“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
We’re all familiar with the Golden Rule, and although Jesus taught it (Matt. 7:12, Luke 6:31), it can be hard to live up to—particularly in combative areas like apologetics.
Some might think the Golden Rule is at odds with apologetics. If I treat others the way I want to be treated, wouldn’t that mean not arguing against their positions?
The answer is no, not if you are interested in the truth. If I am mistaken on something, I want—in the interest of the truth—to know about it. But I want to be treated with fairness and respect in the process. The Golden Rule thus means that apologists should seek to share the truth with others and to do so with fairness and respect.
This can be difficult because, like everyone else, apologists can adopt an “any stick will do” attitude when evaluating arguments for positions they disagree with. This is a mistake, and not just for moral reasons. It also leads to apologists making bad arguments.
When he taught the Golden Rule, Jesus wasn’t articulating just a moral truth but one with practical implications.
In the social sphere, those are obvious: If you treat others well, they are more likely to reciprocate. That’s true in apologetics too, but there is another benefit: It will help you avoid bad arguments and find better ones.
For purposes of illustration, let’s look at three examples dealing with Mormonism.
Mormonism’s “magic underwear”
An internet search will turn up thousands of references to Mormons wearing “magic underwear.”
Mormons refer to them as “temple garments.” They resemble an undershirt and knee-length shorts, and Mormons wear them after they have participated in a temple endowment ceremony.
The official Mormon website LDS.org explains that the endowment ceremony is “a special spiritual blessing given to worthy and faithful members of the Church in the temple.”
The same site explains:
[T]emple garments are worn by adult members of the Church who have made sacred promises of fidelity to God’s commandments and the gospel of Jesus Christ in temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To Church members, the modest temple garment, worn under normal clothing, along with the symbolic vestments worn during temple worship, represent the sacred and personal aspect of their relationship with God and their commitment to live good, honorable lives.
The site compares temple garments to a nun’s habit or a priest’s cassock. It also notes:
[S]ome people incorrectly refer to temple garments as magical or “magic underwear.” These words are not only inaccurate but also offensive to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is nothing magical or mystical about temple garments, and Church members ask for the same degree of respect and sensitivity that would be afforded to any other faith by people of goodwill.
At this point, some may balk. After all, the phrase “magic underwear” is so comical, so eminently mockable, it can be hard to resist. Should we really say no to temptation?
Turnabout is fair play
There’s a moment in Romans when St. Paul suddenly accuses his audience, saying, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things” (Rom. 2:1).
It’s a shocking moment, because up to that point, Paul was cataloging the faults of the immoral, and his audience would have been nodding in agreement. “Yes, the immoral are like that,” they would have been thinking—then Paul suddenly puts them in the same category!
This is an important warning for us. When we’re tempted to pass judgment on another—including making the judgment that another’s sacred garments are ridiculous—we need to stop and ask whether we do the same thing.
Do we? Do Catholics ever wear anything under their clothes that represents a “sacred and personal aspect of their relationship with God and their commitment to live good, honorable lives”?
You bet.
Scapulars
Centuries ago, monks began wearing a piece of cloth over their shoulders (Latin, scapulae) as part of their habit. It hung over the front and back of the body, and it became known as a monastic scapular.
In time, people began to wear a reduced form of this garment that became the modern devotional scapular, of which the most popular is the scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
St. John Paul II explained: “The scapular is essentially a habit which evokes the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary in this life and in the passage to the fullness of eternal glory. The scapular also reminds us that the devotion to her must become a ‘uniform’—that is, a Christian lifestyle, woven of prayer and interior life” (General Audience, Sept. 12, 2001).
Frequently, the scapular is worn underneath one’s outer garments. The fact it isn’t shaped like secular undergarments has kept it from being mocked as “Catholic magic underwear,” but this doesn’t affect the essential similarity of the situations.
Before Catholics go mocking Mormons for wearing “magic underwear,” they should recognize that the Church has given its blessing to a similar practice.
The “Word of Wisdom”
To attend a temple and participate in the endowment ceremony, Mormons are supposed to observe what is known as the “Word of Wisdom.”
This is a set of disciplines reportedly revealed to Joseph Smith on February 27, 1833, and recorded in the Mormon scriptures (Doctrine and Covenants 89). They included:
- Not drinking wine or strong drinks except for the use of wine in the sacraments and, apparently, beer (a “mild drink” made from grain)
- Not using tobacco except as a poultice
- Not drinking “hot drinks” (commonly understood to mean coffee and tea)
- Not eating meat except in times of winter, cold, or famine
The interpretation and application of the Word of Wisdom has varied over time.
The original revelation promised blessings for those who observed these disciplines, though it didn’t mandate them, and early Mormon leaders—including Joseph Smith—are known to have not practiced the Word of Wisdom.
At a later stage, violating the Word of Wisdom made a Mormon subject to disciplinary action, though today this is not the case.
At present, observing it requires abstinence from alcoholic beverages (including beer), from tobacco products, and from coffee and tea. The limited consumption of meat is no longer involved.
The Word of Wisdom and apologetics
Non-Mormon apologists have faulted how the Word of Wisdom is applied. In particular, the fact that Mormons are expected to observe the Word of Wisdom as a condition of participating in temple ceremonies has been criticized: without those ceremonies, Mormonism holds that its members cannot become gods and goddesses.
To deprive modern Mormons of those ceremonies would be to deprive them of the ultimate goal of their faith, while Mormons who lived before the Word of Wisdom was mandatory would not be.
Further, there are the cases of those who lived when the Word of Wisdom was mandatory for the temple but interpreted differently (e.g., allowing beer, prohibiting meat), so shifting disciplines were required for ultimate glory.
How much apologetic potential does this offer from a Catholic perspective? Before they start pressing Mormons about the different historical applications of the Word of Wisdom, Catholic apologists should ask: are there any Catholic parallels to this?
You bet there are.
Days of penance
God’s people have practiced penitential disciplines since biblical times, and they have taken a wide variety of forms. At times, observing these disciplines has been optional, and at other times, it has been binding on pain of mortal sin.
Today, “the days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday. . . . Their substantial observance binds gravely” (Paul VI, Paenitimini II:1).
That means if you knowingly and deliberately refuse to substantially observe the Church’s days of penance, you commit a mortal sin (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1857).
Consequently, Christians who lived before these days of penance were mandatory could disregard them and still achieve the ultimate goal of their faith (not becoming equal to God but being eternally united with him). But that’s not the case for Catholics today.
What’s more, what is required for observing the days of penance has varied from time to time and still varies from rite to rite in the Church. For example, in much of the Latin Church, abstinence from meat is required on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of Lent, and Good Friday. But prior to 1966, it was required on all Fridays of the year.
Today, “the law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat” (Paenitimini III:1). But in various times and places it has been understood to exclude any animal products, including fish, eggs, and milk.
Non-Catholic apologists have pointed out the irony of Catholics living in different times and places having different requirements for obtaining the ultimate goal of their faith.
The responses to this can be dealt with another time, but the point for our present purposes is this: if this doesn’t disprove Catholicism, then Catholic apologists shouldn’t criticize a similar situation in Mormonism.
The Journal of Discourses
The Journal of Discourses is a 26-volume set of sermons by Brigham Young and other early Mormon leaders. It was published between 1854 and 1886 with the endorsement of Mormon leadership.
It contains material that contradicts current Mormon teaching. For example, it contains passages in which Brigham Young taught what is known as the “Adam-God doctrine.” According to this view, Adam is the same being as God the Father (Journal of Discourses 1:50).
Brigham Young was not only the leader and supreme teacher of Mormons in his day (their equivalent of the pope), he was regarded as a prophet capable of receiving new divine revelation and writing new scriptures.
Yet when non-Mormon apologists bring up the Adam-God doctrine, Mormons respond by saying that Brigham Young’s teaching of it isn’t official and that the Mormon church today rejects it. They will also point out that the Journal of Discourses as a whole does not represent today’s official Mormon teaching.
Are there any similarities between this and situations Catholics find themselves in?
Evaluating papal statements
Popes are not prophets. They don’t receive divine revelation, and they can’t write new scriptures. They can, however, teach authoritatively for Catholics and on occasion they even teach infallibly.
Anyone involved in Catholic apologetics is familiar with having to explain the status of papal statements being misrepresented by non-Catholic apologists.
Today, when popes make off-the-cuff remarks in wide-ranging interviews with the press, it is often necessary to explain that such interviews are not instruments of the magisterium.
When popes want to teach something authoritatively, they use an official papal document, such as an encyclical. Consequently, remarks that go beyond established Church teaching in, say, a papal interview represent a particular pope’s opinion rather than an authoritative teaching.
There is also a spectrum among authoritative teachings, only some of which are infallible. Thus Catholics often have to point out that the conditions needed for infallibility were not met in the case of a particular teaching.
There have even been cases where a pope taught something later repudiated by the Church. The classic example is Pope John XXII (1316-1334), who held that the souls of the blessed do not have the beatific vision of God until the Last Day.
This is not what the Church teaches today. In fact, the reverse was defined in the bull Benedictus Deus by John’s successor, Benedict XII, in 1336.
If Catholics want to be able to make distinctions between the different levels of authority a theological idea may have, and if they want room for doctrinal development in Catholic circles, they need to allow the same for Mormons and other non-Catholics.
What we can learn from all this
The point of this exercise is not to let Mormons off the hook for various teachings and practices but to help us, as Catholics, practice better apologetics.
To do that, it is critical, before we begin to criticize another’s position, that we think through the extent to which the criticism is valid, as well as what responses might be made to it.
This is where practicing the Golden Rule—putting ourselves in the other person’s place—is important. Asking if a parallel criticism could be made of our own position has several illuminating effects.
One of them is that it helps us understand our opponent’s position better, which is essential if you want to avoid straw-man arguments against it.
We natively have a better understanding of our own position than we do those that disagree with it, and looking for parallels between the two helps us understand what our opponents think and how they are likely to respond.
It also clarifies where we do and do not disagree and can save us from embarrassing zingers.
It’s easy to imagine a person who is eager to mock Mormon temple garments as “magic underwear” or who wants to make hay from the shifting applications of the Word of Wisdom being floored by comebacks like, “Don’t Catholics wear blessed scapulars?” and “Haven’t Catholic rules changed on when you can eat meat and whether it constitutes a mortal sin?”
Brigham Young and Scripture
In some cases, applying the Golden Rule to apologetics may lead us to realize that a particular criticism is entirely misguided. On other occasions, it may reveal that we need to make the criticism in a more sophisticated way.
Take the case of the Journal of Discourses and Brigham Young’s statements in it.
It’s fair for Catholics to point out that not every papal statement represents official Church teaching and that some prior teachings have been superseded with further doctrinal development, and it’s fair for Mormons to make parallel claims.
If the Journal of Discourses isn’t regarded as official Mormon teaching today (though it was at one time), and if Mormons no longer believe the Adam-God doctrine, fine. But that doesn’t mean they’re off the hook entirely.
Consider a parallel case: If John XXII had issued a papal bull containing a dogmatic definition of the idea that the souls of the blessed don’t receive the beatific vision until the Last Day, it would be fair for non-Catholic apologists to point this out. They could legitimately say, “This document appears to contain an infallible definition of a doctrine that was later infallibly contradicted by Benedict XII. Doesn’t that call papal infallibility, and thus papal teachings in general, into question?”
That’s much like what we have in this case, because Brigham Young also stated: “The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve” (Journal of Discourses 13:95).
Here Brigham Young equates his sermons with Scripture. If he preached a sermon, corrected the manuscript, and published it (“sent it out to the children of men”) then he considers it Scripture.
That would include statements he made about Adam being God the Father, which were among the sermons he corrected and published in the Journal of Discourses.
In particular, volume 1 of the Journal of Discourses contains a sermon of Brigham Young teaching the Adam-God doctrine (cited above), and to produce this volume, “Thomas Bullock, a clerk in the president’s office, would read Young’s sermons to him, and Young would correct them” (Ronald G. Watt, “The Beginnings of The Journal of Discourses,” Utah Historical Quarterly, Spring 2007, 145; online at digitallibrary.utah.gov).
It thus appears we have a sermon in which Young taught the Adam-God doctrine that meets his test for whether it should be considered scripture.
This is a serious situation that Mormons cannot lightly brush off. It is parallel to the situation of a pope infallibly teaching something that later Church teaching flatly contradicts, and it calls into question both Brigham Young’s teaching authority and Mormon teaching in general.
“Tough love” or being a jerk?
One of the things that practicing the Gold Rule in apologetics does is help us get a sense of perspective. It helps us filter out what is important in apologetics by eliminating lesser considerations.
As tempting as it is for many to criticize Mormon temple garments, these are of minor importance, and mocking them will add heat rather than light to the discussion. Doing so is ultimately a waste of time, because the amount of time a Mormon will listen to you is limited.
You wouldn’t devote unlimited attention to a Mormon apologist, and you can’t expect a Mormon to devote unlimited attention to you. Because your time with him is finite, you need to spend your time talking about important issues—like the problems with the credibility of the Mormon scriptures or the problems created by statements like the ones of Brigham Young that we’ve discussed.
Sometimes apologists resist this view. It can be so tempting to mock that “magic underwear” that they justify doing so as an act of “tough love” designed to shock Mormons into an awareness of the problems with their position.
But this is just rationalization of our sinful tendency to mock people who don’t belong to our group. Experience shows such “tough love” approaches almost never work, and they drive people farther from the truth rather than drawing them closer to it.
That’s why, in apologetics as in every other field, we must always strive to be “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).
In the end, the Golden Rule of apologetics is the same as the Golden Rule in general.