Haply Fighting Against God

For the past several months I have participated in and observed “discussions” (to put it nicely) between members of the Church and those who oppose it. Among their many reasons for attacking the church, they cite scriptures that seemingly command them to “attack” the church, like the following scripture:

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

So, our critics feel like they have a need to “earnestly contend” with us constantly, instead of just preaching what they believe. I think there is a distinction between preaching what you believe and attacking what others believe. It’s fairly obvious that the LDS Church has an extensive missionary program, and some might see that as “attacking” others’ religious beliefs. Actually, the Church is very respective of others’ beliefs, and does not proselyte in countries where it is forbidden, and trains missionaries to respect those laws. LDS Missionaries go out to preach the gospel, and not to attack others. Now, there may be some who feel they need to ignore this advice, but they are acting of their own accord and contrary to established Missionary rules.

So why do critics of the LDS Church feel they have to attack our beliefs instead of simply preaching theirs? I’m not sure, but there was a non-Christian who had a pretty good alternative solution almost two thousand years ago.

In Acts, chapter 5, the apostles Peter and John are (yet again) cast into prison and are miraculously delivered from prison by an angel, who then tells them to “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” The next day, the two apostles go to the Temple and preach the gospel. The High Priest and his council, after discovering that they are not in the prison, and “the keepers standing without before the doors” as they had been the night before, send forth to have the apostles brought before the council. After asking why they continued to preach the gospel after being “straitly commanded” not to, Peter stated that he would obey God, not man and then indicted the council with the death of Jesus. Upon hearing this, “they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them”.

At this point a man “in the council” stood up to defend the apostles; “a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people”. In other words, this man was a very intelligent and respected man among his peers in the Sanhedrin. In fact, Gamaliel was the Saul’s teacher, before he became Paul the Apostle.

Gamaliel recited two incidents from the past of people who had drawn many men unto them and their cause, and ended up failing and losing their followers. The first he mentions is Theudas. Josephus describes who Gamaliel may have been referring to.

“Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, 5:1)

The next example was Judas of Galilee. Again, according to Josephus, Judas “became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.”

Judas resented the fact that some Roman rulers came into Judea to “take an account of their substance”. Most of the Jews would have normally despised the idea of taxation, too, but because of the teachings of Joazar, a high priest, they submitted to the taxation; all except for Judas and his group of followers. On the surface, Judas fighting against taxation seems like a justifiable action. However, revolting against taxation wasn’t his only “crime”.

“They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies”. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, 1:1)

These men were robbers pure and simple. They hid their atrocities behind their so-called religious beliefs. We are not told how Judas dies or how his sedition is crushed, but we know from Gamaliel’s words (and history, really) that he did fail in his attempt.

Gamaliel’s reasons for describing the outcomes of these seditionists was that, eventually, they were discovered for what they purported to be; charlatans and deceivers. Applying this same concept to the apostles, he states “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)

Gamaliel was so respected, that what he had to say appeased the council that was ready to kill the two apostles. Instead, the Sanhedrin released them (but not before giving them a good beating) and commanded them not to preach anymore.

The reason why Gamaliel’s words are so interesting to me, is that some people spend so much time and energy fighting against the LDS Church, bringing up old arguments and quoting scriptures (most, if not all of the time, out of context) to try to prove that either they are right or we are wrong or both. And really all they need to do is follow Gamaliel’s council to “let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought.”

Maybe that’s why they fight so hard; because after more than 150 years, it has not “come to nought” and that makes them very uncomfortable, maybe to the point where they think they can make it come to nought. So I guess, in a way, Gamaliel’s words have been proven true, which is a pretty harrowing realization to come to if you expected this work to come to nought. What does that tell us about whose work this is?