It was Thursday once again, the previous week had gone by so
quickly as my husband, Peter, and I anticipated the day the Mormon missionaries
would come back with their church elder. I had recounted my experience with him
and he too was eager to meet with them. As afternoon approached, we wondered
whether they would still come despite the bad weather. We waited as the rain
poured down and to calm our nerves, we prayed together and asked the Holy
Spirit to be with us.
There was a knock at our door, and we knew this was it.
Peter welcomed them in as he called me from our room. Introductions were in
order as they acquainted us with their church elder, Bishop Richard. He was
young man, around his mid – 30’s I would presume, cheery and amiable.
I started by telling them that Peter and I were discussing
how we were glad to have an opportunity to share the gospel with them and in a
manner such that we may convey the real message of Jesus. They too were pleased
to be back and continue on with their mission work. And so we opened with a
prayer as Sister Guerrero asked for enlightenment for us that we may all be led
to the truth. They asked us whether we began to read the Book of Mormon yet, we
said no. In turn, we asked if they had read the bible more, they said yes.
Great! We were at least in a common ground to discuss ‘the truth’. But they
asserted that the Book of Mormon [BOM] clarifies things in the bible so that we
may not be led astray by different interpretations. Well I reminded them of
last week’s discussion – that if they only read the bible with the proper
‘lenses’, it will be clear to them as it can ever be. As for us not being led
astray, again it is through the teaching authority of the magisterium that we
are on the right track.
To illustrate this statement, Bishop Richard invited us to
read from the bible John 10: 14-16
I am the good
shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know
the Father. Because of this, I give my life for my sheep. I have other sheep
which are not of this fold. These I have to lead as well, and they shall listen
to my voice. Then there will be one flock, since there is one shepherd.
Bishop Richard [BR]: “It’s beautiful, isn’t it?”
Me: “Yes. It was Jesus’ desire that we may all be one.”
BR: “But who do you think are these ‘other sheep not of this
fold’?”
Peter: “The lost ones, those who have not heard about Jesus’
message.”
Sister Hudson [SH]: “Okay, but who specifically? Where were
the plates found from your reading?”
Me: “Hill Cumorrah. In New York.”
SH: “Yes, but there was no New York at that time yet. The
answer to that should have been ‘The Americas’.”
BR: “Correct. These ‘other sheep’ was explained here in the
BOM. Others thought Jesus was talking about the Gentiles. When Jesus went to
the Americas after the resurrection he told the Nephites the same message he
said to the people in Jerusalem…”
He quoted from Nephi, one of the writings in the BOM, Jesus
saying “You are the other sheep I was speaking about…I came so that you too
might be saved” or something to that effect. How very convenient. If he knew
Jesus at all, he would know that His mission was to draw all people to him, all who know His voice. Jesus would not
have moonlighted here and there in his ministry. Why would this ‘other sheep’
refer to a specific people in the Americas when it is meant to include ALL
other nations throughout the world? We are essentially Gentiles also who have
heard the good news and have come to believe.
Me: “Jesus had already commissioned the apostles to spread
the gospel. Why would he need to go and do something like that, as if he did
not trust them?”
BR: “Yes he did, but that was just in Jerusalem.”
Me: “No, he said to Go
out to the whole world and proclaim the Good News to all creation (Mk 16:15). If
He went to another continent, it would be very challenging to trace the origin
of this good news.”
It’s hard enough to convince the Jews that He is the
Messiah, what more for a people who are not expecting any messiah at all?
BR: “And the BOM is also part of this good news because it
is another testament of Jesus not contained bible. That is why we have this as
a companion – it complements the bible in many ways.”
I just had to stop him there and reiterate that what we have
in the bible is the true gospel and we cannot rely on something so easily just
because one claimed to have received a new revelation from God. I was waiting
for the right time to quote a verse from the bible and this was it.
St. Paul writes in Galatians 1: 6-10
I am surprised at how
quickly you have abandoned God who called you according to the grace of Christ,
and have gone to another gospel. Indeed, there is no other gospel, but some
people who are sowing confusion among you want to turn the Gospel of Christ
upside down. But even if we ourselves were giving you another gospel different
from the one we preached to you, or if it were an angel from heaven, I would
say: let God’s curse be on him! As I have said I now say again: if anyone
preaches the Gospel in a way other than you have received it, fire that one.
Are we to please humans or obey God? Do you think that I try to please people?
If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Me: “It is plainly said here. Paul even had to speak about
themselves, and reminding the people to trust the reliable teachers of the
gospel from whom they have received it. There is no other gospel. To me, it is
crystal clear. Now how does that speak to you?”
Blank stares.
I continued. “There were several gospels floating around
before the church had officially chosen which books are truly inspired. Many
did not make it to the canon of the bible because they contained exaggerations of
the truth, not primarily because the message was false. No doubt that it
contained good things, but it just didn’t conform to the original teachings. An
example would be the gospel of Thomas. It wasn’t included because it contained
ambiguous allusions to Jesus.”
Sister Hudson’s face was troubled, but kept her composure as
she asked, “How then would you explain the different versions and translations
of the bible we have today?”
“Languages have various nuances and sometimes words are
expressed differently but the message still should be intact. It is the
interpretation that varies. But translations are necessary so that the gospel
can be spread.”
“Yes, the interpretations are different because of the many
translations over time. And because the apostles weren’t around anymore, they
soon misunderstood the real meaning of it.”
“Who misunderstood then? You or us?,” Peter darted.
Bishop Richard calmly rebutted, “But eventually the church
became corrupt and the great apostasy happened. Soon, there were other
teachings and customs that are being added.”
“Again, I do not believe that”, I said as I held my ground.
I told Bishop about the ‘keys to the kingdom’ and the apostolic succession just
as I told them a week before.
“In fact, the second pope, Linus was mentioned in one of
Paul’s letters in the New Testament. Though it is not definite that it is the
same Linus, it is highly probable that it could be him given that the apostles
already had disciples of their own whom they were training and teaching just as
Jesus did. Clement, the fourth pope, is also mentioned. He is one of the
disciples of Peter who was ordained to teach. So for you to say that with the
last apostle died with them the authenticity of the church is false, when we
have already seen at least two generations of apostolic succession.”
SH: “But they did not have the Spirit with them anymore.”
“I beg to differ. During Pentecost, it is said that over 150
persons were there including the Blessed Mother, who received the Holy Spirit.”
“Okay, let’s say they did have the Spirit, but they did not
have the authority to lead the church.”
“Why did it have to take 1800 years before Jesus was to
‘restore’ his church with the proper authority then?”
“Well because no one was worthy. The people were not yet
ready because they have been following different teachings.”
“Do you think Peter (the apostle) was worthy? This person
who told Jesus he would die for him, only to deny him three times? No one is
truly worthy. But the Spirit surpasses human nature and enables them to do what
was necessary to safe guard the deposit of faith.”
“Through the years, the church did not remain pure,” Bishop
Richard sustained as he again let out his stand that the original church did
not remain faithful all throughout history. “There were tweaks done in the
teachings and they continue to this day.”
I requested him to give me a specific example of a ‘tweaked
teaching’ and that I might be given a chance to defend it. I was expecting,
almost egging, him to mention the Virgin Mary because we had a big statue of
her in our living room. I thought maybe, that and the other statues and images
looming over us made them uncomfortable from the very beginning. We were more
than prepared for that hit, since the night before, we listened to a lecture
concerning Mary and I was eager to use ‘kecharitomene’
in my defence…but maybe next time.
And so Bishop dropped his statement regarding Baptism.
“Alright. What about in certain baptismal practices today. It is only by sprinkling
of water instead of immersion just like how Jesus was baptized in the River
Jordan? If I am correct, the sprinkling tradition started I think during the
time of Constantine, where there was one person who was sick and could not go
to the river to be baptized, so they sprinkled him and from that time on it was
the one being followed.”
“Well, first it’s precisely for that reason he was baptized
that way. It was an extraordinary circumstance. You cannot expect a sick person
wanting baptism to be immersed would you? Or deny him grace because it cannot
be done ‘the proper way’?”
“Immersing in water meant one is cleansed from sin. In fact,
when the apostles went to baptize people, it says in the New Testament that
they looked for a body of water.”
“Yes, but Jesus did not specify immersion.”
“Not in the bible, he did not. But in the BOM…” He opened to
a verse stating that Jesus taught people to stand in front of a body of water
and immerse the person and to baptize them. The following verse also says
‘believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.’ – a very good
reference for later’s discussion on the Trinity.
“Do you think that is really necessary? I mean, the water
symbolizes cleansing but that doesn’t mean that a person who was baptized via
sprinkling is less of a child of God versus the one immersed? Does the efficacy
of the baptism rely on the amount of water and not on God’s grace? Also, when
people came to be baptized before the apostles…whole households came it is said.
The family system before was patriarchal so if the father said let’s be
baptized – everybody in the family is baptized, including children. Now you
wouldn’t immerse children or very old people for that matter.”
“So why do we need to change things when Jesus already
showed us an example during his baptism, so we ought to follow that.”
“Yes, I’m not saying that baptism nowadays is limited to sprinkling
only. But the question is: why do we need to be baptized? What did Jesus intend
when he said to baptize all nations…?” I asked him, trying to arrive at my main
point.
“We are baptized in order that we might be born again. We
are born again, because by His grace through the Holy Spirit we become children
of God. Hence we are cleansed of the original sin we inherited when we were
born of the flesh. Now which is more important, the water which somehow
symbolizes grace? Or the Spirit, which is the source of grace? So again, do you
think it is utterly necessary to be baptized by immersion so as to receive this
gift fully? If so, then you are forgetting the real meaning of baptism. It is
like putting a limit to the power of God, on how he grants us his grace to be
children and co-heirs to the Kingdom. This is also the reason why infants can
be baptized, for who is so wicked as to withhold God’s grace to his child?”
“But babies have not yet sinned, why should they be cleansed
if there is nothing to cleanse?” Sister Hudson exclaimed.
“That is the meaning of being born of the flesh. Until we
are baptized, we are still children ‘of the flesh and not of the Spirit’.”
“Do you expect that your sin is inherited by your baby
then?”
“Of course not, I’m talking of original sin – from Adam and
Eve.”
“The first sin was necessary so that we can participate in
God’s plan for us and our families because we are now saved from it.”
“That sin was definitely NOT necessary. God’s original plan
was for man to have eternal life but because of that sin, man could no longer
have that until we are saved by Jesus – this is somehow his back-up plan
because he knows the heart of man and his tendencies. He already thought of
that since the beginning but could only be accomplished in time according to
His plan.”
They had a difficult time accepting this due to their belief
that we could all progress from our sinful human nature and become gods in some
other dimension or planet. Anyway, original sin is different from personal sin
in that if Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would all still be living in
paradise as God had wanted us in the first place. What we inherited is the
fallen nature of man, and not the personal sins committed after that. We need
God’s saving grace in order that we might be freed from sin. As Jimmy Akin
would say, “baptism communicates God’s grace to us so that we might share in
the new covenant of Jesus Christ even if we do not understand it yet.” Now some
might say you need faith in order to be saved – true. It is through the faith
of the parents that a child is welcomed into God’s family just as they
themselves have come to believe through their parents’ faith and example. We can
relate this from scripture when Jesus healed the centurion’s servant. In
Matthew 8 the captain said “I am not
worthy to have you under my roof. Just give an order and my boy will be healed”
and Jesus, astonished at this man’s faith said in return, “Go home now. As you believed, so let it be.”
Faith is certainly powerful and it is not dampened by our lack of knowledge or
understanding.
Trying to divert us back to the BOM, Bishop Richard said
something about how lucky we all are that we know the good news of Jesus
through his word. Then Sister Hudson unexpectedly asked, “How do you view the
Old Testament?”
I don’t know what led her to question, was she trying to
find a weak point or was she now interested in the bible? But I loved that she
asked. So I answered, “The New Testament is concealed in the Old and the Old
Testament is revealed in the New. Jesus is the fulfilment of the scriptures.
Everything in the bible is congruent. It is complete and no one can add to it
or remove from it.”
I was elated at how words just came out of my mouth without
delay. The Holy Spirit was undeniably speaking through me and it was amazing to
experience God’s power at work. Peter later told me that he couldn’t interrupt
me even if he had something to say because I was on fire. He didn’t know if our
guests were listening out of the desire to find a loophole or if they were
inspired.
And so I went on to shed light on the Holy Trinity just as I
promised them last time.
“Let’s start with the simplest explanation,” I began.
“Before Jesus ascended into heaven he said to “Baptize them in the Name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Mt 28: 19)” He did not say in the
NAMES… which imply the oneness of God, there is perfect unity within the three
persons. Actually he cannot be contained in a name that’s why he called himself
“I am”. From your reading of the BOM a while ago and actually is in the bible too:
Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in him again shows that if a perfect
being is united with something, then there is perfect harmony; they’re
inseparable. How or why they are what they are, is a mystery and we cannot
expect to fully grasp that. The Holy Spirit is also a person and not just some
ball of energy because we see he also speaks in some of the letters of the New
Testament. God the Father does not have a physical body; he did not come down,
did his business with Mary and had Jesus. In fact, Jesus was conceived through
the Holy Spirit. If they are not truly ONE, then Jesus would not have been the
‘son’ of god the father. Also we read from John 1:1, ‘In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word
was God; he was in the beginning with God.’ We all know that Jesus is the
Word incarnate. Recall from the creation story that the Spirit was already
there and in the verses ‘Let US make man
in OUR image…’ So just with these,
we can deduce that they are more than just sub-gods with one purpose, but they
are rightly One God and not really separate from one another.”
“Yes, okay.” Bishop Richard conceded. I hope he isn’t
missing the point though.
Sister Hudson jumped to the rescue even though she was
scandalized by the idea of God the Father not having a physical body. “You know
we could be here all day discussing our differences and never finish; but
really we’re just here to share that the Book of Mormon is part of god’s
message and we truly believe it comes from god.”
Coming to his senses, Bishop Richard spoke up. “It is nice
that we had the chance to share the gospel and I know that you have part of the
truth, but we can only understand it completely with the BOM.”
“I’m sorry but Jesus has already revealed the fullness of
truth through his church.”
“But you don’t have the apostles, how can you have a stable
structure? When the church was restored through Joseph Smith, he appointed new
apostles as well.” Sister Hudson said, almost flushing with annoyance.
The Mormons believe a church is genuine only if it follows
the same organization as in the time of Jesus – that is, a prophet and twelve
apostles.
“That’s what I’ve been telling you about the apostolic
succession and how it is keeping holy tradition intact by teaching reliable
people to be their disciples.”
“But the original apostles went their separate ways. They
couldn’t have coped up with all that.”
“Then the gospel also wouldn’t have spread throughout the
world if all twelve would’ve stuck together like that. I believe that this is
the true church because it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” I will do an
article for this some other time.
“The Church of Latter Day Saints does not impose on people;
we only share the truth, we do not claim to have all the answers.”
How could a church who asserts to have been given the
restored authority directly from god say that it does not (or cannot) impose
the truth? If this new prophet answers directly to god, wouldn’t its church
have the audacity to say things that attest to the truth? The Catholic Church,
on the other hand does not impose, but it gives light to the realities taught
by Jesus and the implications of following Him. Church authority is often
mistaken as a leash that holds its members by the throat, when it is only meant
to provide guidance and protection from a world of secularism. It does not
speak and act on its own authority, but by virtue of Christ’s authority;
speaking in the name of Christ. (Excerpt from paragraph 875 of the Catechism of
the Catholic Church) There IS salvation outside the church because God’s grace
and mercy is not and could not be limited to the confines of a religion. It is,
however, in the Catholic Church where one can appreciate the fullness of faith.
Don’t just take my word for it – come and
see.
“I am just sharing my faith with you.” I said in reply. “I
do not know the whole bible, nor have I read it all. But I do believe in
certain truths that I have told you.”
“And it is the same with us. This we know and believe to be
true.”
“So I encourage you then to read the bible more. Also, for
you to study how the Book of Mormon really came about. I have done my research
and it’s kind of doubtful.”
“Oh so you went to the sites I wrote down?”
“Yes, but of course I did not limit myself to those only.”
Sister Hudson frowned but I tried to reassure her that I looked
at it from all sides and asked her to do the same – to face the facts. The
bible certainly can be traced back to history but that does not take away its
sacredness or truth.
In closing, Bishop Richard said, “If you cannot accept the
Book of Mormon as part of scripture, then I encourage you to read it first as a
good book and hopefully in time, you will come to accept its truth when you
pray about it. Treat it as a good book.”
He encouraged the Sisters to give their respective testimonies,
to which they gave witness to their faith one last time with us. I asked Bishop
Richard to read some writings of the early church fathers, those who came right
after the apostles, in the hopes that he might find out how their beliefs and
traditions are essentially the same with what the Catholic Church believes and
practices today – most of which are thoroughly misunderstood to be inventions
and tweakings. This was definitely a wonderful experience for me in defending
the faith. This is what my husband and I will teach to our children.
I will continue to stand by Christ’s Church because it’s
true, it’s good and it’s beautiful.
0 comments:
Post a Comment