Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 14:1-4

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:

3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;

4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

In the last chapter we heard all about the ways that a priest would diagnose a person with leprosy, and how such a person would have to then live in semi-quarantine, but today we hear what would happen when the leprous person was healed. The term “leprosy” in the Bible seems to cover a broad array of skin infections, and some of them would heal after some time. The leprous person, having been declared ritually unclean, would now need a ritual to be brought back into the fold, returned to full clean status with all his brothers and sisters.

An interesting bit of information comes in verse 3, where we learn that the priest would go out of the camp to where the leper lived. Obviously, this is because the leper needs to be cleansed before he can come into the midst of the people where the tabernacle is.

There is in this an obvious representation of the prodigal son who leaves the fold to embrace his sins, who then has a “come to Jesus” moment and returns to the faith that he had abandoned. And as in that story, the priest/father goes out to meet him while still afar off and brings him the rest of the way home. Even today, we see how a wayward soul trying to return may not immediately feel one with the community of the Lord, and requires some sort of ritual to fully bring him in. He needs something that feels like God coming into his heart, a place of shame and guilt, to claim him. Perhaps this ritualistic God-claiming occurs today when the sinner makes confession to a priest, or takes communion, or some other significant act that represents putting off the unclean sinner and taking on the cleansed disciple.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Being Right vs Being True

There is a world of difference between wanting to be right,
Versus wanting to be true.
Seek to be true, even when it reveals that you weren’t right.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Summary

Wandering Thoughts)

I’ve spent the last two weeks on this series, discussing the ineffective and outright bigoted ways that people evangelize against other faiths. It is a subject that has stirred my passions many times in the past, and certainly again while writing each post. At several points I thought I was finished but then had “one more thing” that I wanted to include. I apologize that this hasn’t made the series very structured. What you see in this blog is my personal study in its raw form, not a refined or final product.

As such, I thought I ought to make one final post to summarize everything that came before, to try and bring it into a clearer, more concise package. Here are what I personally take out as the core distinctions described in this study:

1. The distinction between having a respectful dialogue on doctrinal differences and trying to win an argument over the beliefs of another.

A respectful dialogue on doctrinal differences is defined by:

  • Seeking a sincere understanding of the other’s position.
  • Letting each side define their own beliefs.
  • Acknowledging personal uncertainty, admitting to gaps that are filled by faith.
  • Being open to being wrong, to gaining greater enlightenment and changing.
  • Being driven by a spirit of brotherhood, with genuine appreciation for one another.

Trying to win argument over the beliefs of another is defined by:

  • Being filled with a spirit of destruction.
  • Trying to define the faith of the other.
  • Mocking what is sacred to the other.
  • Maintaining absolute certainty in one’s position, considering it impossible to be wrong.
  • Being fueled by a spirit of contempt, needing to own one’s opponent, needing to condemn them.

2. The distinction between evangelizing for a faith vs evangelizing against a faith.

Evangelizing for a faith is defined by:

  • First establishing a genuine relationship of care and respect for the other party.
  • Speaking from the beauty of your gospel.
  • Inviting all to listen and learn more if they wish.
  • Presenting your doctrine as something to add to the faith they already have.
  • If the other party is not interested in investigating further, still maintaining respect and an ongoing relationship of brotherly-kindliness.
  • Leaving all judgments to God, not assuming His position.

Evangelizing against a faith is defined by:

  • Describing all that is wrong in the other’s faith.
  • Seeking to take away what faith a person has.
  • Condemning the other person, standing in for God to judge them.
  • Offering your doctrine as the last remaining option after their original faith has been destroyed.
  • Creating a relationship of spiritual dependency in the other person.

In Conclusion)

I spent so long on this subject because I believe it describes a pernicious evil that goes largely unrecognized in our culture. It is presented under the guise of “I’m trying to help save souls,” but secretly seeks to crush them. It is one of the most relevant modern examples of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and it is those sneaky, camouflaged sins that need the most attention to call them out.

I also wanted to be clear that I’ve been on both sides of these matters, and I shared about those experiences a few times in this study. I know what it is to have a positive, uplifting, mutually-faith-reinforcing conversation with people that believe differently from me. I also know what it is to want to win an argument and decimate the doctrines of another person. I’m trying to live after the better pattern now, but I have at times given in to ego and pride just like anyone else. As such, I know the spirits that lie behind both approaches. I know that the first kind is good, and of God. I know that the second is evil, and of Satan.

I know the pure, clarifying, life-giving water of genuine spiritual dialogue. I know the devilish surge of adrenalin in the wine of contention. The latter is seductive, but the former is life-giving, and I hope that you and I may approach one another as brothers and sisters and share a drink of it together.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- The Example of Joseph Smith

A Principle of Tolerance)

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and as such, have been instilled with the principles of religious liberty and mutual respect that our founders so strongly espoused. I do not know if many outsiders understand how deeply that principle is ingrained within our church. I would like to give two quotes that demonstrate the sort of teaching that we were given on the matter by our founder, Joseph Smith.

First, when asked by newspaper editor John Wentworth to give a description of our beliefs Joseph Smith detailed our 13 most fundamental tenets, now canonized as our 13 Articles of Faith. Number 11 reads as follows: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

Even more emphatically, Joseph Smith declared the following to a gathered congregation of the church in Nauvoo, “If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.”

Further Context)

It should be noted that Joseph penned the first quote in 1842, he spoke the second quote in 1843, and he was murdered in 1844. Before making either of those quotes, Joseph Smith had already been disparaged, tortured, and nearly killed many times over. His people had had their homes burned, their women raped, and their men slaughtered. Since 1838 the state of Missouri had had a standing order permitting the killing of any member of the church.

It is certain that some of those who oppressed and killed Joseph Smith and his people were of the same denominations that he spoke in defense of the rights of in 1843. He made that declaration knowing full well who his attackers were, apparently able to separate the devilish nature of the individual from the respectable faith of the whole.

Of course, the doctrines he restored stood in disagreement to doctrines in those other churches. And yes, he taught that these other churches had adopted false creeds which were an abomination to God. But those doctrinal disagreements did not mean that he reviled the sincere holders of those beliefs or wanted their churches to be crushed. Indeed, his words show quite the opposite. Joseph Smith is arguably one of the most perfect examples of both having utmost respect for the beliefs of others, while also disagreeing profoundly with them. He knew that people have the right to their faith, and that changing the beliefs of another was to be done only by loving invitation, not by decimation of their doctrine. I will finish with just a few more quotes from him that illustrate this clearly.

“If I esteem mankind to be in error shall I bear them down? No! I will lift them up… If I cannot persuade him my way is better, I will ask no man to believe as I do,” (Joseph Smith Papers).

“In relation to the power…which I hold, I would say it is in consequence of the power of truth in the doctrines which I have been an instrument in the hands of God of presenting unto them and not because of any compulsion on my part… I ask, did I ever exercise any compulsion over any man? Did I not give him the liberty of disbelieving any doctrine I have preached if he saw fit?” (Joseph Smith Papers).

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained… only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned,” (D&C 121:41).

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- The Folly of Condemning

Illogical Condemnation)

It is a strange experience listening to the predominant criticisms of my faith, the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most critics make it a point to express that we are not sinful or selfish people. They acknowledge that we tend to be a kind, caring, sacrificing, serving, and loving community. In statistical studies we regularly rank at the top for charitable giving, family cohesion, Biblical knowledge, and clean living. When our own people of Grand Blanc, Michigan were slaughtered in their pews for their faith last year, our community contributed heavily to the family of the shooter who also died in the tragedy. Everyone seems to agree that our behavior is exemplary, that our attitude is in great alignment with what Christ exemplified.

So, what then is our great evil that requires such a drastic intervention of evangelists coming to break our faith and convict us of our damnable state? Wrong-think.

Our loudest critics respect the sort of people our beliefs have cultivated us to be, but they still intend to crush those beliefs so we can finally be saved. They want to chop down the “evil” tree, even as they admit to it bearing good fruit. It is a paradox that they cannot reasonably explain, they only know that they want to kill this tree regardless of the good it serves. They do not consider whether the fruit will wither if the tree is dead.

In the end, their intention is the same as Thomas Sanford, that shooter who slaughtered our congregants in Grand Blanc, Michigan. It may be a quieter version of that spirit, but they still hold that same intention to destroy. They show a complete ignorance and utter lack of respect for the thing they want to kill, but kill it they must.

Sinful Condemnation)

If it wasn’t clear already, I’m pretty fired up about this topic. I believe that the disrespect for the sincere beliefs of another is a grave stain in our society, especially when the subject of that disrespect is otherwise a commendable citizen and neighbor. The sin that is being performed here is playing God.

At the end of the day, even the best of us are idiots, and idiots have no place condemning a brother. That is rightfully only the Lord’s position, and the rest of us should leave judgment to Him. Playing God is wrong, no matter which of us do it, but when the people doing it are condemning those who are statistically more moral, it is particularly backwards and infuriating.

It is infuriating when I do it. It is infuriating when you do it. And worse than infuriating, it is a sin. Jesus explicitly forbade it in Matthew 7:1-2. “Condemn not, that ye be not condemned. For with what condemnation ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Those who love to tell me how stupid I am for believing Joseph Smith is a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and most importantly who tell me that I’m going to hell because of these beliefs, are condemning me where they have no right to do so. Their condemnation of me has no effect on the state of my soul, that remains strictly between me and God, but as Jesus explained in those verses, their condemnation does have an effect on the state of their own future judgment. I pray that they will seek forgiveness for their condemning spirit.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Can You Change?

Follower of Truth)

Yesterday I spoke about how each of us not only require faith that God is real, but that we are following Him in the right way. Personally, I do believe in receiving spiritual witnesses from God, and I have received them myself, but even those still leave me in a place of faith and trust, not perfect knowledge.

In the end, this means that I have to accept that I could be wrong. I could be in the right church, but wrong in my conception of it. Or I could be in the right family of faith, Christianity, but wrong in the specific denomination I attend. Or I could be right about there being a God, but wrong about following Christ. Or I could be wrong about there even being a God. All of these are possible. At each deeper level, I feel more certain of my belief. I feel so certain of many of them that it would take a divine intervention to unseat me…but even so, I could still be wrong.

When it comes to the church that I am baptized in, the leaders that I listen to, the spiritual rituals that I observe, and the standard of life I try to live, I do these things because I think they are right and I am trying to follow the Truth. My first and foremost commitment is to the Truth, and I am trying to follow it wherever it leads me. It has led me to change some aspects of my discipleship, and it has reinforced others, and I expect it to continue to do so until I meet it face-to-face.

Willingness to Change)

I frankly do not believe that it is the same with many who come to accuse me of false beliefs. In conversations with them I have tried to express this shared foundation of uncertainty, the fact that both of us are operating on faith, the mutual possibility of being wrong, and the humility with which we should therefore approach one another…only to have them refuse to meet me on this common ground. They express that they know their creeds are divinely authored. They know their interpretations are correct. They know that I am wrong and going to hell.

I found this unjustifiable certainty very confusing, and I described a theoretical to make sure I was understanding them correctly: “Let’s suppose you and I both die tomorrow, and we meet at the gates to heaven, and Jesus is there to welcome us, and he informs me that I was misguided in my faith. He says that I should have belonged to your church all along and not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this situation, I genuinely believe that I would accept his word. I would accept your position as being the correct one and mine as being wrong. What’s more, I would accept whatever judgment Christ has for me given that I went astray. Whatever his judgment is, it is, by definition, just and right. Or, if I would not be so gracious in correction, then I here admit it would be because I was proud, and arrogant, and more in love with my own conceptions than with my Savior.” And then, having given this theoretical and my personal feelings about it, my follow-up question to the person attacking my faith is very simple: “What about for you if the situation was reversed? If Jesus told you that you were wrong, would you renounce your faith and accept ‘Mormonism?'”

What I found very telling was how uncomfortable everyone became when I asked this question. They would not give me straight answers. They would tell me that what I was asking was a logical impossibility, and therefore pointless to engage with. They would say that Mormonism is false as an absolute fact, and that therefore the mental exercise was absurd. They would tell me that in my half of the theoretical it would be too late for me to accept the true faith after I had died, focusing on that aspect rather than addressing their half of the theoretical. One way or another, they simply would not entertain the possibility of receiving correction in their faith, even as a thought experiment. They were closed-minded and closed-hearted, and there really was no point in continuing a conversation with them.

A healthy dialogue of differences can only be had between two people who are both seeking the truth. But to be a seeker of truth, by definition, means not yet having it fully. When one of the people in the conversation is not a seeker, when they insist upon already being the haver and the other person being the not-haver, then they hold a fundamental air of superiority and have closed themselves to one direction of dialogue only: them telling you what is right, and you accepting it or staying wrong. There can be no back-and-forth, no mutual understanding, no lifting each other to greater clarity. This is a pattern of domineering and abuse, and it is not how Christ meant for us to reason with one another. Once a person shows that they will insist on such a dynamic, I will not continue to participate any further. I insist on better than “perfect” knowers. I insist on flawed seekers of truth.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Admission of Uncertainty

Admission of Faith)

Today I wanted to cover one more example I frequently see of un-Christlike and ineffective doctrinal critique. An attitude that once it manifests, I conclude that the critic is acting in bad faith, more interested in winning a debate than convincing a brother.

And that is when they show absolute certainty of their position.

I believe this bad-faith approach is an extension of our debate culture. In a formal debate, there is no room for uncertainty and nuance. A debater must show absolute confidence in his opinion, and his only aim is to prove that position is correct. I find it very tiring that so much of online discourse falls into this same mindset, that people cannot merely share different views, or disagree, or even argue like real people anymore.

Because real people actually know very little and believe very much. And real people are able to admit that.

As I have said all throughout this series, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I believe that my church is true. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, I believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, I believe that this church is uniquely endowed with the priesthood authority of Christ, I believe that the path to fulness of union with God is through the principles and ordinances of the gospel, I believe the unique teachings of the premortal existence and afterlife and the potential to become like God are true. I believe all of these points, some of them extremely strongly, and also…I could be wrong on all of them.

I admit to true and sincere faith, not to sure and certain knowing. I am an active member of my church because I genuinely believe in its divine mission, but I cannot claim that there is zero chance that I have been deceived. I genuinely think that I am both rational and well-attuned to the spirit and conscience within me, but I have been wrong about some things in the past, and I can be wrong about more.

I am willing to admit all this because it is honest. One might think this admission might present a weak and vulnerable point, but not really, because I know that any critic of my beliefs is also operating by faith in areas of uncertainty, just like me. Just as I cannot perfectly know my position is right, you cannot perfectly know that it is wrong. Yet there are many critics that pretend that they do know perfectly, and once they make that arrogance clear I have no interest in listening to them any further, because they are liars, deluded by their own pride.

Gaps in Every Faith)

The fact is that every single one of us has gaps in our knowledge of the truth. Gaps that have to be filled with faith. When we pretend to have no gaps, that is when we are truly deceived.

Every Christian has faith that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of the world, but even beyond that they have faith that their own church is in alignment with that Lord and Savior. Because, if we are being honest, every Christian church in the world today has a gap between them and Jesus, and that gap has to be filled with faith.

When we look at the earliest Christian churches, there is a gap of decades between the end of the New Testament, and the next Christian writers. And among those writers (Ignatius, Clement, Didache, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.) we see disagreements and division. Thus, there is a gap of certainty to be filled with faith on which, if any, of the second wave Christian writers were correct. Eventually these doctrinal divisions led to the establishment of formal creeds to settle the disputes. This is another gap of certainty as to whether the conclusions of those creeds were correct, or whether the oppositions to them were. Eventually major schisms occurred, such as the separation of the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches, and this is another gap of certainty as to which side, if either, was correct. Later, some would accuse the church of having lost its way. Another gap of uncertainty. Reformers would attempt to correct the orthodoxy through the formation of new churches. Another gap. And in some cases, such as with my faith, it is believed the true authority had been lost long before, and had to be entirely restored, not just reformed. Another gap, to be sure.

And then, even after all that, even if a specific Christian church is the true embodiment of our Lord’s gospel today, an individual within that church will still need to correctly understand and interpret that church’s doctrine, which is yet another gap of certainty.

The reality is that each and every one of us has many gaps that we fill with faith to hold the beliefs that we do, and anyone who claims otherwise is deceived. If there were not these points of uncertainty, there could be no honest disagreement about what Christ’s truth was, and clearly that is not the world we live in. Ideally each of us would say that even though we believe we have found the truth that is most consistent, most justifiable, most supported by the evidence…that we can still acknowledge that others who disagree may have sincere and valid reasons for doing so.

On top of our faith in Christ, there is faith that we are also in his correct church, and there is faith that we understand the doctrines of that correct church correctly. And so, we believe and express that belief sincerely, but we also couple that conviction with the humble admission that our knowledge is imperfect, and that other people have good reasons for thinking something different.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Making Up Beliefs

Defining My Faith)

I am in the middle of describing patterns of un-Christlike and ineffective evangelism. These are ways that people show that they are coming to the table in bad faith, more interested in owning their “opponent” than convincing a “brother.”

Today I will be highlighting the practice of defining another person’s beliefs for them. This is a theological strawman argument, where you assert beliefs that another church holds, and show why those beliefs are ridiculous. The only problem, though, is that the people in that faith doesn’t actually hold those beliefs!

Recently I saw this video of Jonathan Pageau expressing this exact experience in critics of his Eastern Orthodox faith, and it was interesting to see that his church is experiencing the same sort of misrepresentation that mine does. This is not a limited experience, rather it seems to be a common technique of spiritual bigotry.

One of the most common ways this is used against my faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is to find an outlandish quote of a long-since past church leader and demanding that we defend the doctrinal views expressed there. It doesn’t matter that neither I, nor any members of my faith actually hold that position, we’re told that we are required to. A requirement that actually goes against our fundamental understanding of authority, as we explicitly claim to not view our leaders as infallible!

Another common critique is our worship of Joseph Smith. Something that we simply never have done and never will! He has only ever been held in the same esteem as any other prophet or leader of God’s people. The same that any other Christian would view Moses or Peter, that is how the Saints have viewed Joseph from 1820 until now. He is extremely important, an essential character in the history of the faith, deserving of our respect and study…but never worshipped. Worship is limited to our God and Jesus and no one else. But you cannot imagine the number of times I have told that to people, only to have them smile, shake their heads, and inform me that that’s not what I really believe.

Speak For Yourself)

One of my favorite experiences while serving as a missionary for my church was when we came across a Pandit of the Hindu faith. We sat down with him for probably about an hour and heard him explain his faith in his own terms. It was beautiful. I really learned a great deal in a short amount of time, saw parallels between our beliefs that I never expected, and left realizing that Hinduism was far less “weird” than I had been led to assume. Did I leave as a Hindu? No. But I left as a better person for having let a person define his own faith to me, rather than trying to force him into the box of my misconceptions.

So it should be in all of these conversations. Unless you have spent extensive time studying the beliefs of a faith from the actual practitioners, you do not understand their faith and cannot debate its merits with accuracy. And obviously, most critics of a faith will have instead only learned about it from its detractors, and there cannot be a worse method of education than that!

But even if you do learn the church’s theology in a genuine manner, that still tells you nothing about the idiosyncrasies in the faith of the individual within that system. Some people are orthodox and some people are lax. Some people put more emphasis on what the scripture says, some people prefer the teachings of their modern leaders, and some people are guided by their own conscience. Even when all the same doctrines are shared by a people, different lenses and perspectives will result in a broad array of diverse interpretations of those doctrines. Thus, after you have done the genuine work to understand the faith as a whole, then you still must learn the faith of the individual that you are actually speaking to.

Thus, if your first interaction with me is to speak against my faith, you are a fool. You don’t even know anything about what my faith even is, and if you don’t know anything about what it is, then what is your justification in speaking against it?