In my ongoing endeavor to teach Evangelicals “the art” of sharing our faith with Latter-day Saints I decided to write the second installment of Averting an Affront When Witnessing.  This month’s blog is somewhat unusual because near the end I also tell of how a seasoned Mormon unexpectedly reciprocated my own advice thus having the same affect on me that I wish more Evangelicals would have on LDS.

I begin with LDS missionary, Elder Smith, who shared with me how he came to know the truth of Joseph Smith and the LDS Church by having faith in the Book of Mormon.  Elder Smith waxed philosophical by quoting Hebrews 11 verse 1 which explains: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (KJV) and then posed a few life-examples as evidence of our belief without proof per se.

When it was my turn to share I pointed out how unreliable this faith test of a prophet really was as evidenced by genuinely sincere Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and even Muslims who have used the same test and come to conclusions that were diametrically opposed to his own.  I proceeded to explain that when it comes to testing for the truth or falsity of a prophet the biblical prescription is much more tangible and less ethereal.  I asked Elder Smith to read 1 John, chapter 4, verses 1 through 4 and then made the following observations:

• the passage was in the specific context of exposing “false prophets” (v. 1);
• the test was objectively doctrinal (i.e. the doctrine that exposed false prophets was their confession that Jesus Christ DID NOT “come in the flesh”– v. 3 KJV);
• the faith test advocated by Elder Smith was NOT part of the prescription.

My goal, of course, was to get Elder Smith to at least acknowledge the logic and validity of the biblical prescription for testing and exposing false prophets and the relative unreliability of the faith test in and of itself.  Elder Smith would not budge—I suspect it was for fear of what testing the truth of Joseph Smith and the LDS Church on more objective biblical grounds might reveal.  He then responded with a clever question and asked: “When you became a Christian how did you initially come to know the truth of the Bible?”  My response to Elder Smith’s question brings me to the main point of this blog.

Knowing deep down that I initially came to faith in the truth of the Bible much the same way Elder Smith came to know the truth of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon (i.e. without any objectively tangible evidence) I had a choice to make.  I could either (1) do what Elder Smith did and save face by NOT acknowledging the validity of his point or (2) validate his point at the risk of strengthening his argument, at least in his eyes.  I chose the latter but with two important qualifications that I will mention in a moment. 

Suffice it to say, as difficult as validating Elder Smith’s point would have been for most Evangelicals, there is much more to be gained than lost by doing so.  Allow me to explain.  Pulling an obvious “duck-and-cover” so to speak would risk losing credibility in his eyes insofar as my willingness to be vulnerable, open-minded and honest.  Moreover, it could taint any of my previous or future testimony.  Conversely, by unashamedly validating Elder Smith I could demonstrate that (1) he is not my opponent but a person for whom I am genuinely concerned and (2) I am willing to do what he knows deep down he is not—to concede an opposing point without fear.

After readily admitting that I came to faith in Christ and the truth of the Bible much the same way Elder Smith defined faith, I made two important qualifications: First, although my faith was void of evidence at the time and in a sense “blind,” it was my subsequent quest for the objective evidence God left for the truth of the Bible that gave it a firm foundation.  I pointed out a similar biblical precedent where, concerning His resurrection, Christ says to Thomas: “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (Jn. 20:29b NIV) and Luke writes that Christ “gave many convincing proofs that he was alive” (Acts 1:3 NIV).  In other words, the testimony Christ left with, and that was proclaimed by, His apostles was not based on a blind faith, but eyewitness accounts (see Lk. 1:2; Acts 2:32), and all other believers are to draw upon on this evidence in support of our faith. 

Second, as a result of my faith in the truth of the Bible I now know that God commands me to test prophets not merely by my sincere faith and prayer, but specifically by their doctrines of God (see Dt. 13:1-13), Jesus (see Jn. 8:24; 1 Jn. 4:1-4), the Gospel (see Gal. 1:8-9) and the Resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15:17). No matter how sincerely I pray and want to believe that a prophet is true, if his/her doctrines contradict God’s revelation in the Bible I am culpable for not rejecting them as false.  Once again, nowhere in all these tests is Elder Smith’s faith test a part of the prescription.  (See Rocks #3 and #4 for more information.)

Ironic though it may be, I am convinced that had I not conceded the validity of Elder Smith’s view of faith he would have written me off as another in a long list of Evangelicals who simply wanted to debate with my head stuck in the sand.

Now for a word or two about the surprising reciprocation by a seasoned Mormon.

A couple of days later I was in dialog with a retired LDS gentleman by the name of Mr. Jones who, along with two other LDS missionaries, shared the LDS plan of salvation with me.  Mr. Jones further explained that God foreordained and approved that Adam and Eve should sin by partaking of the forbidden fruit thus making manifest the gift of their free agency and opening the door to procreation for the human race.

I responded by clarifying that we had all earlier agreed that no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God (see 3 Nephi 27:19) and that if anyone was holy, pure and perfect it was God the Father.  Mr. Jones and the two missionaries agreed whole-heartedly.  I then stated the difficulty I saw in reconciling this Evangelical and LDS axiom with how the LDS doctrine seemingly impugns the holiness of God.  I concluded by asking: “Couldn’t God have made manifest the gift of free agency by simply giving Adam and Even the choice to procreate instead of foreordaining and even approving of their sin?”

Mr. Jones’ response to my question brings me to the main point of this blog once again.  He answered with four words that I rarely hear from Latter-day Saints in the midst of discussing our doctrinal differences—“I see your point.”          

I was not only pleasantly surprised, but it really felt good to have both my feelings and logic validated and this by a veteran member of “the Church.”  Mr. Jones didn’t sport a head full of gray hair for nothing—it was apparent that the wisdom he exhibited that day was the same wisdom we at Share the Son Ministries strive to impart to Evangelicals every chance we get.

It is fitting to conclude that although validating, or even conceding, another’s differing point of view is no guarantee that our objectivity has in fact led us to the truth, at the very least, it demonstrates to ourselves, and others, that we may be genuinely interested in seeking it.

Charis kai eirene (Grace and peace), Mike

x