Chris,
It occurred to me that you and I are both basically proselytizing each other at this point. And the fact remains that I am curious about LDS meetings and would like to attend one with you soon. But I did a little reading into the LDS church and several things struck me immediately. I’ll first address the most important issue, then move on to the more obviously disturbing ones.

The most important issue that bothers me is that the LDS makes less of Christ than I can approve. In my opinion, it undervalues the death of Christ, as well as the life of Christ. I’ve already mentioned that I have similar complaints about Christendom at large, but I see a much bigger problem in the LDS. It undervalues the death of Christ when it teaches you that your righteousness in Christ is not complete, and that you must work hard and _improve_ your standing with God beyond that which Christ has won for you on the cross. Both Paul and John are very clear in explaining that you have been joined to Christ so completely (1Cor.6:17) that whatever is true of Him is true of you (2 Cor.5:21). If that is true, then how could you be told that there are more things for you to do to earn for yourself a higher station in the afterlife? I’d have to point you to the story Jesus told about God’s right to award each servant with the exact same reward, regardless of performance (Mt.20:1-15).

It undervalues the _life_ of Christ, risen from the dead and deposited in you, when it teaches you nothing about what it means to have Him IN you. I told you that even Jesus didn’t please God by “being good,” but rather by simply being indwelt by his Father (See the page attached to this email where I listed all the places where Jesus talked about this kind of life, and see the scripture references at the bottom). LDS, like most of Christendom, has Jesus “up there” and you “down here” trying to be like Him, following His example from afar. Where is _oneness_ with Christ? Where is the pervasive sense of being “in Christ” that filled every thought that Paul or John ever expressed? The indwelling of Christ should be a major emphasis in everything we do. This constitutes for me the primary lack in the teaching of the LDS that I have examined.

The next thing I see is your wholesale acceptance of LDS doctrine—in less than 8 weeks— which in my opinion is the result of the 6 weeks of classes you mentioned. You explained to me that no one is “over” you, that you are free to think for yourself, and that even your meetings are “open;” yet it seems to me that there is a set system of belief, a deliberately crafted format for how your meetings should work, as well as a suggested (?) curriculum to use. A truly open fellowship, on the other hand, will foster much variety of thinking among the members. And the unspoken reality underneath all of this is that there is in fact a definite, centralized authority over all of you— located in Salt Lake City. Everybody knows that it’s not okay to say or do something contrary to those in power there. That is not the way the Lord works—with heavy handed (yet subtle, never explicitly stated) authoritarian leadership. If you feel the need to argue that there is no leadership like that, then ask yourself this: “What would happen if I suggested something against the grain of the church’s teaching? Would the response be accommodating, or corrective? Also ask yourself, is there a great reverence for men or any man in particular in the LDS meetings you attend? If so, then is that more natural to men’s ways or to God’s ways? In the Body of Christ, every part functions in a significant way, and there is a natural interdependence among the members (1 Cor. 12:12-26). That passage makes it clear that it should be very difficult to figure out who is more important than anyone else in a fellowship (and that should not only apply to the local situation, but also to the church as a whole).

Beyond these, I have some theological and historical problems with the LDS. First the theological ones: The Old Testament was written to accompany the revelation of the old covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants. The scriptures were reopened for addition only upon the inception of a new covenant, brought by Jesus. At that time, there was a definite communication of finality to this revelation (see Hebrews 1:1-14). The creation of a _third_ portion of Holy Script must be accompanied by a new covenant. But I do not recall any indication from Jesus or any others that the covenant of Christ was incomplete. In fact, the whole thesis of the book of Hebrews is that the new covenant was brought precisely because the old one was insufficient. To suggest a third book of scripture, and therefore an accompanying new covenant, would be to imply that the work of Christ was incomplete. Yet we’re supposed to accept more authoritative scriptures like the Book of Mormon (not to mention the other writings of Joseph Smith and company)? It seems so clear to me that this situation fits perfectly into the very circumstance Paul warned about in Galatians 1:8 —that even if an angel from heaven should appear to change the nature of this gospel, they should be condemned.

Now some smaller theological issues: Despite the fact that Paul says _we_ are the true temple, the place where God dwells (1Cor.3:16-17), LDS calls their special building the “temple.” And this (forgive me) “holy site” is treated and spoken of like a “mecca” to which everyone should travel at least once—like the Ganges river for the Hindus, Mecca for the Muslims, or Jerusalem for apostate medieval Christianity. Once again, no significant sense of the presence of God within the believer. No place on earth should seem holier or closer to God than any other place, because He is not to be geographically located except within his children (see John 4:21-24).

You are encouraged to abstain from certain drinks because of their contents. This brings to mind Paul’s discussion of how “to the pure, all things are pure” (Titus 1:15), and that the kingdom of God must not be made to hinge on issues like what you eat or drink (Rom.14:14,17, Col.2:16). I believe you are also encouraged to tithe, but tithing was a requirement of the Old Testament Law which Christ did away with on the cross (Col.2:14-15, Rom. 7:4). The often-cited verses in Paul’s letters about money collection were for a famine relief for the poor in Jerusalem (see Acts 11:27-30 and 1 Cor. 16:1-4). And finally, Jesus is supposed return in Independence, Missouri? Only an American would suggest and believe this! How can the return of Christ be contained within any one locality (1 Thess.4:16-17) ?

Lastly, I _must_ mention a few historical issues which amaze me. A guy shows up one day in 19th century America, claiming that an angel appeared to him and showed him new scriptures written on GOLD PLATES ! Wow! Not at all like the rest of God’s previous work, where He led men to write their impressions with their own pens over many years, and within the accountability of a large body of people who personally knew the Lord Jesus. And these plates (where are they now ?) tell of a formerly unknown Hebrew/Native American tribe (never mind that they look nothing like the rest of the Hebrews, and that the Native Americans maintained nothing of Hebrew cultural tradition—such as the Law of Moses, etc.). No one with any scientific objectivity has ever claimed that there was such a people, and no artifacts or remains of such a civilization have ever been brought forth by non-LDS archeologists. And what ever happened to the original LDS stance on polygamy? Is that completely denied now? Do they also deny the original prejudice against blacks as the cursed race? If so, then why does the LDS church contain the most thoroughly kept records of genealogical pedigrees in the world?

I realize at this point I’m “meddling.” But sometimes what alarms an individual about the group they’re in is not the major theological or philosophical issues, but rather the dozens of little things which nag the conscience. If these things are not inconsistencies and “red flags” to you, and if you have found satisfying answers to all of these questions, then I can understand why you would feel content within the LDS. But if these things bug you and the church doesn’t seem like a free place to ask hard questions without intimidation (or feelings of guilt), I would encourage you to seek answers until they are found.

I apologize if this letter offends or upsets you. But I want to know that you are in a place where you are free to follow the Lord’s leading without interference from any group’s agenda or traditions.

Your brother, Neil.

Chris,

I am sorry that I offended you. I guess I assumed that, since you had only recently joined with the church there, you would not yet be totally decided on everything they teach. I shouldn't have done that. As for my tone, again I apologize; I am used to writing to people I know in a "debate" format--even my best friends--to hash through issues that concern us. I did not intend for you to feel a personal attack on your beliefs.

By the way, most of my information about the LDS church came from a couple of books I had that I haven't looked at for a long time. I checked into the church a number of years ago, and had forgotten much of what I learned about them. My opinions were based in part on my conversation with you, and some things that you said, as well as my own experience as a Christian. As for my experience, I cannot recall anyone in the churches I have been a part of either a) hurting me in anyway, or b) wielding any unusual authority over me. My discontent was with organized Christendom in general, perhaps for existing. I have felt for a while now that there is little depth or life present there. But whenever I visit my folks back home I go to the same Baptist church that I grew up in, and I feel quite welcome there--they still like me there, they just don't know how much my views on things have come to differ from theirs.

If it felt like I was "bashing" you by listing so many scriptures, again I am sorry. I did that because I figured I should demonstrate what my beliefs were based upon. I hope you didn't think that my readings were where I got these references. These are verses that I know from past discussions with people about issues like the ones you and I are discussing. When I was in school, it was required of me to support my statements with scripture references, so that now I guess I do that out of habit.

I would like to address each of the points that you made to me, and the scriptures that you mentioned, but I'll have to look them up first. However, you may not want me to, and you may be quite tired of this already. I would like to come to the open house that you mentioned on April 8. What time will it be?

Once again I would like to start with what I feel is the most important issue you mentioned in your response to me. I still maintain that the LDS church undervalues the death and the risen, indwelling life of Christ. The very fact that they put you under rules about tithing and soft drinks and wine proves this, and I’ll show you how: Tithing is one of over 600 laws that were prescribed in the Old Testament. They are collectively referred to in the New Testament as “the Law of Moses.” Paul explains in Colossians 2:13-17, 20-23 that when Christ died, the Law went with him to the grave, so that now no one can put these old rules on you. He even specifically mentions rules about what you can and can’t drink. The entire letter to the Galatians was written because someone was trying to tell those people that they were under the Law of Moses. He explains in Gal. 3:1-14 that your righteousness with God is based on grace from beginning to end, because the law is incapable of doing anything good for you. He even says “before your very eyes Christ was portrayed as crucified”(3:1). If you follow his logic, he is arguing that to resort to law-keeping and rule-following is to deny the death of Christ. His death accomplished this very freedom for you. He said in 2:20-21 that if you still have rules to keep in order to be right with God, “then Christ died for nothing!”

Listen to the phrases with which Paul peppers his letter to the Romans about your relationship to all those laws: “you are not under the Law”(6:14), you “have died to the Law” (7:4), “you’ve been freed from the Law”(7:6), and for you “Christ is the end of the Law”(10:4). That’s why Paul tells Timothy that anyone putting Christians under the Law has misunderstood its purpose—to show unbelievers their sinfulness (1 Tim.1:6-11). He explicitly states there that the Law is not for us. He gives the same advice to Titus in Titus 1:13-16. You said it’s not about abstaining from anything. But he specifically tells Titus to resist those who go around giving “commands” in the church, and he reminds Titus that “to the pure all things are pure.” Obviously the intent of this knowledge is not to encourage immorality (Romans 6:15). Paul even says in Gal. 5:13 that you should maintain your freedom from your own “flesh” as much as you should your freedom from the Law itself (5:1). I agree with you that some things are addictive, and for that reason should be handled with care. But to make a rule or a “law” against them is not the way.

Incidentally, it’s not enough that they put you under the Law of Moses about tithing, etc; but they even have added things that weren’t there to begin with! Go back and read the verses you gave me about wine: Prov.20:1, 23:20-21, and Isaiah 5:11-12 say that drinking _too much_ wine is bad for you. It doesn’t say you’re not supposed to touch it at all. These verses clearly warn against the abuse of wine, not the drinking of it altogether. But what about Judges 13:13-14 and Daniel 1? Go read them again: the first gives the criteria of a Nazarite vow (which very few people took in the Old Testament) and says nothing about whether or not anyone else should go this way, too. And it says that Samson’s mother would eat nothing from the grape vine at all. So you aren’t allowed to eat grapes either? According to Judges 13:5, Samson wasn’t to cut his hair, either. Do they give you that one? Do you see my point? What about Daniel 1? He said he would eat only vegetables and drink only water for 10 days (v.12). Does that describe your diet? I do not think that the Old Testament is being handled correctly here at all. If we’re really going to be consistent, why stop with the tithe? Deuteronomy 23:12-13 prescribes that the proper way to “relieve yourself” is to dig a hole outside the camp, “use” it, then cover it back up. My point is that the Law is not for you. That’s why it’s called the “old” testament/covenant (see Hebrews 8:12-14). If someone puts you under the very laws that Christ freed you from by the cross (Rom.7:1-6), then they are undervaluing the death of Christ.

Now about those other verses you brought up . . .

You said that you liked Frank’s book. If there’s one thing his book makes clear, it’s that we can’t allow ourselves to read our own theology into the New Testament. The simple fact that a particular word appears in the text doesn’t necessarily mean that everything that WE mean when we use that word actually is there. That’s true of the word apostle, overseer, elder, etc. (I’d say “missionary,” but that word isn’t a Biblical word). Incidentally, I’d like to recommend another book by Frank called “Who is Your Covering?” which addresses the New Testament concept of leadership and authority; it actually touches on every verse in the New Testament which mentions any sort of leadership in the church.

Luke 10:1 and 1 Tim. 2:7 mention “sent ones” who preached the gospel to those who had never heard it. The same concept shows up again in Ephesians 2:19-22 and 4:11-13. I do not agree with those who say that these gifts have ceased. But I do think that anyone claiming to be an apostle or prophet has to be tested to see if his ministry is valid (1Thess.5:19-21, 1 Cor.3:5-13). Here’s an interesting question: What if two “apostles” contradict each other? The church has to discern for themselves if even an apostle is straying from the truth. Paul allowed for this possibility when he said what he said in Gal.1:6-9, and he even gave an example in Gal. 2:11-21 (see the same story in Acts 15). No one is above reproach—and that includes Joseph Smith. The only standard I know of for judging these things is the statement Paul made: “Do not go beyond what is written”(1 Cor.4:6). But of course, that begs the question “Written in what?”

If you trace the steps of everyone in the New Testament who was called any of these things (apostle, prophet, evangelist, etc), you will notice that all of them had the accountability of being a simple “brother” in his (or her) home church, with no special authority or reverence by them. With safeguards like these, the role of leadership, at every level, should be one of persuasion rather than dictation, and of nurture rather than ruling. Frank points out in “Who is Your Covering” that the elders mentioned in Acts 14:23 weren’t selected until months had passed since Paul and Barnabas’ first visit to those churches. That means that their role in the church was “fraternal” from the beginning, rather than “paternal.” Judging by the letters Paul addressed to churches following that time, if there were any elders/overseers present, they must not have had a place of authority in the assembly since they never even get mentioned. The only exception to this is the letter to the Philippians, which was to a church that was at least ten years old. The idea here is that leadership has to grow “organically” over time within the local assembly. That type of development doesn’t produce authoritarian leadership, and it allows everyone present to learn how to function in meetings and share the responsibility of the Church.

I write the way I think, and so I realize that my words are strong (as well as abundant). But I feel much better knowing that you are considering these things directly for yourself. It is helpful for me to know _why_ you believe what you believe. I hope that you don’t get sick of this discussion, but stay engaged in it. I am learning from this.

Your brother, Neil.

P.S. Since I believe in Christ, do you consider me a “brother”?

Sorry you haven't heard from me lately. We had Spring Break, and I've been away from my fast computer, and all the other ones just drive me crazy with how slow they are.

I want to make a couple of observations about what you last wrote me. You said that we have to have tithing to have buildings. My response is: 1. I like homes better--no extra cost (plus it's more consistent with the New Testament practice); 2. Tithing was still a part of the very system of laws that you agree were done away with on the cross. You can't separate the practice of tithing from the sacrificial system. "Tithing" meant you gave the first portion of your living to the priests so that they could have something to live off of. If you do away with priests and sacrifices, you do away with the need of a tithe in the first place. To simply say you still need it for buildings is basing your whole argument on the assumption that special buildings are necessary. It’s hard to argue with an assumption; 3. The needs of God's people and the poor can be met without tithing. A Christian can give whatever he wants for these things; in fact he should not give from some compulsory law (see 2 Cor. 9:7). One might say: “But without a law, Christians won’t give, or at least not as much.” Yes, they will give, sometimes more, sometimes less. But don’t limit God’s ability to lead believers by the Spirit without the aid of the law; and 4. I question what happens with your tithes. I’m aware of how much is needed to build and maintain a building (and it’s obscene, in my opinion). But even considering the cost, if even a simple majority of LDS folks are tithing, then there’s a lot more money going _somewhere_. All the churches I have been associated with (including the one I’m a part of now) issue periodic statements to publicize what every penny was spent on. Does your church do that? If you were to ask for a list of expenses showing where the money goes (either locally or nation/world-wide), would that be easy for you to obtain? I’m just curious. Once again, I feel like I’m majoring on a minor issue here, but issues are interconnected with bigger ones sometimes.

As for the articles of faith, I can go along with almost everything stated there. Number two sounds a bit contradictory to me with Romans 5:15-19, which says that we were all condemned by Adam’s sin, implying that we inherit this status from him by virtue of being human beings. (That’s a whole can of theological worms). And of course, number eight stumps me, because I feel no need to adopt the Book of Mormon for myself, and I’m suspicious about the phrase “as far as it is translated correctly” about the Bible. I’m aware of textual variations, and occasional disagreements between scholars about how to translate certain words or phrases, and I know how to read Greek and Hebrew. I agree with this statement, but I have heard of some groups using such terminology to indicate that they reserve the right to remove passages they don’t like, regardless of whether or not any ancient manuscripts actually merit such changes. I’d LOVE to hear an example of any place that the LDS church thinks corruption has occurred in the Bible. Some older translations do have outdated ways of stating things, and scholars have gotten better over time at developing a more accurate understanding of the languages. I like translations like the New Living Translation for its easy reading (and more accurate with vocabulary than the New International Version), and the New American Standard for its literal rendering of the Greek. There’s lots of good ones out there.

And speaking of “American Standards,” number ten of the articles presupposes a system of biblical interpretation which was first becoming popular during the 1800s, which distinguished between literal Israel (the nation) and figurative Israel (the church), despite the fact that Paul calls anyone who believes in Christ a descendent of Abraham (see Galatians 3:7, 28-29). But Smith was the only one to claim that the literal restoration scenario would be accomplished in OUR country. Sounds too much to me like those folks who seem to think that God is an American (like Superman) by default because we are better than everybody else (and of course God wants us to win every war, and wants my football team to win the bowl games). The ancient Israelites had a bad habit of viewing God as territorial, and His response was always that He could not be confined to a single place on earth. Much of the Old Testament prophets hit on that topic (see for example Isaiah 66:1-2).

How do these things strike you?