 they called to confirm our next appointment and I told that I had sought God and he had answered my prayer. I had totally committed my life to Christ and that did not include any aspect of the Mormon Church! Could I share my new faith with them? Never did hear from them again. Only saw Ron one more time a year later when he came to see his family. After our evening of theological discussion, I never saw or heard from him again either! I still pray for him to this day. The next year at college I had a mormon room mate. We never had a discussion or talked about our faith, but she moved on at semester. With everyone from the LDS church I met, there was such a sadness. Sometimes all you have to do is walk as children of light to shirk the darkness away. If any group of people are deceived and need the Light, it is the Mormons. I will appreciate your comments and will pray for your next meeting-
Denise
5 loren k // Oct 8, 2007 at 7:37 am
thanks for the update G. you’ve got some good questions, i like. i forget, does the mormon church believe that the arch angel micheal is Jesus’ brother?
6 MikeS // Oct 9, 2007 at 6:28 am
G - I’m interested to know how they responded to your questions? When are you guys getting back together? And I’m with Wayne, should ride your bike to your next meeting with them. . .out of respect of course, not that you need to or anything.
God bless you, my friend. Will be praying for you guys.
7 Grant // Oct 9, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Loren - there is no doubt that there are a lot of strange beliefs among the LDS. But I’m guessing folks look at me and think the same thing…
I mean - you dunk people in water once they decide to follow Jesus? You eat grape juice and crackers during the service? You honestly believe that Satan was once an angel????
In the end, conversations like that tend to miss the point - what are you going to do with Jesus…the real Jesus with what he really said. That’s what matters.
Shipp - there were a lot of pauses and glancing with each other. Lots of shaking of their heads like - what the heck do we do with this?
It was a great, friendly discussion - no animosity at all.
Again, my goal wasn’t to convert them. That’s the Spirit’s job. My goal was to present to them the real Jesus - wrestle with the real Jesus.
8 loren k // Oct 9, 2007 at 3:30 pm
righto, i was completely following you, i guess i should put some context behind why i asked that question.
there was some lady on t.v. [yes, i was watching oprah with my wife] [and no, i didn't get "oprahed" lol..] and she was saying a lot of things and giving God praise through various trials she had gone through with her son who has autism and what not, and then said something like “thanks to the arch angel micheal.” and, “then i prayed to arch angel micheal” i was just like, what?
then i remembered that i heard some religion or people believe that micheal was Jesus’ brother. i just couldn’t remember what religion. and i didn’t know if you knew, because you seem to know some of the basic facets of mormonism
i was just honestly curious what religion/tradition would say something like that… not in the sense of “you believe arch angel is Jesus brother? that’s so dumb…” but more of, “hmm, i wonder what background/tradition she is coming from?”
but your questions and approach is good. it is the approach i see most in line with Jesus. it is very difficult to start a conversation with someone who doesn’t believe the same things as you and it be productive when you start “name calling.”
even more recent i’ve been thinking that perhaps the best thing Christians, especially students would be to start finding ways to express Christ’s love through action, and not worry so much about talking/discussing.
it is pretty hard for people to have dispute with you when you are helping them in a time of need or showing them love in spite of conditions.
9 Shawn // Oct 9, 2007 at 9:40 pm
The crucial factor in dealing with LDS is that while their terminology may seem similar on the surface, their meaning is quite different.
Grant, you said everything’s cool as long as its about Jesus. The problem is the LDS understanding of Jesus. We’re basically talking about two different Jesus’s’s’s here; the Jesus of the Bible (immaculate conception, one third of the Holy Trinity, atonement on the cross) and the Jesus of the LDS church (God had physical relations with Mary, brother of Lucifer, a god along with the father and the spirit). These are two different people, dude!
Grace is another term that has very different meaning to Christians and Mormons. Grace as revealed in scripture is God’s umerited favor. Grace in LDS teaching is available after you’ve done everything in your own power - kind of like holy bonus points.
Under its squeaky-clean, Christian-esque facade, Mormonism is nothing more than the cult of Joseph Smith. We’re talking super-spooky, Galatians 1:8 stuff here.
Didn’t mean to go off on you. I live in Mo-ville, so its kind of a passionate subject for me. Kudos for engaging the missionaries, but just remember they’re not talking about the Jesus of the Bible.
10 Grant // Oct 9, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I agree with your theology Shawn as well as your perception that same words don’t have same meaning.
I’m just choosing to approach the subject from a different angle, hopefully a less combative angle.
I want to be the tour guide, if you will. Let them read and discover that on their own - walk through the NT like I did - it was corrective of any theology that said “Jesus + whatever…” which is exactly what LDS does.
BTW - good to hear from you again…even in your angst!! hahaha..Love you, bro.
11 wayne // Oct 10, 2007 at 7:23 am
Grant — do you see any “gotchas” or short-comings in your approach?
12 Grant // Oct 10, 2007 at 8:25 am
Every approach has short-comings.
I think this one would be is that I’m relying on these two guys to do their own homework and investigate on their own.
I’m not spoon-feeding it to them.
The other “short-coming” is that since I’m not giving every answer to every question, I’m going to have to stay relationally close.
I don’t think that’s a short-coming but it is time-consuming, slow, and very involved.
But I also think it makes “better” disciples in the long run. Does that make sense?
What do you see?
13 wayne // Oct 11, 2007 at 8:59 am
I liken the approach to Paul in Athens (ala Acts 17, I think). All through that chapter it speaks of Paul reasoning with the people. In Athens, Paul took a what I would call a socratic approach by beginning with what the people knew — which in this case was the “unknown God” and tried to bring them to what they didn’t know about the “unknown God.” Some followed and believed, others scoffed - imagine.
I agree that the time investment isn’t a short-coming — maybe, ostensibly, an inconvenience — but not a short coming.
Relying on them doing their homework isn’t a shortcoming either — that’s their choice and the suffer the consequences of not doing the homework and the dialogue relationship will probably die out of that because it will degrade into theological differences as Shawn has pointed out.
The only “gotcha” I can see at this point is the danger of a neophyte tackling such a challenge in this manner. Missionaries such as these are well trained (some may argue indoctrinated) and can easily (as evidenced by their high conversion rates and growth) convince folks to follow.
I think that they came to the right guy.
Have to think on it some more to see if there are any other potential “gotchas” — but this is, in my opinion, a much better approach than attacking their beliefs.
Leave a Comment