How to Respond to Enemies of the Church:
An Open Letter from a Father to His Missionary Son
An Open Letter from a Father to His Missionary Son
By Richard LaJeunesse, presiding justice of the Utah Labor
Commission adjudication division
(Editor’s Note: The following letter, written to a
missionary son by his father, gives us ideas for what works – and what doesn’t
– when we speak with people who are hostile to the Church.)
Dear Son,
I received your
letter requesting some material that addresses anti-Mormon literature and
arguments. There are numerous books and pamphlets that confront anti-Mormon
arguments. In fact, there are so many that it is difficult to anticipate the
ones that would actually hit the specific points you are faced with. For
example, Hugh Nibley wrote several books and pamphlets, including Sounding Brass and Tinkling Cymbals, The Myth Makers, and No Ma'am, that's Not History. Dr.
Sidney Sperry wrote Answers to
Book of Mormon Questions. B.H. Roberts wrote the three-volume set Defense of the Faith and the Saints.
The books I listed are just a drop in the bucket as to the vast body of work
generated by Mormon scholars and apologists.
My personal
opinion is that your mission is far too short to spend all of your time trying
to become an expert in refuting every picky little alleged historical
discrepancy dredged up by critics of the Church. Furthermore, it is usually
counterproductive to argue. Let me give you several examples. Once on my
mission I encountered a born-again Christian who spent all his time reading the
Bible and listening to religious programs. The man did not work and had no
hobbies. He simply studied the Bible all day long. I engaged him in robust
debate over the necessity of baptism as a prerequisite for salvation. I
mastered this biblical expert with my brilliant arguments and defeated him
hands down. He conceded the necessity of baptism and he personally took his
family down to the river that night and baptized them. So much for victories
based solely on logic instead of spiritual understanding!
On a separate occasion,
a minister from another church confronted us about the mystery of the 14th Article of Faith. The minister wanted
to know why if the Articles of Faith came from a prophet of God, the church
eliminated one. It turned out, the minister had it right. At one time there was
a 14th Article of
Faith. The 14th Article
of Faith essentially declared our belief in the resurrection of the dead. As
far as I know, we still believe in the resurrection of the dead. So the point
is what?
Finally, I beat
a Jehovah's Witness so bad in an argument he started crying and we had to leave
him in that emotional state. As far as I know, the Jehovah's Witness didn’t
join the Church. My accomplishment consisted of making someone miserable and
resentful.
Actually the
best way to counter anti-Mormon arguments is to structure your discussions
around your testimony, the positive points of the gospel as set forth in the
scriptures, and your discussions. Let me share with you what I consider the
best way to approach anti-Mormon controversies.
1.
Set
Standards of Proof.
First of all, if
you want to prove a point you must first determine whether or not the point can
be proved, and whether or not the means of proof are available. In philosophy
this is known as the field of epistemology, or the study of how we acquire
knowledge. Here I assume most of your confrontations with anti-Mormons involve
people who believe in God and are some sort of Christian.[1]
The first point
you should always address then is, Does God exist? Again our immediate
hypothetical assumes that both participants in the discussion agree that God in
fact exists. But the point is important to any further discussion of any
religious topic because it involves the means and availability of proof
concerning religious knowledge.
Is it important
to us to know that God exists? Is it important to God that we know he exists?
If our salvation depends on knowing that God exists, then it is important to us.
If God cares about us, and our salvation depends on knowing God exists, then it
is important to God that we know he exists. Yet, how is knowledge concerning
the existence of God obtained?
Some argue that
God's existence can be established through pure logic, through scientific
means, or through historical and archeological proof. Anselm used raw logic in
his argument for the existence of God. This argument states that through simple
verbal logic you can prove that God exists. In essence, pure reason tells us
there must be that than which nothing greater exists. Therefore, God is that
than which nothing greater can exist. While the argument makes logical sense,
it says nothing about the existence of the personal God of the Old and New
Testaments. The “that” than which nothing greater exists could be any cosmic
force such as gravity, fusion, and so on. Carl Sagan believed God to be nothing
more than the forces of nature that operated in the universe.
This brings us
to another critical point. It is important to know God, not merely that some
force exists to which we attach the label God. Primitives fell to calling the
forces of nature greater than themselves gods. Labeling powerful forces of
nature as gods is a fruitless exercise if we truly believe in a personal God possessed
of the power of salvation or even interested in advancing the welfare of
mankind in any degree.
Next, St. Thomas
Aquinas advanced his arguments for the existence of God, which were adapted
from the philosophy of Aristotle and from scientific observation. His arguments
for God’s existence are based on the order of the universe[2] -- and the fact that everything has an
ultimate cause. There are several modern versions of Aquinas’ proofs. However,
the same problems emerge concerning Aquinas’ arguments as with Anselm’s proof. In
other words, what is proved? Only that some prime mover, some ultimate cause,
or some organizing force exists in the universe.
Finally, there
are the weaker arguments for the proof of God through historical or
archeological evidence. We certainly have the Bible and some historical and
archeological evidence supporting some of the biblical events. However,
historians and archeologists disagree as to the significance of evidence that
correlates with biblical events. Certainly no consensus exists that history and
archeology prove the Bible to be the word of God, or that God exists. Many
skeptics argue that the available evidence disproves the Bible as accurate
religious history.
None of these
inductive logical proofs, or their modern variants, establishes the existence
of a personal God, tell us anything about the nature of God, or God's will
concerning us. Yet, our present scenario demands that we arrive at a knowledge
of God and his requirements for salvation.
We eliminated
raw inductive logic, scientific methodology, and historical or archeological
evidence as stand alone methods for learning about God.[3] What means, then, is left to acquire
knowledge of the existence and nature of God? Only, one obvious method remains
for the acquisition of religious knowledge, and that is direct communication
from God to the person obtaining the knowledge. Certainly, God could simply
come down in full power and impose empirical knowledge of His existence,
nature, and character on every living creature. The fact that God never
exercised the option of overwhelming empirical proof means that he elected some
other method, or we go back to a failure of proof altogether.
Here is where
the significance of your testimony comes to play in this discussion. This is
why the importance of obtaining, strengthening, and bearing your own testimony
is preeminent in missionary work. Individual testimony is your personal
knowledge concerning the existence and nature of God acquired directly from God
through the Holy Ghost. Spirit-to-spirit communication is the method of proof
made available from God. Testimony is empirical evidence from God, pure
knowledge, and the method of proof chosen by God to disclose religious truths.
Here, then, is
the importance of the scripture in James 1:5 that led Joseph Smith to the
sacred grove to obtain religious knowledge concerning the nature of God:
5. If any of you
lack wisdom let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and
upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Similarly the
simple injunction contained in Matthew 7:7:
7. Ask, and it
shall be given you, seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto
you;
Jesus made plain
the method of knowing God in Luke 10:22, when he said:
22. [a]nd no man
knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and
he to whom the Son will reveal him.
In short, we
gain knowledge of God, or religious knowledge in general, by asking God who
then reveals the knowledge to us. In fact, personal revelation is the only
method available to obtain religious knowledge about the existence of God,
character of God, nature of God, the truth of the Bible, knowledge about the
atonement of Christ, and the individual details of salvation. That is why
you as a missionary ask investigators to obtain knowledge concerning the truth
of the gospel by asking God for personal revelation. That is why you constantly
refer investigators to Moroni 10:4-5. Other methods for ascertaining religious
truth are inadequate.
In his book The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis
tells the story of a group of theologians who met regularly to argue about the
nature of God. After all of the theologians in the group died, an angel greeted
them on the other side. The society of theologians resumed their arguments
about the nature of God, but the angel interrupted them and said he would take
them to meet God so that they could see what he is like in person. The
theologians discussed the proposition for a bit, finally deciding they would
rather argue about the nature of God than to find out what he was like for a
certainty.
As a missionary,
you are in the position of the angel in C. S. Lewis' story as you try to get people to ask
God himself whether he exists and what he is like. In other words, go to the
source.
Now what does
the whole of this first section have to do with confronting anti-Mormons?
Simply this: Debates concerning the truth of any religious proposition
can only be resolved by a direct appeal to God through sincere study, sincere
prayer, and ultimately personal revelation. In sum, you must go to the source. Appealing
to God himself is the standard of proof and the only useful standard of proof
in such discussions. There are mountains of books written with archeological,
historical, linguistic and other evidence in support of the validity of the
Book of Mormon. To the contrary, there are numerous books that purport to
challenge the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. No one has the time or means
to read them all. Yet, salvation should be available to all. Therefore, the
means to obtain the religious knowledge essential for salvation must
necessarily be accessible to all people, not just a handful of scholars who
managed to read every argument on the subject.
The anti-Mormon
forcefully acknowledges the importance of determining the truth of the Book of
Mormon in the strongest terms possible by the vast effort put into attacking
the book. If people thought learning the truth of the Book of Mormon were not
important, they would leave it alone. Accordingly, why would God leave
determination of the truthfulness of such things as the Book of Mormon to the
endless task of comparing and debating archeological data, historical texts,
and linguistic studies that all evolve from year to year. The same principles
of ascertaining the truth apply to all religious issues be it the existence and
nature of God, or the validity of the Book of Mormon.
Here you must
have faith in your own convictions and the sincerity of the individual
investigating the Church. Ask your investigator to go to the source and
sincerely ask God if the gospel is true. Why would God neglect to answer such
an important question if the inquirer is sincere? An investigator may lack the
desire, or sincerity to discover the truth, but that doesn’t alter the reality
of the truth. One thing anti-Mormons fear more than anything else is a person
sincerely reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it. Anti-Mormons either
do not trust God, or they do not trust their own position. If anti-Mormons
trusted God and their own position, they would be the ones passing out copies
of the Book of Mormon faster than the missionaries and asking people to pray
about it.
2. Start with Nature and Character of
God.
Start any gospel
discussion with the nature and character of God. This is why your missionary
discussions usually start with Joseph Smith’s first vision or a direct
discussion about the nature and character of God. Joseph Smith’s first vision
fully revealed the nature and character of God. A proper understanding of God
is critical to correct theology. If any religion gets the nature and character
of God wrong, then nothing can be right about that religion’s theology
thereafter. This is why most anti-Mormons prefer to begin discussions about the
Church with some historically controversial detail like polygamy, the Danites,
or character flaws of the prophet Joseph Smith. Anti-Mormons find a bug on a
tree trunk and declare that the entire tree is a beetle instead of an oak. Anti-Mormons
cannot talk about the tree itself without acknowledging that it is an oak, or
look foolish calling it a beetle.
I once had a
discussion with Sandra Tanner, the undisputed queen of anti-Mormons. Sandra
Tanner and her husband Gerald published more anti-Mormon literature than all
other anti-Mormons combined. I told Ms. Tanner I wanted to talk about the
nature and character of God with her and she flat out refused to carry on the
discussion at that level. However, before I left we got far enough into a
discussion of pure religious principles that Sandra Tanner admitted she did not
believe the Old Testament to be the word of God. That is why anti-Mormons do
not like to discuss the principles of the gospel. Anti-Mormons always come up
short when you compare true gospel principles as taught in the scriptures
against their own personal beliefs. Therefore, anti-Mormons will always try to
attack you with some fragment of Church history.
I also had a
formal debate with a local radio evangelist, who was an anti-Mormon Baptist
minister. We carried on the debate in front of his congregation on the nature
and character of God. He ended the debate by tipping over a table and walking
off. His own congregation came up me afterward and apologized for his behavior.
Very simply, when confronted with any anti-Mormon message you must start at the
beginning with the nature and character of God. That is where every intelligent
discussion of religion should begin in any event.
The first vision
taught that:
- There are three distinct personages in the Godhead – God the
Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost;
- God is
anthropomorphic (in the form of man);
- God is corporeal
(has a physical body); and
- God reveals himself to man.
To the contrary,
most Christian sects following the Athanasian Creed and Westminster Confession
of Faith that teach this:
- The three
personages of the Godhead are one in substance and being;
- God is without
form;
- God is incorporeal
(has no physical body); and
- God is invisible to man.
Again, our
knowledge concerning the nature and character of God comes from God himself. John1:1,
14 declare:
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.
14. And the Word
was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of
the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.
By any Christian
standard, then, Jesus Christ, the Word, is God [4]. Jesus Christ then revealed the nature and
character of God to us in his own person. As Jesus himself said in John 14:9:
9.
[H]e that hath seen me has seen the Father....
What does the
revelation of God through Jesus Christ teach about the nature and character of
God as compared with Joseph Smith’s vision? God is anthropomorphic, in the form
of man, and corporeal, or possessed of a physical body. Jesus had the physical
body of a man. John1:14 says,
14.
And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us....
Even after his
death and resurrection Jesus retained a physical body see Luke 24: 38:
38. Behold my
hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath
not flesh and bones as ye see me have.
God reveals
himself to man. Multitudes saw Jesus during his life and after his death and
resurrection. Accordingly, God is not invisible.
As to the
separateness of the three members of the Godhead, Jesus and his Father plainly
demonstrated separate wills. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Luke 22:42 records
Jesus as saying:
42.
Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will,
but thine be done.
The Father
departed entirely from Jesus during the Crucifixion. Mark 15:34 tells us
this:
15.
[M]y God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Clearly, the
revelation of the nature and character of God through the person of Jesus
Christ confirms the truths about God that are restored through the prophet
Joseph Smith [5]. Indeed, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints is the only Christian church to accurately teach the nature and
character of God as revealed through the person of Jesus Christ. Now you
understand why anti-Mormons focus on historical minutia rather than core
issues.
3. Always Examine the Premise of Any
Argument.
There are a
number of anti-Mormon arguments that start from a false premise that they
ascribe to the teachings of the Church. For example: “If Joseph Smith is
prophet of God, how come he dug for money while in the employ of Josiah Stoal
[see: Joseph Smith History 1:56]. The implication is that a prophet of God
would know whether there is money buried in the ground and would never take
money from his employer for such a phony endeavor. The false premises built
into this argument are that a prophet is perfect, never makes mistakes, and is
always acting as a prophet every minute of the day. A casual reading of the
Doctrine and Covenants would dispel all these false notions. In D&C 5:21,
the Lord said to Joseph Smith:
And now I
command you, my servant Joseph, to repent and walk more uprightly before me,
and to yield to the persuasions of men no more.
Joseph Smith never claimed to be perfect or error free. Therefore,
arguments that advance the premise that Joseph as a prophet could never sin or
make a mistake in his life start with a false assumption. To determine the
prophetic status of the prophet Joseph Smith one need only return to the Book
of Mormon and ask God, the source of all religious knowledge, if it is true. Then
ask God if Joseph Smith is a prophet. To discover if Joseph Smith is a prophet
square his teachings about the nature of God with the teachings from God’s other
prophets in the Bible.
A second and
more current example of an anti-Mormon argument based on a false premise is the
recent assertion by a geneticist who claimed he conducted a genetic survey of
the native inhabitants of America and found no genetic link with Semitic people
of the Middle East. The false premise here is that the Book of Mormon taught
all people on the American continents came from the Book of Mormon migrations. The
premise is inaccurate. The Book of Mormon allows for populations inhabiting the
American continents when the Book of Mormon migrations arrived here. [see: John
L. Sorenson. Ancient American
Setting for the Book of Mormon pp.
49-50.]. The Book of Mormon does not exclude the possibility of other
immigrations to the American continents, either by boat or through the Bering
Straits.
The title page
of the Book of Mormon states that it is: "[t]he
record of the people of Nephi," not
a history of all the native American Indians. In fact, the Nephites, Lamanites,
Jaredites, and Mulekites may have composed only a fraction of the inhabitants
of the American continents and probably intermingled with other inhabitants. Consequently,
a genetic study of a group of Native Americans that yielded no Semitic gene
markers proved nothing except that the group studied did not come from Book of
Mormon stock. Obviously the geneticist did not examine every Native American on
both continents. To succeed in his argument, the geneticist required the false
assumption that the Book of Mormon asserts all people on the American
continents before Columbus came here via the Book of Mormon migrations.
Examples of
anti-Mormons advancing their arguments on false premises are numerous. Therefore,
always examine the premises and assumptions built into anti-Mormon arguments.
4. Hold Anti-Mormons to the Same
Standards to which they hold the Church.
A few examples
illustrate the importance of holding critics of the Church to the same
standards they utilize. Anti-Mormons argue that you cannot rely on the
testimony of the three and eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon because they
all constituted friends and relatives. Of course the same thing is true of the
Bible. Only the disciples of Jesus wrote the Bible, and only they provided
contemporary testimony to his divinity and miracles.
The standard
used by anti-Mormons is that a prophet never makes a mistake or commits sin.
Yet, look at the prophets of the Bible. Does the Christian world reject Jonah
because he refused to do the Lord’s bidding and had to be chastised by the Lord?
Some
anti-Mormons claim that Joseph Smith lifted concepts from contemporary ideas to
write the Book of Mormon [6]. The fact exists that many Christians in Joseph
Smith’s day believed that tribes of Israelites migrated across the sea and also
believed the American Indians descended from these migratory Israelites. It
should come as no surprise that Christians with a Bible believed that tribes of
scattered Israelites found their way to the American continents. A common
biblical missionary scripture teaches the same, John 10:16:
16. And other
sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they
shall hear my voice: and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.
The basic
fallacy in the anti-Mormon argument again comes from a false premise that if an
idea precedes the known scriptural source, then the scriptural source copied
the idea from the preceding source. Agnostics use the same argument in
attacking the Bible. Agnostics argue that the code of Hammurabi preceded the
Ten Commandments in the Bible, ergo the Bible copied the Ten Commandments from
Hammurabi. Agnostics claim that the Sumerians had legends of a global flood
before the account of Noah in the Bible, hence the Bible merely adopted
Sumerian legends. The Phoenicians and Semites had traditions of sacrificing the
king's eldest son for the sins of the people, which agnostics ascribe as the
source for Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.
On this playing
field the true gospel holds a distinct advantage over the Christian
anti-Mormon, who cannot defend his own religious beliefs against the agnostic
critic using the same premise anti-Mormons throw at the Church. Members of the
Church know from the Books of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price
that God taught the complete gospel to Adam and all the Old Testament prophets
from the beginning, Moses 6:62:
62. And now,
behold I say unto you: this is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the
blood of mine Only Begotten who shall come in the meridian of time.
Therefore,
through the true teachings of the gospel we learn that the Code of Hammurabi,
the global flood legends of the Sumerians, and the crude concepts of the
atonement held by the Phoenicians and Semites actually constituted corrupt
versions of the true gospel handed down from the days of Adam. In short,
biblical gospel principles did not derive from pagan traditions; the pagan
traditions actually derived from true gospel principles taught to the
patriarchs and were corrupted through time.
The same
concepts apply to arguments raised by anti-Mormons that parts of the restored
gospel as taught by Joseph Smith are derivative. To the contrary, the gospel
has existed from the foundation of the earth and man corrupted it during many
apostasies. One would expect to find corrupt pieces of the gospel everywhere. As
stated in Hebrews 4:2:
2. For unto us
was the gospel preached, as well as unto them (people in ancient times): but
the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that
heard it.
Conclusion.
Once more, your
mission is too short to dwell on every specific ant-Mormon allegation. If you
study the gospel in your scripture, you’ll find the answers you need to any
important question. If you cannot find the answer to a religious question in
the scriptures, chances are the question is merely a distraction without
substance. Again:
- Always
adhere to the proper standard of proof in religious discussions.
- Start with
the nature and character of God first. If a person gets the nature and
character of God wrong, then everything else thereafter will be wrong.
- Always
examine the premises used in any discussion. A wrong premise will lead to
a wrong result. Anti-Mormons are notorious for foisting the wrong premise
on members of The Church who then feel obligated to defend them.
- Hold anti-Mormons to the same standards they’re holding you.
One time on my
mission we tracted a single man and gave him a door approach on eternal
families. It was the worst door approach I ever gave to anyone. Yet the man
joined the Church with his girlfriend, another friend of his, plus that
friend’s wife and children, and the friend’s sister. It proved to me that when
the time, place and people are right, the Holy Ghost will intervene and
conversion will take place despite the lack of a slick approach.
You are a great
person son, and blessed with a strong testimony. Throughout your life you have
been blessed with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Stay close to the Spirit and
you will obtain the knowledge you need to teach. If you have specific
questions, please ask and I’ll try to answer them. But you will do your best
work by just teaching the gospel straight up through your discussions and
testimony.
Love,
DAD
DAD
__________________________________________
1 Talking with
Atheists involves similar principles but with some variation that involves a
tangent probably not relevant to your present concerns.
2 One modern variant for this argument derives from the
general law of thermodynamics that deals with entropy in the universe. Entropy
states that systems in the universe left to themselves tend to shift toward chaos
rather than order. Accordingly, evidence of any order in the universe proves
the existence of an intelligence providing the structure i.e. God. This is God
as the Watchmaker argument. Another modern variant involves the principles of
probability i.e. what are the chances that a world as complex as ours evolved
spontaneously from chaos.
3 I don't want to discount logic altogether. It is important
that our belief in God not be wholly illogical. It would be impossible to
believe in a God who simultaneously wanted our eternal salvation and eternal
damnation. Our beliefs about the nature of God must be logically consistent or
our minds would reject the subject completely.
4 Once more the gospel teaches that there are actually three
separate and distinct members, but each being a member of the Godhead is God
5 Along a similar line anti-Mormons criticize the gospel for
the aphorism: "As man is God
once was, as God is, man may become." Yet
Jesus as God was as man is. Jesus also commanded us: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as
your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48. It is interesting to ask
the Christian anti-Mormon if he believes God is a loving Father, and if he is
all-powerful. Then ask if an all-powerful God can create children capable of
becoming like him. If God can create children that are capable of becoming like
him, and he is a loving Father, what reason would he have for creating inferior
children?
6 Even Gerald and Sandra Tanner rejected the Spaulding
Manuscript theory.
_____________________________________________________
Meridian Magazine, 8/19/2013, http://ldsmag.com/article-1-774/
