|
Printer
Friendly Version - opens in separate window *** This article first posted 2 April 2008 ***
M Russell Ballard is a Mormon apostle and chairman of the church's Public Affairs Committee. In an experiment designed to test the viability of news conferences using internet technology, the church released a series of video clips in October 2007 in which he addressed some of the questions most frequently asked by the news media. In a statement on their official web site the church said:
"The video clips were produced to help better
define the Church in the public mind - especially among journalists
- at a time when it has become the subject of nationwide discussion.
A series of national opinion polls has shown that a large segment
of the population knows little or nothing about the Church."
The questions addressed in what we are told may be the first in a series of such interviews were:
Are you Christian? What is the role of Jesus Christ in your faith?
Do you worship Jesus Christ in your Sunday services?
Why do some people say you are a cult?
In what ways are you similar to other Christians?
In what ways do you differ from other Christians?
Was Joseph Smith a prophet? Are prophets necessary today?
Is there scientific proof authenticating the Book of Mormon?
Does the Church support political candidates?
One of the most common questions they say is, "Are Mormons Christians?"
In responding to question 3, he said, "I think
it is a matter of misunderstanding. I think it's a matter of characterization
that has grown up over the generations of time by the lack of
understanding."
On the face of it this seems a healthy exercise in informing and enlightening the public in the face of a general lack of understanding. Such exercises in explaining are so accepted a part of Mormonism however that we perhaps fail to reflect on how very peculiar they are for a church that calls itself Christian. Of course, every organisation produces publicity these days, even local Evangelical churches having their own web sites, blogs etc. but, where other churches tell the gospel and advertise church programmes, the Mormon Church seems to be constantly fighting a rearguard action against misunderstandings and misconceptions. This is all the more puzzling for a church that has a professional Public Affairs Committee, local, regional and global publicity initiatives and a relentless programme of self-promotion. Is Mormonism hard to understand? Why does the church continually have to "explain" itself? Who is causing the apparent confusion?
We begin to understand the source of misunderstandings, so-called,
when we look at M Russell Ballard's answer to the question,
"Is there scientific proof authenticating the Book of Mormon?"
This is a good and legitimate question since Mormons claim that
the Book of Mormon is an historical document telling the true
history, secular and sacred, of the Americas, the main period
covered being from BC 600 to AD 421. This is not a particularly
remote period in the world's history and a simple answer one would
expect may be eminently accessible. The plain answer is, "No,
there is no scientific proof authenticating the Book of Mormon."
Ballard's reply was rather more circumspect:
"I don't believe that's how people will ever
come to know whether or not the Book of Mormon is the word of
God. I remember an experience that I had as mission president
some years ago when I presided over the affairs of the Church
in Eastern Canada. I met with about 30 different ministers of
different religions and then I let them ask me questions and the
very first question I was asked was by a fine minister who said,
"Mr. Ballard, if you just give us the gold plates and let us see
that they exist, then we would know that the Book of Mormon is
true." And I looked at him and I said, "Father, you know better
than that. You're a man of the cloth. You know that God has never
revealed religious truth to the heart and soul of a man or a woman
except by the power of the spirit. Now you could have those plates,
you could turn the pages, you could look at it, you could hold
it, and you wouldn't know any more after that experience whether
or not the book is true than you would have before. My question
to you; have you ever read the Book of Mormon?" And he said, "No,
I haven't." That's how people will come to know whether or not
the Book of Mormon is true. You will not get to know it by trying
to prove it archeologically or by DNA or by anything else in my
judgment. Just pick it up and read it and pray about it and you
will come to know religious truth is always confirmed by what
you feel and that's the way Heavenly Father answers prayers."
Like a consummate politician, he has answered a completely different question. No one asked whether it is the word of God, as important as that may be to a Mormon. No wonder there is apparent confusion when a Mormon leader can't give a straight answer to a straight question. What is happening here? It's simple really. When someone answers a question they think you ought to have asked and not the question you asked they are not bringing clarity where there was confusion, they are changing the subject. They are saying, "I don't want you to think about it like that, I want you to think about it like this."
He doesn't want you to think about Book of Mormon archaeology because there is no such thing. He wants you, instead, to think about and adopt the Mormon view of revelation:
"You know that God has never revealed religious
truth to the heart and soul of a man or a woman except by the
power of the spirit... You will not get to know it by trying to
prove it archeologically or by DNA or by anything else in my judgment."
This is surprisingly close to the current secular understanding of faith as something that is fed by ignorance and held to against the evidence.
However, saving faith is consistent with knowledge and a true understanding of facts. Indeed, faith can be defined in three steps; intellectual understanding, emotional approval and personal decision. It is not true that Christians are asked to emotionally and personally commit to a message that is intellectually inadequate. Contrary to popular lore, the Bible makes frequent appeals to our intellectual processes and to evidences that challenge our thinking.
Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome, "Faith comes from hearing
the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ"
(Ro.10:17). The call to faith, the message, is based on
real events, evidenced by historical verities and eye-witness
reports. Paul wrote to the Galatians, who had strayed from the
pure message he had preached, "Who has
bewitched you? Before your very eyes Christ was portrayed as crucified"
(Gal.3:1). There was an empty tomb, living witnesses, names,
dates, places, and an historical provenance all of which could
be known intellectually.
Of course, facts alone do not make saving faith. Even the demons
have a firm grasp of the facts (James 2:19). The facts attested
to by creation; by God's acting in history in choosing a people
for himself, giving the law and then fulfilling it in Christ;
by the life, crucifixion, burial and resurrection of His Son;
by the establishment of his church on the testimony of living
witnesses and in the work of the Holy Spirit; all these facts
together challenge us to give emotional consent to the truth.
This realisation of the truth, in turn, challenges us to make
a personal commitment. Christians are saved because of the facts
not in spite of the facts or in the absence of facts and when
Ballard insists that, "God has never revealed
religious truth to the heart and soul of a man or a woman except
by the power of the spirit" he is only telling part of
the truth. Of course truth is revealed to the heart by the Spirit,
but it is the intellect that conveys to the heart the facts to
which the Spirit testifies. If there are no facts there is nothing
to know, and nothing to which we can reasonably commit ourselves.
It might be argued that conversion is seldom so neat a process, personal commitment following on from emotional approval based on intellectual understanding. However, whether ours is a crisis experience or a process nevertheless intellectual content is always a substantial part of conversion. Many come to faith out of an instinctive realisation of a need for and a seeking after God only afterwards seeking intellectual order to what they have come to believe. Nevertheless, the Bible still challenges us to deal with known facts and intellectually established truth.
Mormons, however, consider it a virtue to believe in the absence
of facts and ask people to give emotional consent to what cannot
be intellectually verified, indeed is intellectually implausible,
and to make a personal commitment on the basis of emotional subjectivity
based on Moroni's promise. That is exactly what Ballard is doing
in his answer, by asking, "Have you ever read
the Book of Mormon?" and insisting, "That's
how people will come to know whether or not the Book of Mormon
is true. You will not get to know it by trying to prove it archeologically
or by DNA or by anything else in my judgment. Just pick it up
and read it and pray about it and you will come to know religious
truth is always confirmed by what you feel and that's the way
Heavenly Father answers prayers."
Some time ago I received an email from a Mormon friend, the signature of which read, "Never mind the doctrine, feel the love". This kind of non-thinking leads to a form of Gnosticism where the claims of the Mormon are rendered invulnerable to criticism from outside by the fact that the Mormon has had a certain experience. "I know the church is true", goes the mantra of this new Gnosticism, "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God." But this knowledge has no basis in reality, instead depending on purely subjective experiences and impressions gained while reading a book the provenance of which is in serious question.
Lest Evangelical believers get smug about this, I should say that
this is a problem amongst Christians. In an essay entitled Theology
and the Church: Divorce or Remarriage? Carl Trueman, Professor
of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, makes an
impassioned appeal to the church and the Christian academy to
understand and complement each other's work, lamenting the fact
that too many believers put knowledge and experience in opposition
to one another. Our faith has a basis in the real world around
us, can stand close intellectual scrutiny, and is intellectually
compelling as well as spiritually challenging. That cannot be
said of Mormonism.
The apparent confusion a Mormon might perceive in people's minds regarding the Mormon faith is not based on ignorance and misunderstanding on the part of non-Mormons. Indeed, those who take the time to study the Mormon Church and its beliefs have little difficulty understanding its provenance, progress and development. Rather, they struggle only with understanding the credulity that leads someone to believe such implausible claims. The Mormon is simply predisposed to assume misunderstanding on the part of critics because that is the only way he can explain to himself why people reject what he "knows" is true. This approach is modelled by leaders like M Russell Ballard who, notwithstanding being an apostle of the church, can throw no more light into the dark corners of Mormonism and is thrown back on having to appeal to the enquirer to "pray about it". Of course, this all sounds rather virtuous, praying about it and receiving spiritual impressions, but the Berean spirit (Acts 17) tells us that we are not to be satisfied with having a good impression of either the message or the messenger. No less an authority than the apostle Paul was put to intellectually rigorous testing by the Bereans "to see if what Paul said was true" and they were commended for it!
Finally, it must be realised that, while there is a paucity of Mormon facts to support Mormon claims nevertheless there is a raft of factual information to challenge and refute those claims. Indeed, established facts in those very areas that M Russell Ballard insists will never satisfy the enquirer regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon show Mormonism to be untrue. New World archaeology, DNA, historical data, hermeneutics, biblical theology, a range of disciplines show that the Book of Mormon is not "true" as Mormons claim.
The confusion is on the part of the Mormons who refuse to address the facts and who studiously avoid the intellectual challenges that should be the familiar friends of true believers. If they would simply address the facts they would clear up any confusion and bring clarity and reality to their search for truth. Many have already done so and rejoice in coming to know the truth of the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians need to understand this and be encouraged to grow in the knowledge of their faith and confidently share it with their Mormon friends.
Recommended Reading:
Carl Trueman, The Wages of Spin, pub. Christian Focus Publications,
2004
Forster and Marston, Reason and Faith, pub. Monarch Publications,
1989
Peter Adam, Hearing God's Word, Exploring biblical spirituality,
New Studies in Biblical Theology Series, pub. IVP, 2004
|
