As many of you know, I have recently developed a friendship with Jeff McCullough who produces Hello Saints on Youtube.
In short, he is an evangelical pastor exploring everything he can about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and he documents his journey on YouTube.
It’s been interesting monitoring how other Latter-day Saints are perceiving Jeff’s journey, especially as they have listened to Jeff’s response to reading the Book of Mormon for the first time.
As a traditional, orthodox Latter-day Saint, it can be uncomfortable to watch these reactions.
Jeff isn’t trying to be critical of the text as much as he is wanting to share his authentic reaction to a new book that so many claim as scripture.
During Jeff’s Book of Mormon reaction videos, he will often throw out a question that many Latter-day Saints consider a softball—they almost want to shout into their screens because it has such an easy answer.
Other times, Jeff has a more complicated question that would stump most active Latter-day Saints.
As I have spent time in the comment section of Jeff’s videos (I don’t recommend this activity) or had personal conversations with Book of Mormon believers like me, I have heard some common reactions:
“Jeff needs to read [insert popular Book of Mormon commentary] so he has a better understanding of why these things exist in the Book of Mormon. Can you make sure he has a copy?”
“He needs to talk to [insert BYU religion professor], and he’ll straighten out all Jeff’s questions.”
“I just can’t watch anymore if Jeff isn’t going to give the Book of Mormon a fair shake.”
These are all valid responses.
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have similar thoughts at one time or another listening to Jeff or others wrestling with our restored gospel.
However, can’t the Book of Mormon stand on its own?
Does a book described by the Prophet Joseph himself as the “the most correct of any book on earth” need additional support, commentary, or expertise to stand as a witness?
In a world of YouTube commentaries, 1-minute reels of doctoral explanation of Latter-day Saint theology, and Google searches pointing to academic research, we tend to forget the Book of Mormon stood on its own long before the information age.
Let this be a call to allow scripture to witness of scripture.
Let Mormon do the outlining and explaining.
Leave the commentaries in the toolshed away from the playing field of conversion.
The Book of Mormon is scripture because it is.
The IQ, educational background, or experience reading scripture of whomever reads the Book of Mormon doesn’t matter.
If they give the book enough grace, by the time they get to the last verse, they won’t be able to dismiss it.
Could anyone believe a 19th-century farm boy could out-do Tolkien, Lewis, and even Rowling in creating a world of prophets, armies, and Israelite culture; put it all on paper in just a few months; and claim it is scripture?
So, fellow Latter-day Saints, I appreciate all the supporting material we have related to the Book of Mormon.
I’m a fan of scriptural commentary resources.
I’ll continue to watch clips of scholars and seek new insights my limited education would never allow me to discover on my own.
However, when we expect someone to be changed by the book…
Let the ancient prophets do the heavy lifting.
Let the 239 chapters in that translated record take them on a journey towards Jesus Christ.
What they will find is that the book stands on its own.
Sincerely,
Kurt Francom
Executive Director
Leading Saints
P.S. This is an older newsletter message. Get the up-to-date message weekly by subscribing for free HERE.
Excellent, well-written observation.
Because you are a friend of McCullough’s, I wonder if that has tainted your response to how other people are reacting to his “investigation” of our religion. He made claims early on that he didn’t know much about it, and then it came to light that he used to be a big-time Mormon basher (so much so that he had to take down an old video and put out an apology video about it). I served my mission in Wisconsin (the top of the Bible Belt), and believe me, although their ideas of what we believe are skewed, Evangelicals think they know A LOT about the LDS church, most of it wrong. As McCullough is a pastor, I find it highly unlikely that he wouldn’t have studied the LDS church and its history when he was in seminary getting his theological degree. He’s moved his family to Utah to continue what has become a calling to him: convincing the LDS faithful that their view of Christ is wrong and they cannot be saved without leaving the LDS faith and turning to his brand of “true” Christianity. While McCullough may be reading straight through the Book of Mormon for the first time, I also doubt this is his first time reading ANY of it. I’ve never seen him retract anything that he gets wrong in his understanding of the events in the Book of Mormon, the doctrine it teaches, or when he talks about his beliefs as though they are completely foreign to ours, which they usually aren’t.
I recently watched some of his video on what the LDS church teaches about baptism, and he has it wrong. Like he said about his own beliefs about baptism, we do not believe that the water cleanses us or saves us. All ordinances are outward manifestations of inward commitments and covenants with God. When McCullough turned his life over to God, he made a covenant with God, whether he calls it that or not. When mainstream Christians proclaim their faith in Christ, it is an act (or work) that they say is necessary to be saved. We do the same. We believe that our commitment to God (sometimes known as a testimony) is something we have to nurture daily to keep it from deteriorating and not just a one-time event.
Sorry about the rant, but I think McCullough is dangerous because he is so nice and non-confrontational. He smiles (and sometimes smirks [but don’t we all?]) and holds out a friendly hand, but always ends with telling us how we’ve got it wrong. I believe his interest in “learning” about us and our doctrine is only to show us why we are wrong and he is right.