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

The Danger of Growth

Predetermined Expectations)

I grew up in an active Christian household. Every Sunday, I attended church with my family. There was never any consideration of not going, and through my childhood it never even dawned on me that that would even be an option.

Of course, at a certain point, I became a young adult and stopped living in my parents’ home. I started taking care of myself, making my own plans, my own decisions for the day. I remember it dawned on me that I didn’t have to go to church. I could just sleep in, or get chores down, or play. I could go once in a while, whenever I started to feel guilty about being away for too long. Or, I could keep going every Sunday, maintaining the same pattern I had been raised with.

I had a choice, and having realized such, my relationship with my faith could no longer be taken for granted. If I was going to remain a Churchgoer, it would not be by accident. It would be because I had actively chosen it for myself. And if I was going to be tepid in my faith, or backslide entirely, that would also not be by accident. It would be because I had actively chosen it.

I have heard that young adulthood is a point where many churches lose large swathes of their congregation, and given my own experiences at that time, I am not surprised. In our culture, his is the age in which we give full autonomy, and for many Christians, this the first time that they start considering other options. I have heard a lot of Church leaders asking how we can change this trend, how we can ensure we don’t lose people at this pivotal moment. Frankly, I think this falloff is inevitable. It is not a flaw in the system. It is simply a byproduct of choice.

Stronger Ties)

Having a choice means having the ability to choose the worse option, and there will always be some that choose it. If the ability to choose the worse option is removed, then there isn’t really any choice. And maybe that seems like a good thing. It prevents the bad outcomes. However, it also prevents the possibility for growth.

Growth requires a choice. Character development requires deciding to do what is right even when there are other tempting offers. Church attendance is just one example of this, but there are countless others. No one is truly courageous until he has chosen action over fearful retreat. No one is truly virtuous until he has turned down the opportunity to act out his lusts. No one is truly good until he has conquered the desire to be bad.

To have growth, you must have genuine choices, and genuine choices are dangerous things. It creates the possibility of failure but also creates the possibility of entering a new level of discipleship.

Some of those who recognize they can stop attending church choose to keep going anyway. Some decide to take a step away from church, but later on decided to come back. And for both of these groups of people, their status in the church is now more genuine, more real, more mature than ever before. Having made an actual choice, they are actually invested, they are there because they want to be, and they are giving up something else to make this a priority. They are attending church on purpose. They are successful, because they had the real possibility of failure.

There is no getting around this. Growth will always come with danger. The only way to remove danger is to deny growth, and that is an even worse outcome than failure.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faith vs Works- Two Common Myths

Over the past two days I have shared a collection of verses that establish both that salvation is by grace, through faith, and also that works and ordinances are essential to our salvation. Too often I hear people take up just one side or the other, sharing the verses that support that view, and ignoring those for the other side.

Over the next two days, I would like to further break down the walls between these two camps by dispelling the common myths that each one makes. By the end of this, I hope to have established an understanding that we must seek a theology that embraces all of God’s word, not just half of it. Let us look at two of the broader myths today and focus on two othes tomorrow.

Myth #1: The reason for the different perspectives in the Bible is because this was one of the first schisms in the early church. Paul and James had different theologies, and we must align with whichever one of them was “right” and abandon the other.

It is true that Paul leans much more heavily on faith in his teachings, and James on works, but it would not be accurate to say that Paul denies the need for good works, or that James denies the need for faith. People have cherry-picked their verses to create the illusion of opposing sides, but both apostles held a wider view of the gospel that encompassed both perspectives.

From James: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him, (James 5:15).

From Paul: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:10).

Not only this, but if we just look at the words of Christ, himself, we find statements that make clear the primacy of both faith and works.

If ye love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15).

And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace, (Luke 7:50).

So never matter what differing opinions the early church fathers did or didn’t have, even Jesus put top emphasis on both faith and works. There is no way to be in alignment with him unless we are willing to fully embrace both.

Myth #2: We are saved by faith/grace, but the evidence of it is in our works. Thus, both will be present in the truly saved soul, but one takes precedent over the other.

While it is certainly true that both faith and works must be present in the saved soul, it does not seem appropriate to put faith in a more fundamental place than works, or to say that works merely follow faith.

If this were the case, then no specific work would be considered essential for salvation. If you had sincere faith and did good works generally, that would be enough. But that is not what we see in the words of Jesus. He called people to do specific works as direct requirements for their salvation.

Jesus told the rich ruler that the one thing he lacked was selling all of his belongings, giving to the poor, and following him. Clearly the man already had faith, but Jesus prescribed for him a specific work to make his journey complete.

Jesus told his disciples that “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). That is clearly a requirement for faith and an ordinance. He did not say, “he that believeth and does something good, like being baptized for example, shall be saved.” He is specific on both belief and baptism, suggesting that each is a necessary part of one’s spiritual foundation. We must have a theology that elevates both equally.

Tomorrow we will look at a couple more myths that do not agree with the written word of God. We will put them to rest, and then we can move on to finding a solution that actually satisfies all of our theological needs.

Posted on by Abe Austin

A Pivotal Moment- Possible Outcomes

Back and Forth)

I have discussed how some aspects of America’s historical treatment of women and the black population were immoral, how many of those issues were addressed, and how the pendulum kept swinging so that now there is much that is immoral in the treatment of men and white people also.

Now, there is a movement pushing against that most recent unfair treatment, but does this actually represent change and progress? If all we’re doing is changing which side has the stick to beat the other with, that would only be a continuation of the same.

As I mentioned before, this sort of tribalism and zero-sum game and cyclical oppression all seem to stem from our loss of spiritual identity, and shared purpose, and sense of one another as children of God. Unless we see a positive change at this deeper level, then I cannot be optimistic about any shift happening on the surface. So long as we remain godless, each shift is more likely to be an escalation of offense, not a return to balance.

What is Happening Now)

So, do we see any of those deeper shifts that would represent a return to godly living? Unsurprisingly, the answer is mixed. Let us look at the dynamic of men versus women specifically. On the one hand, there does seem to be a real movement of men back towards religion. A recent Axios article noted that “Gen Z men are more likely to attend weekly religious services than millennials and even some younger Gen X-ers.” It also noted that while historically there have been more women in church than men, that the female decline in church attendance continues. Thus, if the latest trajectories persist, eventually there will be more men in church than women.

Of course, this trend must be observed longer to see if it is going to actually have any lasting results. The numbers are still developing. Speaking anecdotally, though, I have also perceived a shift of men around me moving back to God and religion. Even I, who always called myself religious, had a shift seven years ago that has made my relationship with God far more real.

But that’s just one side of what’s happening. At the same time, we are seeing movements like MGTOW, which is built on resentment and rejection of women and society as a whole. We also see figures like Andrew Tate growing in popularity, who encourage men to treat women as products. And just like I have seen some men around me moving towards God, I have also seen other men moving towards anger.

For an entire generation, men have been told that they are irredeemable monsters. This is a gross lie, but my great fear is that this oft-repeated incantation will summon forth a generation of men filled with cruel indifference, men who truly are beasts, and thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hope and Fear)

It is an unclear picture, with many parts still moving, and difficulty in telling how things will land. There is reason for hope and there is reason for fear. A time of potential, but also of danger.

I admit that my assumptions are pessimistic. I see the world following a downward trend overall. Also, I am a Christian, and I believe the Biblical prophecies that the world will be a hellish place before the return of Christ. I suspect we are in the last age before that return, so even if things do get better in the short term, I suspect that overall it is worse times that lay ahead.

Still, I could be wrong. There is reason for hope. Even if this shift turned out to be negative overall, there could still be a treasure of good within its midst. I will finish this series tomorrow by exploring that more hopeful view.