Week 17 - 03 April 2016: The Parable of Fire Scars

Dear Luke,

Sorry I didn't write you last week.  I had a few tests, and then I went to down to Moab to do some mountain biking over the weekend, and I never found the time.  I did include a paper I wrote for my Christ and the Everlasting Gospel class at the end of this letter to make up for it.

So I heard that in your mission, new missionaries have to pass some sort of evaluation in order to terminate their training after twelve weeks.  If missionaries do not pass the evaluation, and from what I heard most do not, their training is extended.  It's an interesting idea, and I'm interested to know how you will be evaluated, but I am concerned about one thing.  If you rule out my time serving as secretary in the mission office, the most stressful times in my mission were as I was being trained and as I trained other missionaries.  I think that's probably true, and I hope it's true in a way, for most missionaries because the call to train another missionary is the most sacred assignment one can hold during his missionary service, and treating that responsibility with the weight it deserves often causes stress.  My concern is that stress is often accompanied by contention.

I will share with you a strategy to deal with contention with your companions through what I will call the parable of the fire scars.

This picture shows several fire scars in a cross section of a douglas fir:

Using dendrochronology (that's just a fancy word for counting rings), you can identify the exact years that fires occurred.  In the case of the photo above, we learn that many fires occurred between the years 1820 and 1896, and no fires occurred between 1896 and 1994.  The pattern is not unique to this tree.  Broad scale studies have shown that the frequency of fires in the west dramatically decreased around the year 1900.  We can infer that the frequent fires before 1900 were low intensity based on the fact that the trees survived. 

The decrease in fire frequency was caused by three things, all of them poor management decisions.  Perhaps the most prominent of the three causes was the infamous Smokey Bear.  In 1905, the Forest Service was established with the major goal to suppress wildfires.  In 1944, Smokey the Bear was created by the Forest Service as part of an ad campaign.  Smokey the Bear was used to teach the public that all fires are detrimental.  The impact of this campaign was significant enough for the lack of fires after 1900 to be called the "Smokey Bear Effect."

The other two causes include overgrazing, which led to less fuel for fires to spread, and the virtual extirpation of Native Americans. Native Americans frequently and intentionally set fires for a variety of reasons.  In fact, Elder S. F. Atwood wrote to Elder Ezra Taft Benson, "The Indians here seem to be possessed with the spirit of burning, for there is scarcely a day but what we can see fires both on the mountains and in the valleys.  We have talked to them about burning up the grass, and they seem willing to spare it, and do set their fires among the sage brush, but it often gets into the grass, and they have already burned much of it, but they try to clear themselves by saying that it will be very good when the rains come in the fall."

The Native Americans were right.  The small, frequent fires were good for the ecological health of the sage steppe ecosystem.  The lack of fires since 1900 has had many detrimental impacts.  Fires are useful to keep trees, most notably pinyon pines and junipers, from encroaching the sage-grass and grassland ecosystems.  Without the fires, pinyons and junipers, which were once isolated to the steep, rocky mountainsides, were allowed to out-compete the sage brush and grasses which used to dominate the landscape.

Pinyon-juniper encroachment carries with it several detrimental impacts.  For example, some species which were once threatened, or are still threatened, such as bighorn sheep and sage grouse, do not live in woodland habitats.  Pinyons and junipers destroy their habitats.  Pinyons and junipers also have very deep and extensive roots.  They are capable of absolutely out-competing all other shrubs, forbs and grasses by sequestering all available water.  This causes erosion of the bare topsoil between the trees.  Complete lack of annual and perennial plants, which make up important functional groups within the ecosystem, bare ground, erosion of the topsoil, and other effects of erosion, such as runoff and formation of gullies, constitute several of the indicators of poor rangeland health according to the Bureau of Land Management.

Here are a couple photos to illustrate the health relative health of the ecosystem with pinyons and junipers and after they have been removed.

There is at least one other great impact of fire suppression.  It is the evolution of the megafire. After years of suppressing fire, fuel gradually accumulates.  When it finally catches fire, it is virtually unstoppable.  Hundreds of thousands of acres burn at a time.  Nothing survives.  Neither plant nor animal escapes alive.  They are all consumed without remnant except a blackened sky and an ash-covered earth.  Megafires are truly devastating.  They are the result of procrastination.  By suppressing the less intense, more frequent, and even beneficial fires, instead of allowing them to burn, we set up the ecosystem for total destruction.

You have probably figured out the application by now.  The health of the ecosystem represents the health of your relationship with your companions.  The small, frequent fires are small issues or conflicts you have with each other.  Addressing these conflicts allows the fires to run their course, prevent indicators of poor health in your relationship, and prevent the accumulation of issues which could eventually lead to a devastating fight, a megafire.  It is usually best to address issues as soon as is appropriate.  You don't have to put it off until your weekly companionship inventory.  Address issues during nightly planning or companionship study.  The frequent discussion of issues may be annoying at times, but it is better for the health of your relationship than the devastating fights that result from procrastination and suppression.

As you discuss issues, be humble, and always remember the proverb, "A soft answer turneth away wrath," (Proverbs 15:1).

I love you Luke! I hope you pass your training!

Week 15 - 20 March 2016: "Beauty for Ashes"

Dear Luke,

I am going to postpone the series on Lesson 1 again.  Yesterday was a very special Sunday. The Provo City Center Temple was dedicated, and I wanted to share with you a little bit of its history.

On December 16, 2010, the Millennium Choir, accompanied by an orchestra and some other singers from the University of Utah and Utah Valley University, performed their dress rehearsal of the masterpice Gloria by Lex de Azevedo in the Provo Tabernacle. They were to have a Christmas concert the following day, but the dress rehearsal would be the final performance within the walls of the tabernacle.  It burned that night.  The final words of the piece repeatedly echo "Gloria in excelsis deo" which means "Glory to God in the highest."

The fire was devastating. Attempts were made to distinguish the fire, but to no avail.  All the fire crews could do was cool the outer walls. Everything within was burned.

Embers remained smoldering two days after the fire, even in the cold of winter.

But the miraculous history of the now Provo City Center Temple would begin within these smoldering ashes. Shortly after the fire, President Richards (I believe he was the stake president of the area but I could be mistaken) peered through a window of the demolished tabernacle.  He said he could "clearly see the image of the Savior among the charred rubble. The wall that had supported the picture was even destroyed. Nearly all of the material goods, some of significant cost, were destroyed, but that image stood as a clear reminder that we should remember the Savior. It didn't make it through the ordeal without damage - but left us with a perfect reminder of whose house this was... And why there remains great reason to hope, even in the midst of smoking rubble," (Provo's Two Temples by Richard O. Cowan and Justin R. Bray).

The painting was Harry Anderson's The Second Coming.

The depth of hope which was laid in store for the Provo Tabernacle was surely unbeknownst to President Richards as he said those words. In October General Conference of the following year, President Monson announced, "Late last year the Provo Tabernacle in Utah County was seriously damaged by a terrible fire. This wonderful building, much beloved by generations of Latter-day Saints, was left with only the exterior walls standing. After careful study, we have decided to rebuild it with full preservation and restoration of the exterior, to become the second temple of the Church in the city of Provo."  The demolished tabernacle was to become the most sacred of buildings, a bridge between heaven and earth, a temple.

The Groundbreaking Ceremony took place on May 12, 2012.  Sister Holland (Elder Holland's wife) and Elder Whitney Clayton of the Seventy spoke that day.  They quoted Isaiah 33:20 and Psalms 30:5 respectively.  Together they read, "Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down... weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning." 

Under the direction of the First Presidency, the interior was constructed to reflect the original architecture, thus adding to the already rich symbolism within the temple's history.  

Now the Provo City Center Temple stands as a symbol of hope. I was able to walk through it during the open house.  It is gorgeous.  Every inch reflects the hopeful words of Sister Holland and Elder Clayton.

Yesterday, the Provo City Center Temple was dedicated.  I do not believe it to be coincidence that the Hosanna Shout which christens the temple's dedication was performed on Palm Sunday; the very day that we celebrate Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem midst shouts of "Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the Highest" (Mark 11:9-10).  

The story of the Provo City Center Temple is a magnificent one and full of hope.  From the last sung words which echoed through its halls, "Gloria, gloria in excelsis deo, Glory to God in the Highest!" to  the fire, despair, and destruction, to the hopeful image of Christ's Second Coming within the ashes, President Monson's triumphant announcement, the Ground Breaking Ceremony, the restoration, the Dedication and Hosanna Shout. In the words of Elder Wirthlin, it makes me "think of how dark that Friday was when Christ was lifted up on the cross.

"On that terrible Friday the earth shook and grew dark. Frightful storms lashed at the earth.
Those evil men who sought His life rejoiced. Now that Jesus was no more, surely those who followed Him would disperse. On that day they stood triumphant.

"On that day the veil of the temple was rent in twain.

"Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus, were both overcome with grief and despair. The superb man they had loved and honored hung lifeless upon the cross.

"On that Friday the Apostles were devastated. Jesus, their Savior—the man who had walked on water and raised the dead—was Himself at the mercy of wicked men. They watched helplessly as He was overcome by His enemies.

"On that Friday the Savior of mankind was humiliated and bruised, abused and reviled.

"It was a Friday filled with devastating, consuming sorrow that gnawed at the souls of those who loved and honored the Son of God.

"I think that of all the days since the beginning of this world’s history, that Friday was the darkest.

"But the doom of that day did not endure.

"The despair did not linger because on Sunday, the resurrected Lord burst the bonds of death. He ascended from the grave and appeared gloriously triumphant as the Savior of all mankind.

"And in an instant the eyes that had been filled with ever-flowing tears dried. The lips that had whispered prayers of distress and grief now filled the air with wondrous praise, for Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God, stood before them as the firstfruits of the Resurrection, the proof that death is merely the beginning of a new and wondrous existence.

"Each of us will have our own Fridays—those days when the universe itself seems shattered and the shards of our world lie littered about us in pieces. We all will experience those broken times when it seems we can never be put together again. We will all have our Fridays.

"But I testify to you in the name of the One who conquered death—Sunday will come. In the darkness of our sorrow, Sunday will come."

I echo Elder Wirthlin's powerful testimony. I know that "in Christ shall all be made alive," (1 Corinthians 15:22).  I know that "there is a resurrection, therefore the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ... Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption... to the resurrection of endless life and happiness," (Mosiah 16:8, 10-11).  I know that we can be restored through Him.  We often speak of the restoration of all things. Through the resurrecting power of Atonement of Jesus Christ we may experience a restoration of hope, a restoration of souls, and a restoration of families.

This is the message that you share every day to those you teach.  It is also the message taught within the Holy Temples and symbolized by the Provo City Center Temple's unique and marvelous history. What greater reason have we to rejoice? "Hosanna! Hosanna to God and the Lamb! Let glory to them in the highest be given henceforth and forever, amen and amen!" (The Spirit of God).

I'd like to finish up with this scripture:

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound... To give unto them beauty for ashes," (Isaiah 61:1, 3).

I love you, Luke! Keep spreading the good news.

Week 14 - 06 March 2016: An Ultra-liberal, Far Left, Sanders-Supporting Democrat Mormon

Luke responded to my letter about religious harmony a couple weeks ago:

"I actually had a some bad experiences concerning the subject you wrote about last week.  First, everyone in my apartment called every other religion the church of the devil in reference to  1 Nephi 13-14.  I would like to know more about [what Nephi refers to as] church of the devil... if you have time someday because I protested by saying it was just a representation of people that knowingly preached false doctrine, false doctrine in itself, and people that work iniquity, not a specific church such as the catholic church or any other religion in itself.  I would like to know what scholars and the apostles and prophets have said concerning the church of the devil.  Thank you!! Love you have a great week!

I also had a member rip a JW pamphlet (more like a big pass along card) out of my hands and tear it up saying: "I'm of the church of Christ not the church of the devil like them,"... and I also got called apostate a lot this week.  I'm beginning to think that I should not share my views because they just cause tension."

Dear Luke,

I anticipated continuing with my series of letters about Lesson 1 this week, but I think a good response to this email is much more important.  Misinterpretations of 1 Nephi 13-14 and Joseph Smith - History are largely at the root of discord between Mormonism and other churches.  That's very unfortunate.  I think you did a fantastic job explaining what the "church of the devil" refers to in 1 Nephi 13-14. I know dad sent you a link to an article titled, "Warring against the Saints of God." That's about the best answer I can give as well.  You could look at Fair Mormon's site if you want.  They make it clear that there has been a great diversity of opinions among leaders on the subject throughout the history of the Church.  That's the best I've got since I have not been able to find any official statement.  I'll include a little bit about the abominable creeds mentioned in Joseph Smith - History next week.

But I am much more interested in the final sentence of your response, "I'm beginning to think that I should not share my views because they just cause tension."  I felt that way many times on my mission, and, for the record, I was also called apostate many, many times on my mission.  I'm not apostate and neither are you. Take it with a grain of salt.

I wrote you about large scale harmony between religions a couple weeks ago.  Let's call that inter-religious harmony.  There's also a smaller scale of intra-religious harmony.  The same principles apply.  Diversity and cooperation are key. Without diversity, we have a boring piece, indeed. Without cooperation, we have an ugly piece to listen to as the dissonance of notes pain our ears.

In fact, Elder Wirthlin's quote, which I adapted in the other email, originally referred to intra-religious harmony. This time I'll include a paragraph of context. Elder Wirthlin said, "Some are lost because they are different. They feel as though they don’t belong. Perhaps because they are different, they find themselves slipping away from the flock. They may look, act, think, and speak differently than those around them and that sometimes causes them to assume they don’t fit in. They conclude that they are not needed.

Tied to this misconception is the erroneous belief that all members of the Church should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole."

I included the context because it expresses the danger of anything that is not intra-religious harmony.  For the purpose of this letter, I'll generalize the diversity in two camps.  One camp is liberal, questioning, and progressive.  The other camp is conservative, unquestioning, and traditionalist. But instead of harmonious diversity, we often see a culture of mutual exclusivity and authoritarianism between the camps.  It is a culture that says, "I am right and righteous, and you are wrong and apostate."  I feel very strongly that this is a big contributing factor of the "faith crisis" among millennials that the Brethren are so concerned about.  It is no secret that our generation is more liberal than preceding generations. It is also no secret that it is most often the liberal minority camp which ends up being falsely labeled as apostate by those who hold no authority to make such judgments.  Feelings of being ostracized and loneliness and discomfort and rejection, drive liberal millennial Mormons away, and I sympathize with them. They are in large part victims of an ugly and persisting culture. Perhaps you felt something similar.

There is no need to argue about your specific viewpoints. There's no need to try to convince people that you are right. You don't need to share your ideas if you don't want to.  But you must stand up for diversity of opinion and against labels and exclusivity!  The lack of diversity brought on by exclusivity is more than just boring.  I fear that it could lead to the demise of the Church that we love.  Let it be known that it is OK to be a Mormon and support gay marriage, just as much as it is OK to be a Mormon that opposes gay marriage.  It is OK to be a Mormon and be pro-choice. It is OK to be a Mormon who doesn't believe abortion is right under any circumstances.  It is OK to be in-between. It is OK to be a Mormon and support the legalization of marijuana. It is OK to oppose the legalization of marijuana.  It is OK to be a Mormon and believe in Socialism. It is OK to oppose Socialism. It is OK to be a Mormon and a feminist.  It is OK to be a Mormon and support traditional gender roles in family. In short, it is OK to be an ultra-liberal, far left, Sanders-supporting democrat Mormon, and it's just as OK to be an ultra-conservative, far right, Trump-supporting republican Mormon.  It's OK to believe in evolution.  It's OK to believe that other Churches lead to salvation.  It's OK to disagree with the new policy concerning the children of gay marriages. It's OK to not "know" everything.  It's OK to doubt. It's OK to believe that prophets make mistakes.  It's OK to believe that the priesthood ban was a mistake.  It's OK to believe polygamy was a mistake.  Here's a kicker: it's OK to believe that the Book of Mormon is not historically true.  There is room for diversity in the great tent of Zion!

Joseph Smith famously said, "By proving contraries, the truth is made manifest," (History of the Church 6:428). My fear of the great detriment that lack of diversity can have on the Church is born from this concept.  If one "camp" is driven out, one of the contraries will no longer be represented, and it will be difficult for truth to be made manifest.  Joseph Smith also said, "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." Agree on those things.  Let the appendages give rise to beautifully diverse schools of thought.  I like to visualize it like this.

This is known as "The Tree of Forty Fruit." Sam Van Aken, conceptualized this tree and brought his goal to quite literal fruition. He said of it, "There are hundreds if not thousands of individual stone fruit varieties or cultivars within the family of stone fruits including peach, plum, apricot, nectarine, cherry, and almond. Within each of these species of fruit there is extraordinary variation in color of blossom, bloom time, leaf pattern, fruit size, form, color, texture, and taste. Due to the similarity of their chromosomal structure it is possible to “graft” these varieties together to form a single tree." The trunk is built of the fundamental principles of the Atonement, the Godhead, and love. These principles are comparable to the chromosomal similarity which allow the limbs to be grafted in and contribute to the beauty of the whole. The limbs are the appendages, which produce the magnificent diversity of foliage, fruit and blossom which Van Aken described. 

Now, even if one doesn't agree on the core doctrines, there's no reason to ostracize him for it.  For many years, my only testimony was simply that the Church taught good principles.  I wasn't sure about Joseph Smith or even the existence of God.  Let those with doubts grow, and support them.  As long as we are all honestly seeking the truth, and seeking to do good, it's OK.

I want to to conclude with several disclaimers. I want to make it clear that I was not professing my personal views in the perspectives I listed above. I agree with some and disagree with others, but I know that there are upstanding, worthy, temple recommend holding members which hold each one of those views.  That needs to be known. I have friends who I love which have drifted away from the Church because they have views which they feel are not compatible with the Church's doctrine.  I respect them, and I respect their decision to leave the Church, but I also respectfully disagree with them in one regard. Their views are, in fact, compatible with the Church's doctrine.  Their views are not, however, compatible with the ugly and persisting culture of authoritarian exclusivity.

From my experience in South America, the liberal, questioning, progressive camp is virtually non-existent.  They seem to have a very conservative culture in the Church.  I imagine it is somewhat like the Church's general culture during the mid to late 1900's.  I don't believe they have the same type of faith crisis among millennials that we have in the United States.  It is still important to help them to open their minds to other opinions.  As I said in my last letter, it is only after one has opened his mind to new ideas that his heart can explore with real intent, and eventually find truth. It just might be wise to understand and consider the cultural background of your audience. Be careful and sensitive about how you approach things.

If sharing your viewpoints causes tension, consider that maybe you are being arrogant.  I understand that it can be frustrating.  I've been there.  But understand that an enlightened mind is in no way superior to a believing heart.  Never seek to instill doubt in others.  If you feel that sharing a certain viewpoint might instill doubt in a companion's heart, maybe it would be better not to share that viewpoint.  Just focus on helping to open minds to new ideas, helping others to be more tolerant of conflicting ideas, building faith in others and yourself, and helping to promote a culture of harmonious diversity.

I also realize that I am biased.  The very title of this letter witnesses that.  I have two reasons for expressing bias in this letter.  The first is that I do, in fact, have my own opinions as surprising as that might be.  The other is simply because conservative, unquestioning, traditional views are already widely accepted within the Church, while liberal, questioning, progressive views are not so widely accepted.  I want to reiterate that I am not in any way trying to downplay the value of conservative, unquestioning, traditionalist members.  They are just as valuable and needed.  Diversity is essential.

As you gain experience in your mission, you will gain the respect of your peers.  Whether called to leadership positions or not, you can have the influence of a leader. Use your influence to teach your fellow missionaries to love unconditionally in the truest sense of the word, which is to say, regardless of differences of opinion.  Use your influence to teach your peers never to judge the spiritual standing of another. If you have to, use your influence to teach other missionaries that they have no authority to label others as apostate.* Use your influence to promote a culture of faith, and harmonious diversity.  All of these things echo the teachings of Christ in an environment dominated by the authoritative and exclusive culture of the Pharisees.  You might consider studying the four gospels through that lens in your personal study.

I love you, Luke! Stay strong! Endure to the end.



*The irony is actually kind of funny because the way they use the word, they themselves are apostate since they are labeling others as apostate without the authority to label others as apostate. That authority is given to disciplinary councils under the keys of judges of Israel, that is, either a stake president or a bishop.  But you probably shouldn't call them out on that because it will only escalate the tension.

Week 13 - 27 February 2016: The Convincing of an Atheist

Dear Luke,

This week I am going to begin a series of letters about Lesson 1, The Message of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I'll write at least one letter per section.  I'll probably write two for most of them, including the first section, which is titled, "God Is Our Loving Heavenly Father."

I thought it might be appropriate to begin with some ideas about teaching this lesson to a person who does not believe in God.  I assume Brazil is similar to Chile in that most people are Christian, and mostly Catholic and Evangelical, but even in Chile, we would occasionally have to opportunity to share our message with  person who does not believe in God at all.  If other missionaries are like I was, many don't feel very well prepared for such teaching situations, and it is difficult for them to develop a teaching strategy.

Before developing a strategy, the missionary first has to understand a fallacy that exists among some atheists; they proclaim that God cannot exist because science proves it to be so.  Science is used as a sort of superficial excuse to hide a deeper issue.  Doctor Christian Smith of Notre Dame University pointed out this fallacy very effectively a few weeks ago in his BYU Forum speech.  He said, "I think that when we get down to it, a good part of what motivates [many of the scientists which pretend to have proven God does not exist] to reject God, religion, and other non-naturalistic, metaphysical views, are not actually the findings of science, but instead personal, moral, and emotional objections... Years of discussion and observation have suggested to me that in many cases if one scratches just below the surface of many allegedly scientific objections to religion one finds not real scientific problems, but instead personal, moral, and emotional concerns." Dr. Smith goes on to cite one of these scientists, "Maybe at the very bottom of it,.. I really don't like God. You know, it's silly to say I don't like God because I don't believe in God, but in the same sense that I don't like lago... or any of the other villains of literature, the God of traditional Judaism and Christianity and Islam seems to me a terrible character.  He is a god who [is] obsessed [with] the degree to which people worship him and anxious to punish with the most awful torments those who don't worship him in the right way. The traditional god [is] a terrible character.  I don't like him."

Is that not the case of the people of Ammonihah who said to Alma, "We will not believe thy words if thou shouldst prophesy that this great city should be destroyed in one day," (Alma 9:4)?  It can be difficult to believe in a loving God who allows suffering.  Quite honestly, I sympathize with atheists who feel that a loving God would not allow for the suffering caused by natural disasters, disease, and starvation in some areas of the world. Except to say that these calamities promote a sense of community over ego-centrism, courage over cowardice, and humility over pride, I have no theory as to why God allows these things to happen, and I understand that my answer may not be satisfactory most.  I do not pretend to understand the will of God.  For now, the best answer I can give is a quotation of Isaiah, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts," (Isaiah 55:8-9).  Which is, in a way, a glorified way of saying, "I don't have the answer."

So once the missionary has understood that there is very possibly a deeper question to be answered, he might understand that leading off with trying to convince the atheist that God does exist, might not be the best strategy.  An atheist who has made the conscious decision to not believe in God, has at least at one time accepted the possibility that there is a God.  If you can convince an atheist that there is a possibility that God exists, you have done most of your part, and as the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven, this shouldn't be very difficult.  Once minds are opened to possibilities, hearts can explore with real intent.

The next step might be to convince the atheist that the notion of God can be good.  C. S. Lewis illustrated this idea in his book, The Screwtape Letters.  Something you have to understand about the book is that all of the teachings about Christianity are presented from the perspective of demons, so the principles should be applied in reverse.  One demon wrote to another, "Man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" or "false," but as "academic" or "practical," "outworn" or "contemporary," "conventional" or "ruthless." Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong or stark or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about." The message in the context of my letter to you is, don't waste your time trying to convince an atheist that God is real.  Convince him first that God can be associated with good things which may be valuable to the atheist such as rational thought, academia, practicality, and logic.

The philosopher mathematician Blaise Pascal achieved this with his famous wager. According to Wikipedia, the basic outline of Pascal's Wager is the following:

1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. You must wager (it is not optional).
4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

The basic logic of his decision theory is that the possibility of infinite gain is of more value than the possibility of a finite loss (such as not participating in immoral activity) and so choosing to believe in God is a more rational choice.

A third step is to remind.  In the premortal existence, we all chose to follow Christ.  Perhaps some vestiges of that experience remain within the souls of men.  Perhaps Elder Packer's words refer to such vestiges, "A teacher of gospel truths is not planting something foreign or even new into an adult or a child. Rather, the missionary or teacher is making contact with the Spirit of Christ already there. The gospel will have a familiar ‘ring’ to them," (quoted in Preach My Gospel Chapter 4).  B. H. Roberts said, "To be known, the truth must be stated and the clearer and more complete the statement is, the better the opportunity will the Holy Spirit have for testifying to the souls of men that the work is true," (Quoted in Preach My Gospel Chapter 10).  As you teach the purest of truths, even to an atheist with an open mind, the Holy Spirit can make contact with the Spirit of Christ within the man you teach, and testify with convincing power to his soul.  He will be reminded in a way.  The truth will have a familiar ring to it.

When I speak of these purest truths, I make reference to those truths found in the first section of Lesson 1. "God is our loving Heavenly Father.  We are His children... We can communicate with Him through sincere prayer... We can show our love for Him through our choices and our obedience to His commandments...  Central to our Father's plan is Jesus Christ's Atonement...Through the Atonement we can be freed from the burden of our sins and develop faith and strength to face our trials."  These are the convincing truths of which the Spirit can most powerfully testify.

There is one other tool which can be very effective in convincing an atheist because it communicates the purest of truths.  Joseph Smith described it as "the most correct of any book on earth," (Introduction to the Book of Mormon).  The book itself was written "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God," (Title Page of the Book of Mormon).  The book is, of course, the Book of Mormon.  For some reason, missionaries are so often afraid to give away a Book of Mormon before teaching Lesson 1 in its entirety.  Quite frankly, I think the very worst place for the book to be is on the shelf of your apartment.  At least if it has been given to someone, there is some chance, that someday, someone might read it.  Don't be afraid to give away a Book of Mormon even though you haven't even taught about prophets and Joseph's vision.  It is more important that the Book of Mormon be a witness of Christ than a witness of Joseph Smith's role as prophet.  A brief introduction is all that is necessary.

But I'll write more about the Book of Mormon later.  I love you Luke! Have a great week!

Week 12 - 20 February 2016: From Ignorance To Harmony

Dear Luke,

I was inspired to write this message by two articles that I read recently.  The first is about Pope Francis' Lenten message of last year.  He gave a beautiful discourse about fasting from indifference in order to feast on love, and become better Christians.  His message was inspiring and uplifting.  I had quite the opposite experience as I read a second, and rather unfortunate article which is titled, "Why Mormons Don't Believe In Ash Wednesday and Lent." In addition to being offensive to Catholics, the article was offensive to any Mormon who doesn't want his belief about Lent and the reasons for it to be dictated by some guy who has no authority to make such declarations about the beliefs of Mormonism as a religion.  For the record, I think participating in Lent can be a powerful act of devotion, and that any upstanding, temple recommend holding member of the Church could practice Lent and be better for it. I do not think the writer had bad intentions by any means, but his article illustrates my point that there is a persisting culture among pockets of Mormons of ignorance, self-righteousness, and discord concerning their perspective of other religions.  If we are to develop true, Christ-like love, we must first replace ignorance with understanding, self-righteousness with tolerance, and discord with harmony.

You might feel like I'm preaching to the choir right now.  I know you understand this, but I am not writing this message to convince you.  I am writing this message so to help you to change a culture which might abide in your mission, as it did in mine.  You know my three best friends in high school were a Jehovah's Witness, a Protestant, and a Roman Catholic.  They were, and continue to be, three great men, for whom I have great respect.  During one transfer cycle of my mission, I heard a missionary I was living with speak poorly of the Jehovah's Witnesses.  He was rattling off their beliefs as if he was a Jehovah's Witness himself, and I recognized many things he said of their doctrine which were simply not true.  I made an effort to defend their faith, and I received constant bullying for it.  When a zone leader was on splits at my apartment, he found a book a Jehovah's Witness had given me titled, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" and he ripped it in half.  I was astounded by the sheer hypocrisy.  Missionaries of a Church which honors its persecuted ancestors, and struggles with the spread of false rumors of its teachings, were gossiping about the beliefs of other religions and destroying religious literature.  I think this culture did change on my mission because of the teachings of my mission president, but you might have to play a bigger part in your mission. I hope to give you some resources today which could help you transform that culture.

From Ignorance to Understanding

Perhaps we do not need to understand all things about other religions, but we should cast off enough ignorance at least to understand that Mormons do not have a monopoly on the truth, and that other religions are, in fact, good.

I have notes from a fireside done by Terryl and Fiona Givens which say that Joseph Smith considered himself a gatherer of truth more than a restorer of truth.  I also remember having heard of Richard Bushman, another Church historian, saying the same.  Unfortunately, I could not find good sources to support that claim because I am a college student and time isn't my most abundant resource. So where did Joseph gather the truth from? I was able to find this quote of his, "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons,"" (History of the Church 5:517).  There is truth in all religions. We should learn of them.

Terryl and Fiona Givens powerfully argue that Mormons do not have the monopoly on the truth which many pretend in chapter 7 of their book, The Crucible of Doubt.  I agree with them wholeheartedly and I wish I could include the whole chapter in this letter for you to read in your spare time, but I cannot.  In short, the idea that Mormons have all of the truth, and no one else can have any that we don't, is an absolutely erroneous and arrogant fallacy. Considering the billions of people that have inhabited the earth, and the infinite truths yet to be discovered and canonized, is it not likely that somebody has stumbled across a truth which the Mormons haven't of yet?  Considering scriptural evidence (D&C 49:8) and teachings of Preach My Gospel (Chapter 3 Lesson 1) which tell us that God has inspired many men outside of our religion, it is much more than likely, but extremely probable if not certain.

Now, to answer the question of the goodness of other religions, I will refer to Brigham Young.  He said, "Now, this may be singular to some. What! They enjoy the Spirit of the Lord? Yes, every man and woman, according to their faith and the knowledge they have in their possession. They enjoy the goodness of their Father in heaven. Do they receive the Spirit of the Lord? They do, and enjoy the light of it, and walk in it, and rejoice in it.

What will be their state hereafter? Every faithful Methodist that has lived up to and faithfully fulfilled the requirements of his religion, according to the best light he had, doing good to all and evil to none, injuring no person upon the earth, honoring his God as far he knew, will have as great a heaven as he ever anticipated in the flesh, and far greater. Every Presbyterian, and every Quaker, and every Baptist, and every Roman Catholic member—every reformer, of whatever class or grade, that lives according to the best light they have, and never have had an opportunity of receiving a greater light than the one in their possession, will have and enjoy all they live for...

You may go among the Pagans, or among all the nations there are, and they have their religion, their sacraments, and ceremonies, which are as sacred to them as ours are to us: they are just as precious and dear to them, though we call them heathen. They are idolatrous worshippers; yet their religion is as sacred to them as ours is to us. If they live according to the best light they have in their religion, God is God over all and the Father of us all; we are all the workmanship of his hands; (Moses 7:32)
and if they are ignorant, filled with superstition, and have the traditions of the fathers interwoven like a mantle around and over them, that they cannot see any light, so will they be judged; and if they have lived according to what they did possess, so they will receive hereafter.

And will it be glory, you may inquire? Yes. Glory, glory, glory..." (Journal of Discourses 6:53).

I think Brigham Young would have been a very difficult man to argue with.  It would certainly be difficult to argue that other religions are churches of the devil and abominations after hearing him say what he did in that discourse.  Even tougher to argue with is Jesus Christ.  Luke 9:49-50 reads, "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." Members of other religions which do good are on our team.  They enjoy the Spirit of the Lord, and they will receive glory in heaven.  They are good.

From Self Righteousness to Tolerance

Alma tells of a people who prayed in the following manner, "Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children... and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren... And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen," (Alma 31:16-18)

Unfortunately, and almost comically, those verses could just as well be describing some members of the Church. Alma prayed for that people, "Behold, O God, they cry unto thee, and yet their hearts are swallowed up in their pride. Behold, O God, they cry unto thee with their mouths, while they are puffed up, even to greatness, with the vain things of the world," (Alma 31:27).  The Zoramites described were religiously intolerant because they were prideful and self righteous.

Tolerance, on the other hand, requires humility.  Tolerance is defined as "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry." The most basic tolerance is described in the 11th Article of Faith, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Religious tolerance is more than just good idea.  It is an important part of our faith as Mormons.

From Discord to Harmony

But tolerance is not enough.  Included in BYU Speeches is one delivered by Alwi Shihab in an address titled, "Building Bridges to Harmony Through Understanding."In it he said, "Let me suggest, dear brothers and sisters, that religious tolerance is not enough. We have often seen... that tolerance does not always lead to true social peace and harmony. To tolerate something is to learn to live with it, even when you think it is wrong and downright evil. Often tolerance is a tolerance of indifference, which is at best a grudging willingness to put up with something or someone you hate and wish would go away. We must go, I believe, beyond tolerance if we are to achieve harmony in our world. We must move the adherents of different faiths from a position of strife and tension to one of harmony and understanding by promoting a multifaith and pluralistic society. We must strive for acceptance of the other based on understanding and respect. Nor should we stop even at mere acceptance of the other; rather, we must accept the other as one of us in humanity and, above all, in dignity."

Harmony between religions is a beautiful thing. I would like apply a quote of Elder Wirthlin's to this concept "Tied to this misconception is the erroneous belief that all [religions] should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not [dot] the earth with a vibrant orchestra of [religions] only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All [religions] are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole," ("Concern for the One").  The beauty of harmony is in diversity, and cooperation.  If we all played the melody, it would be a boring piece.  If we did not cooperate, the dissonance of notes would be painful to listen to.

Harmony between religions is a component of the modern Church. The Church continues to work closely with Catholic Charities to provide relief after natural disasters.  President Hinckley was particularly fond of Pope John Paul II.  Examples of harmony between Church leaders and other religions can be found throughout the history of the Church. But I think the culmination of religious harmony was expressed by Joseph Smith, "“The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination," (History of the Church, 5:498–99).

I hope that that will some day be the predominating culture of the Mormon Church. I hope this will help you to be able to do your part to change a culture.

Keep up the good work, Luke! I love you!

Week 11 - 14 February 2016: Exegesis and the Fallacy of Certainty

Dear Luke,

Happy Birthday this week!! I sent you a package. Hopefully it arrives.  From what I've heard, a lot of packages get stolen along the way.  I do think God wants you to have what's in the package, but I know that he wants the thief to have his agency even more, so I've taken some extra precautions.  I put some pictures of Jesus on it, and wrote, "Se você roubar este pacote, você será condenado ao inferno para sofrer por toda a eternidade," in nice, big letters across the whole thing.  Hopefully that'll do the trick!

President Uchtdorf gave a great talk a couple years ago titled, "What Is Truth?" The object of this week's letter is to help you to answer that question as you study your scriptures every day through a method called 'exegesis.'

President Uchtdorf said:

"Well over one hundred years ago, an American poet put to rhyme an ancient parable. The first verse of the poem speaks about:

"Six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind."

In the poem each of the six travelers takes hold of a different part of the elephant and then describes to the others what he has discovered.

One of the men finds the elephant’s leg and describes it as being round and rough like a tree. Another feels the tusk and describes the elephant as a spear. A third grabs the tail and insists that an elephant is like a rope. A fourth discovers the trunk and insists that the elephant is like a large snake.

Each is describing truth.

And because his truth comes from personal experience, each insists that he knows what he knows.

The poem concludes:

"And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!""

And so it can be with interpretation of the scripture; each partly in the right and all in the wrong.  Joseph Smith expressed the same when he wrote, "for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible," (Joseph Smith - History 1:12).  And even within the Church different interpretations abound.

I believe it is certainty that lies at the heart of the issue.  Bruce C. Hafen once said, "I think some... are more interested in being certain than they are in being right," ("Love Is Not Blind:Some Thoughts for College Students on Faith and Ambiguity"). Sometimes we are certain about points of doctrine or Church history because we were taught them in primary or we heard them somewhere or somewhere down the line they became tradition or culture, etc. Sometimes these points we are so certain about are perversions of the truth. It happens more than we realize. For example, many members may think that the sacrament can only be administered on Sundays.  In fact, the very first sacrament after the Church was organized in this dispensation was administered on a Tuesday - April 6, 1830.

Another example concerning the sacrament is the idea that the principle purpose of the sacrament ordinance is to renew other ordinances.  In the Sabbath Day Training videos, Neal A. Anderson said, "The title ‘renewing our baptismal covenants’ is not found in the scriptures. It is not inappropriate. Many of you have used it in talks. We have used it in talks, but it is not something that is used in the scriptures. And it can’t be the keynote of what we say about the sacrament." (This principle is also apparent in the event of the first administered sacrament in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the baptized received the gift of the Holy Ghost after having received the sacrament in the same meeting). After I heard that, I began to pay attention to how often I used that phrase in my prayers.  Just about every Sunday morning, the words would nearly leave my mouth and I would have to remind myself that I needed to refocus my sacrament experience.

I call this phenomenon 'the fallacy of certainty.' It's a really scary thing to me. How many other non-doctrinal traditions am I certain are truth? Or how many other traditions and cultures distract me from the truth? They so easily go undetected.

If we are to find truth as we study, we must first clear our minds of 'certainties.'  We must segregate a time of study to look at the text as if it was the first time.

I'll offer two examples of common misinterpretations of scripture which are related to the fallacy of certainty.

Sometimes members of the Church, and especially missionaries, receive criticism because of scriptures like Exodus 33:20, "And [the Lord] said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live," and John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time." They make the argument that, based on these scriptures, Joseph Smith could not have seen God in the First Vision.

Members and missionaries often respond by citing scriptures like Genesis 32:30 and Exodus 33:11, and saying something like, "Well that's not true because prophets like Moses spoke with God face to face." The problem with this is twofold. The first problem is that the scriptures are being used as a cannon instead of a Canon (see Terryl Givens, "The Crucible of Doubt" Chapter 4). The second problem is that, according to LDS theology, the God of the Old Testament is Jehovah, the premortal Christ. Many have been taught that rebuttal, and are so certain that it is correct that they are distracted from the doctrinal concept that Christ is the God of the Old Testament. Worse are those defenders of the faith who know the verses they chose refer to Christ and yet still choose to use them as rebuttals. They deliberately misinterpret verses of scripture because it is convenient to prove their point.

Another commonly misinterpreted scripture is Isaiah 5:26, "And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly," (see also 2 Nephi 15:26). Members read the word "ensign" and think of the magazine and they think of Isaiah 11 and 2 Nephi 21 which connect the word with the gathering of Israel, and then they think of the Song of the Vineyard in the beginning of Isaiah 5 and compare it to Jacob 5 which connects the vineyard to the gathering of Israel, and then they read the chapter heading of Isaiah 5 which says, "The Lord will lift an ensign and gather Israel," and that seals the deal. Isaiah 5 must be referring to the gathering of Israel. I'm certain of it.

If verse 26 were the only verse in the chapter, that interpretation would make a lot of sense.  But it's not. There's context, and the context is that the people are sinning and the judgments of God are upon them. Verse 25 reads, "Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." Verses following verse 26 tell of weapons of war and darkness and sorrow. Does that sound like the gathering of Israel? No! Of course not! Isaiah 5:26 is not referring to the gathering of Israel, but the gathering of Israel's enemies against them.   In fact, the word "ensign" is defined in Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon as "a banner, such as was set up on high mountains, especially in case of an invasion." The definition goes on to cite Isaiah 5:26 among other scriptures.  After Isaiah's prophesy, Israel would be conquered by the Babylonians, and later by the Romans. Verse 26 could refer to either, or both, of the captivities.  Any non-LDS commentary of the Bible could tell you that.

The problem is that we often look at scriptures through twin lenses.  One of these lenses is the present.  The other lens is Mormon ideology. We certainly do "see through a glass [or two] darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12) when we view scriptures solely from these perspectives.  We apply historical verses with historical context to the present, immediately relating them to the 'here and now' before understanding their meaning in the 'then and there,' and we do so with the biased eyes of a Mormon.  Of course, other Churches do the same.  They look at scripture with the biased eyes of Catholics, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.  It's natural to want your beliefs to be expressed in scripture, even subconsciously.

When we do this, we mean no harm.  We often do it in our innocent ignorance, and with good intentions.  I do not believe we will be judged harshly for misinterpretation, but I think from a moral standpoint, we should do our best to share the most complete truth we can, especially as we share the Gospel, and most especially when we are doing so in the name of Christ.

The exegetical method can help us to avoid these misinterpretations.  The mission of exegesis is to avoid bias and extract the whole truth, or at least a greater portion of the truth, from a text. A simplified definition of the exegetical process is, "the careful historical, literary, and theological analysis of a text," (Huntsman, "Teaching through Exegesis: Helping Students Ask Questions of the Text"). Some questions you should ask include:

Historical Questions

"When and why was this text written?
What occasioned the event or teaching recorded?
Who was its author and original audience?
How does its historical and cultural context affect its interpretation?
How did the information in it—from the original source, to the author, through editors and translators—get to us?" (Huntsman)

Literary Questions*

"What kind of writing is the passage, and how does its genre affect how we read it?
How does it fit into its larger context—particularly what comes before and after it?
What was the author trying to teach or emphasize by relating it as he or she did?" (Huntsman)

Theological Questions

"How does this passage affect and change the reader?
What principles or doctrines does it illustrate or teach?
What does it teach us about God and His plan?
What does it teach us about the person and work of Jesus?
What have latter-day apostles and prophets taught about this passage?" (Huntsman)

You can see how asking these questions could prevent the misinterpretation of the scriptures I mentioned above.

It is important that you develop good study habits early on.  Ask these questions regularly as you study.  You will gain great insights as you do.  I can promise you that.

I'll finish up with this scripture:

"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things," (Moroni 10:3-5).

I love you Luke! I hope this is a help to you!

*I included the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition edited by Grant Hardy in your package.  It should help you to answer some of the literary questions.  It divides the Book of Mormon into paragraphs instead of verses and includes section titles so that you can more easily see where the most relevant context begins. Different types of text are also distinguished by the form they are written. Poetic scripture and quotes are easily recognized so you can recognize the genre more easily.  Additionally, chapter headings and cross-references have been removed.  This will help you avoid 'certainty' and have a mind more open to unconventional, and perhaps more meaningful, interpretation.  Study hard!

Week 10 - 07 February 2016: The Essential Nature of God the Spirit

Dear Luke,

Dad told me about a conversation you had with him over email.  He said that you mentioned that you had had a discussion with some other missionaries about some questions regarding the Holy Ghost.  It can be hard on the mission to find answers to some questions because your resources are limited to the missionary library.  Luckily you have an older brother with virtually unlimited resources and a curious mind.  I thought I would join the discussion.

According to dad, you mentioned two questions, "Was the Holy Ghost present on the earth during Christ's lifetime?" and "Is the gift of the Holy Ghost necessary for salvation?" 

The Bible Dictionary does a great job of answering the first question.  It reads, "For some reason not fully explained in the scriptures, the Holy Ghost did not operate in the fulness among the Jews during the years of Jesus’ mortal sojourn (John 7:39; 16:7). Statements to the effect that the Holy Ghost did not come until after Jesus was resurrected must of necessity refer to that particular dispensation only, for it is abundantly clear that the Holy Ghost was operative in earlier dispensations. Furthermore, it has reference only to the gift of the Holy Ghost not being present, since the power of the Holy Ghost was operative during the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus; otherwise no one would have received a testimony of the truths that these men taught (Matt. 16:16–17; see also 1 Cor. 12:3)." 

The misunderstanding of your fellow missionaries was probably rooted in the distinction between the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the power of the Holy Ghost.  The question of why the gift of the Holy Ghost was not present during Christ's lifetime is certainly debatable, and like many debatable things in the Church, it's debatable because it really doesn't matter.  It's usually best to avoid such speculative debates, especially as a missionary.

The second question is much less debatable.  The answer is YES.  The gift of the Holy Ghost is absolutely an essential ordinance for salvation.  I know you knew that, but if you feel the need to help your missionary friend along, you can very humbly and respectfully and lovingly refer him to Chapters 3 and 12 of Preach My Gospel which contain the statements, "Baptism by water must be followed by baptism of the Spirit or it is incomplete," and "Emphasize that baptism by water is incomplete without confirmation and the gift of the Holy Ghost," respectively.  

You could also refer him to John 16:7.  Christ says, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."  I kind of like the NLV translation of this verse, "But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don't, the Advocate won't come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you."  Christ told His disciples that it was better for them that He leave them, so that they could have the gift of the Holy Ghost. What greater manifestation of the importance of the gift of the Holy Ghost could we have?

So perhaps the follow-up question would be: "Why is the gift of the Holy Ghost necessary for salvation?"  I asked that very same question before my mission.

It seems a little weird. Other saving ordinances seem to have much more responsibility attached to them. Why do we need to be given something in order to be saved?  I did not nearly understand the depth of that question when I asked it the first time. (I say that because the question, and the answer for that matter, is related to a centuries-long and continuing debate among Christian sects concerning the Atonement, which is a conversation for another day). To begin with, it is not entirely that we need to be given the Holy Ghost, but also that we need to receive the Holy Ghost, and that is a very important verb with a lot of responsibility attached to it.  

Nephi makes the distinction of responsibility between being given the Holy Ghost and receiving the Holy Ghost abundantly clear.  He first explains what we need to do in order to be given the Holy Ghost, "And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost," (2 Nephi 31:12).  Pretty simple.  Now let's see what Nephi has to say about what we need to do in order to receive the Holy Ghost, "I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost," (2 Nephi 31:13).  There's definitely a little more attached to that one.  Perhaps a misunderstanding of the distinction between being given the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit is at the root of your missionary friend's doubt, as it was for me.

But that doesn't answer our question.  Why is the gift of the Holy Ghost required? 

We often stress the Holy Ghost's role as the Comforter, His role as a Revelator in communicating personal revelation to us and giving us testimony, and His role as a Protector who warns of danger.  These are all very good things, and I am very thankful for them, and they are certainly pertinent to our salvation, but I believe the saving role of the Holy Ghost is His role as a Sanctifier or Purifier.  Nephi said in that same, wonderful chapter of 2 Nephi 31, "For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost," (2 Nephi 31:17). Remission of sins comes through the Holy Ghost as we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  It is a baptism of fire through which we are purified.  Without it, we have no hope of reaching the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven, for we know all too well, "no unclean thing can dwell with God," (1 Nephi 10:21).  

Before finishing up, I want to clear up one more point which could be another factor beneath your missionary friend's question.  The Holy Ghost is often referred to as the third Member of the Godhead. Perhaps we forget that He is the third God of the Godhead. Joseph Smith taught, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," (History of the Church 6:474).  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are of course all essential for salvation.

I'll finish with a verse from the hymn,"Sweet Is the Peace the Gospel Brings" written by Mary Ann Murton Durham:

"May we who know the sacred Name

From every sin depart.

Then will the Spirit's constant flame

Preserve us pure in heart."

I love you, Luke! I hope this helps!