Since there are two Mormons in the Republican primary race, questions about Mormonism are coming up in public discourse. The response in the media and by public figures has generally been to condemn any religious-based discrimination as irrelevant to a candidate's eligibility, which is right. But there is also a need for explanations of the specific charges and why they are not problematic.
One such claim is that Mormons believe that there is a living prophet (currently Thomas S. Monson) who speaks for God, and that if a devout Mormon such as Mitt Romney or (less plausibly) Jon Huntsman were president, he would never disobey the prophet. Therefore, if Monson got it into his head to meddle in foreign or domestic policy, the President would be at his bidding, religiously obligated to set aside his own misgivings and have faith that he ought to do whatever the prophet says.
The typical response is to point out that people said the same thing about John F. Kennedy being Catholic and the pope therefore being able to use him as a puppet, and none of those fears materialized. (Nor does it appear that Pope Benedict XVI actively intermeddles in the affairs of any of the dozens of countries, outside the Vatican itself, which officially identify as Catholic.) But let’s try to answer the question from within Mormonism, and not merely by analogy to Catholicism.
The truth is that any Mormon devout enough to feel obligated to obey the prophet, and intelligent enough to be the President, would know that Mormon doctrine specifically prohibits any such intermeddling.
1) We do not claim that the Prophet is infallible. Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 286 or 278 depending on the edition; see also this link.)
2) Mormon scripture states, “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” (D&C 134:9) Another passage reads, “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned[.]” (D&C 121:41)
3) Official Church policy states, “The Church does not: Endorse, promote, or oppose political parties, candidates, or platforms … [nor] attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.” On certain rare public issues that have moral and religious implications, however, the Church will adopt an official stance.
4) When the prophets speak, it is not expected that the members of the church unthinkingly obey. Rather, it is incumbent upon each church member to seek his or her own confirmation from God that the prophet was, in fact, speaking in accordance with God’s wishes. See this link.
The fact that people of such different political views as, for instance, Senate majority leader Harry Reid and far right-wing media personality Glenn Beck can both be devout Mormons shows that the LDS Church must not be exercising much control over their politics. Mormons have a long history in politics, and although their religious beliefs influence their views, I am unaware of a single instance of even a mere allegation that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had attempted to coerce a Mormon politician in his political decisions. (This article has its inaccuracies, but collaborates this point in the last three paragraphs.)
Let’s pretend that Mitt Romney becomes the President of the United States. Even if the Mormon prophet, President Monson, were to call him up and give him instructions on how to run the country—which he would never do—Romney would be under no obligation to obey. Pr. Monson would be acting contrary to Mormon scripture and longstanding official church policy, and Romney would conclude that he had therefore not been acting as a prophet and consequently ignore it. Something Romney said back in 2007 goes for any Mormon politician in any office and of any political party: "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."
In summary
Claim: If a Mormon became President of the United States, he would be a puppet of the Mormon prophet, who could dictate decisions to him, claiming that it was the will of God.
Answer: Mormon scripture and official church policy prohibit church leaders from using their ecclesiastical positions to tell public officials how to perform their duties. The Church has never attempted to tell Mormon politicians what to do or how to vote. If the prophet were to do so, he would be deemed to have not been acting as a prophet, and his directions considered mere personal opinion.
Read More......
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Do Mormons wear "magic underwear"?
An increasingly frequent mockery of Mormonism is the claim that Mormons wear “magic underwear.” Like most such rumors, the “magic underwear” claim is a misrepresentation. Yet there is some truth behind it, which ought to be separated from the sensationalism.
The Temple Garment
Mormon men and women who have worshiped in a temple wear a white garment as their underclothing. (Temple worship is open to all adults who have been active members of the church for a year and keep the basic baptismal commitments.) It is intended to symbolize moral purity and to serve as a reminder of the spiritual and moral standards one promises in the temple to uphold, and is called, simply, the “garment,” or formally, the “garment of the Holy Priesthood.”
Attaching religious symbolism to clothing is nothing unheard of. Nearly every religion has some kind of special religious clothing. The difference is that in Mormonism, every active member is a part of the ministry and there is no paid clergy, so everyone wears the garment—not just the congregational leaders. The garment is therefore worn as underclothing, not as outer clothing, because:
1) we live our everyday lives during the week, which may be incompatible with religious vestments worn externally,
2) but we don’t want to create the impression that we only carry our religious standards with us when we go to church on Sunday, and
3) the point is to remind the wearer, not the rest of the world, of his or her religious commitments.
Because the garment is underwear, it can be worn underneath our regular clothing during most day-to-day activities. That reminds us that we also "wear" our spiritual obligations all the time—not just when we’re at church.
Similarities to Other Religions
Actually, it’s not even very unique that our religious clothing is our underwear. Many religions around the world have underwear with special religious significance. For instance, one of the “five Ks” of Sikhism is the wearing of the kachchhera, a special kind of cotton underwear intended to remind Sikhs of their obligation of sexual morality. Orthodox Jews wear a garment called the tallit katan either as underclothing or outside their clothing, also as a reminder of their covenants with God. The complicated traditional vestments of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy also include a certain type of underwear, although I have been unable to determine whether it has any religious significance independent of the other vestments.
(Additionally, there is a special religious garment in Islam for those who have participated in the hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). That garment is worn as outerwear, not underwear, but it is reminiscent of the fact that Mormons wear the garment after they have participated in temple worship.)
Biblical Basis
The Bible contains plenty of references to clothing with religious and symbolic significance. In Exodus 28 and Exodus 40:13, Moses is commanded to clothe the temple priests in “holy garments,” including a linen tunic or undershirt. Isaiah refers to the “garments of salvation” (Isaiah 61:10). In Ezekiel’s vision, he saw that people who came to worship in the temple put on special temple garments (Ezekiel 42:14). Jesus told a parable in which a wedding feast represented heaven, and only those who wore a special garment were admitted (Matt. 22:11-13).
Not "Magic"
Although the critics like to mock the garment as “magic,” Mormons do not believe that garments themselves have any supernatural qualities. However, we do believe that keeping our spiritual obligations brings blessings from God, and that wearing the garment helps remind us of those spiritual obligations. In that way, the garment provides spiritual protection.
In summary
Argument: Mormons wear magic underwear, and that’s weird.
Response: Garments are not “magic”; Mormons don’t believe they have supernatural qualities. Rather, garments serve to remind Mormons of their obligation to live up to their religious obligations. They are worn as underwear because the purpose is to remind the wearer of his standards, rather than to flaunt our religion to other people.
Further Reading
Boyd K. Packer, "Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple" (2002)
Mormon Defense League, "Magic Mormon Underwear" (June 23, 2011)
Evelyn Marshall, "Garments," Encylopedia of Mormonism (1992)
Read More......
The Temple Garment
Mormon men and women who have worshiped in a temple wear a white garment as their underclothing. (Temple worship is open to all adults who have been active members of the church for a year and keep the basic baptismal commitments.) It is intended to symbolize moral purity and to serve as a reminder of the spiritual and moral standards one promises in the temple to uphold, and is called, simply, the “garment,” or formally, the “garment of the Holy Priesthood.”
Attaching religious symbolism to clothing is nothing unheard of. Nearly every religion has some kind of special religious clothing. The difference is that in Mormonism, every active member is a part of the ministry and there is no paid clergy, so everyone wears the garment—not just the congregational leaders. The garment is therefore worn as underclothing, not as outer clothing, because:
1) we live our everyday lives during the week, which may be incompatible with religious vestments worn externally,
2) but we don’t want to create the impression that we only carry our religious standards with us when we go to church on Sunday, and
3) the point is to remind the wearer, not the rest of the world, of his or her religious commitments.
Because the garment is underwear, it can be worn underneath our regular clothing during most day-to-day activities. That reminds us that we also "wear" our spiritual obligations all the time—not just when we’re at church.
Similarities to Other Religions
Actually, it’s not even very unique that our religious clothing is our underwear. Many religions around the world have underwear with special religious significance. For instance, one of the “five Ks” of Sikhism is the wearing of the kachchhera, a special kind of cotton underwear intended to remind Sikhs of their obligation of sexual morality. Orthodox Jews wear a garment called the tallit katan either as underclothing or outside their clothing, also as a reminder of their covenants with God. The complicated traditional vestments of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy also include a certain type of underwear, although I have been unable to determine whether it has any religious significance independent of the other vestments.
(Additionally, there is a special religious garment in Islam for those who have participated in the hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). That garment is worn as outerwear, not underwear, but it is reminiscent of the fact that Mormons wear the garment after they have participated in temple worship.)
Biblical Basis
The Bible contains plenty of references to clothing with religious and symbolic significance. In Exodus 28 and Exodus 40:13, Moses is commanded to clothe the temple priests in “holy garments,” including a linen tunic or undershirt. Isaiah refers to the “garments of salvation” (Isaiah 61:10). In Ezekiel’s vision, he saw that people who came to worship in the temple put on special temple garments (Ezekiel 42:14). Jesus told a parable in which a wedding feast represented heaven, and only those who wore a special garment were admitted (Matt. 22:11-13).
Not "Magic"
Although the critics like to mock the garment as “magic,” Mormons do not believe that garments themselves have any supernatural qualities. However, we do believe that keeping our spiritual obligations brings blessings from God, and that wearing the garment helps remind us of those spiritual obligations. In that way, the garment provides spiritual protection.
In summary
Argument: Mormons wear magic underwear, and that’s weird.
Response: Garments are not “magic”; Mormons don’t believe they have supernatural qualities. Rather, garments serve to remind Mormons of their obligation to live up to their religious obligations. They are worn as underwear because the purpose is to remind the wearer of his standards, rather than to flaunt our religion to other people.
Further Reading
Boyd K. Packer, "Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple" (2002)
Mormon Defense League, "Magic Mormon Underwear" (June 23, 2011)
Evelyn Marshall, "Garments," Encylopedia of Mormonism (1992)
Read More......
Monday, August 8, 2011
Do Mormons believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob?
The Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon” is a prominent example of what has become a trendy belief among those who consider themselves benevolent atheists: that religion is full of ridiculous beliefs, but is still possibly a positive thing because it makes people feel good. The musical presents a list of crazy-sounding ideas as if they were core Mormon beliefs and implies that all religion contains similar absurdity.
The problem is that many people seem to not grasp the fact that the musical is hyperbole and exaggeration and repeat its version of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as accurate. Indeed, some of the humor is funny only if the audience believes that certain misrepresentations are true.
A CNN blog recently held a Q&A with Dr. Richard Bushman about the accuracy of some of the musical’s portrayals of Mormon beliefs. After noting that the musical is like "a fun-house mirror. The reflection is hilarious but not really you," he offered this explanation of the Kolob claim:
"Does God live on a planet called Kolob? Again, pretty close, but not precisely accurate. The astronomical reflections of Abraham in one Mormon scripture do speak of God dwelling close to a planet named Kolob. The place of God’s dwelling registers only as a tiny detail in Mormon thinking, but the idea that He does have a dwelling place is of immense importance.
"Mormon theology differs radically from conventional Christianity in locating God in time and space. He is not outside creation as traditionally believed. He is part of the physical universe, a being like the God in Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel who could touch Adam’s finger with his own if He chose."
I like how Dr. Bushman cuts through the weirdness factor to focus on the actual theological issue: Mormons believe in a physical God who exists inside the universe. To Mormons, the traditional idea that God exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time is nonsense, as is the idea of a God who exists “outside the universe.” I suspect that the belief that God dwells near a place called Kolob mainly sounds weird because the name “Kolob” sounds like something from sci-fi, not because the idea that God actually exists in a particular place is so bizarre. But then, what name did you expect it to have? Any name at all would’ve sounded weird, since most people are accustomed to thinking of heaven as an abstraction, not a literal place.
Two final notes: Dr. Bushman made a minor mistake when he said that God dwells “close to a planet named Kolob.” Kolob is actually a star, not a planet. The fact that a prominent Mormon scholar like Dr. Bushman would make that mistake just illustrates what an insignificant part of our beliefs this is. I can’t remember the last time I even heard the word “Kolob” in church.
And finally, it’s worth noting that Kolob is not where Mormons expect to go when they die. Jesus Christ taught, “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5), and Mormons take that to mean that after the final judgment, “the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory” (Tenth Article of Faith). So Mormons believe that our heaven will be right here, not near a star called Kolob.
In summary
Claim: Mormons believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
Response: Mormons believe that God lives not on a planet called Kolob, but they do believe that He lives near a star by that name. Kolob is just about the least important thing in Mormon doctrine, and it's hardly ever even mentioned. The more important point is that God lives in an actual place in an actual location--that he's a real being with physical substance.
Read More......
The problem is that many people seem to not grasp the fact that the musical is hyperbole and exaggeration and repeat its version of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as accurate. Indeed, some of the humor is funny only if the audience believes that certain misrepresentations are true.
A CNN blog recently held a Q&A with Dr. Richard Bushman about the accuracy of some of the musical’s portrayals of Mormon beliefs. After noting that the musical is like "a fun-house mirror. The reflection is hilarious but not really you," he offered this explanation of the Kolob claim:
"Does God live on a planet called Kolob? Again, pretty close, but not precisely accurate. The astronomical reflections of Abraham in one Mormon scripture do speak of God dwelling close to a planet named Kolob. The place of God’s dwelling registers only as a tiny detail in Mormon thinking, but the idea that He does have a dwelling place is of immense importance.
"Mormon theology differs radically from conventional Christianity in locating God in time and space. He is not outside creation as traditionally believed. He is part of the physical universe, a being like the God in Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel who could touch Adam’s finger with his own if He chose."
I like how Dr. Bushman cuts through the weirdness factor to focus on the actual theological issue: Mormons believe in a physical God who exists inside the universe. To Mormons, the traditional idea that God exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time is nonsense, as is the idea of a God who exists “outside the universe.” I suspect that the belief that God dwells near a place called Kolob mainly sounds weird because the name “Kolob” sounds like something from sci-fi, not because the idea that God actually exists in a particular place is so bizarre. But then, what name did you expect it to have? Any name at all would’ve sounded weird, since most people are accustomed to thinking of heaven as an abstraction, not a literal place.
Two final notes: Dr. Bushman made a minor mistake when he said that God dwells “close to a planet named Kolob.” Kolob is actually a star, not a planet. The fact that a prominent Mormon scholar like Dr. Bushman would make that mistake just illustrates what an insignificant part of our beliefs this is. I can’t remember the last time I even heard the word “Kolob” in church.
And finally, it’s worth noting that Kolob is not where Mormons expect to go when they die. Jesus Christ taught, “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5), and Mormons take that to mean that after the final judgment, “the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory” (Tenth Article of Faith). So Mormons believe that our heaven will be right here, not near a star called Kolob.
In summary
Claim: Mormons believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
Response: Mormons believe that God lives not on a planet called Kolob, but they do believe that He lives near a star by that name. Kolob is just about the least important thing in Mormon doctrine, and it's hardly ever even mentioned. The more important point is that God lives in an actual place in an actual location--that he's a real being with physical substance.
Read More......
Friday, March 11, 2011
How Nonreligious People Misunderstand Faith
I often hear nonreligious people assert that faith means willingly ignoring logic and reality in order to believe something for which there is no evidence, simply because they want to believe it. Such people reveal their ignorance of a matter they do not comprehend.
Faith is not a willing suspension of disbelief, and it doesn't mean believing something just because you want to. At its most fundamental, faith is trust. It means acting based on a hope about the future. For instance, let's say you arrange to go to lunch with an old friend. When the bill comes, it's on one tab and neither of you has cash, so he puts it on his credit card, and you agree to pay him back. What proof does your friend have that you will do so? What empirical evidence have you shown him that you will pay him as promised? He has no such proof. You might simply refuse to pay, and there would be just about nothing he could do about it. Does that mean that he was being stupid or illogical when he paid? Of course not. Although he had no evidence of how you would act in the future, as your friend he had some familiarity with your actions in the past, and based on that, he trusted that you would honor your promise. In other words, he had faith: he acted based on a hope for future occurrences.
Because the future has not yet occurred, there can be no evidence or empirical proof at all about it. In the strictest sense, all knowledge about the future is mere assumption that we arrive at by taking our knowledge of how things have been in the past and projecting it forward. All action is based on assumptions about future results, even though strictly speaking, the future is unknowable. Therefore, all action depends upon the exercise of faith. Lectures on Faith* quotes Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is therefore the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." It then comments, "From this we learn, that faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen; and the principle of action in all intelligent beings. If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them."
The only difference between religious faith and the kind of faith that all people exercise in order to continue their daily lives is the subject of the beliefs and the sort of evidence upon which it is based. Sociologist Rodney Stark argues against the notion that when it comes to religion, otherwise rational people discard logic and make irrational decisions. He believes that people are just as rational in their religious decisions and beliefs as in their decisions and beliefs about anything else.
I agree. There are more kinds of experience than the empirically demonstrable. The things which are the most real are not physical nor measurable nor can be studied in an experiment and published in a peer-reviewed journal. As impressive and authoritative as Science seems, and as useful as it is for learning about those subjects that are within its purview, it is simply not equipped for investigating certain fields: morality, religion, epistemology, and ontology, for instance. Francis Collins, who is often cited as an example of a prominent believing scientist, told Newsweek, "Basically, science is the way to uncover valid, trustworthy information about how nature works, about things about the natural world. But if you limit yourself to the kinds of questions that science can ask, you’re leaving out some other things that I think are also pretty important, like why are we here and what’s the meaning of life and is there a God? Those are not scientific questions."
In Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon, the prophet Alma describes the process of developing religious faith in very empirical terms, even calling it "an experiment upon my words." The difference is that the results are inherently personal. They are observable only by the individual, since they occur within the soul. They are hardly even describable using secular language, and the religious terms are meaningless to people who have not had such an experience, since religious experience has no close analogy in secular experience. But those who have experienced it know that it is real, that it is not the result of wishful thinking or mere emotion, and based on that, they are willing to place trust in religious belief. As they base their actions on their religious beliefs, they observe the results, both observable and personal. They don't demand proof for everything their religion teaches, because their past experience has shown that the religion is trustworthy. Their faith is active, it informs their choices and their lives, and it is practical, requiring sacrifice before the person has any evidence of what benefit will result. Sometimes those results are slow in coming. Sometimes they are of a purely spiritual nature. But ultimately, people of faith continue to exercise faith because doing so has produced positive results in the past.
In summary
Criticism: Faith is synonymous with irrationality; it is the antithesis of reason. It means deciding to believe something illogical because you want to, not because it makes any sense.
Response: Faith is synonymous with trust; it is the antithesis of fear. Religious faith is based on the same basic principle of hope in the unknown on which every action is based, but religious people accept that there are other types of evidence beside those that are outwardly observable and subject to scientific investigation.
*Lectures on Faith is a series of lessons prepared for the School of the Prophets, a theological seminar of sorts that Joseph Smith established in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1833. The exact authorship of the lectures is unclear, but it appears that Sidney Rigdon wrote them with input from Joseph Smith. Sections of the Lectures on Faith which conflict with Joseph Smith's later teachings on marriage and on the nature of God were most likely written by Rigdon. For a while the Lectures were included as the "doctrine" part of the Doctrine and Covenants, one of the books in the Mormon scriptural canon, but they were removed in 1921, since they had been included in the Doctrine and Covenants without being properly canonized.
Read More......
Faith is not a willing suspension of disbelief, and it doesn't mean believing something just because you want to. At its most fundamental, faith is trust. It means acting based on a hope about the future. For instance, let's say you arrange to go to lunch with an old friend. When the bill comes, it's on one tab and neither of you has cash, so he puts it on his credit card, and you agree to pay him back. What proof does your friend have that you will do so? What empirical evidence have you shown him that you will pay him as promised? He has no such proof. You might simply refuse to pay, and there would be just about nothing he could do about it. Does that mean that he was being stupid or illogical when he paid? Of course not. Although he had no evidence of how you would act in the future, as your friend he had some familiarity with your actions in the past, and based on that, he trusted that you would honor your promise. In other words, he had faith: he acted based on a hope for future occurrences.
Because the future has not yet occurred, there can be no evidence or empirical proof at all about it. In the strictest sense, all knowledge about the future is mere assumption that we arrive at by taking our knowledge of how things have been in the past and projecting it forward. All action is based on assumptions about future results, even though strictly speaking, the future is unknowable. Therefore, all action depends upon the exercise of faith. Lectures on Faith* quotes Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is therefore the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." It then comments, "From this we learn, that faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen; and the principle of action in all intelligent beings. If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them."
The only difference between religious faith and the kind of faith that all people exercise in order to continue their daily lives is the subject of the beliefs and the sort of evidence upon which it is based. Sociologist Rodney Stark argues against the notion that when it comes to religion, otherwise rational people discard logic and make irrational decisions. He believes that people are just as rational in their religious decisions and beliefs as in their decisions and beliefs about anything else.
I agree. There are more kinds of experience than the empirically demonstrable. The things which are the most real are not physical nor measurable nor can be studied in an experiment and published in a peer-reviewed journal. As impressive and authoritative as Science seems, and as useful as it is for learning about those subjects that are within its purview, it is simply not equipped for investigating certain fields: morality, religion, epistemology, and ontology, for instance. Francis Collins, who is often cited as an example of a prominent believing scientist, told Newsweek, "Basically, science is the way to uncover valid, trustworthy information about how nature works, about things about the natural world. But if you limit yourself to the kinds of questions that science can ask, you’re leaving out some other things that I think are also pretty important, like why are we here and what’s the meaning of life and is there a God? Those are not scientific questions."
In Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon, the prophet Alma describes the process of developing religious faith in very empirical terms, even calling it "an experiment upon my words." The difference is that the results are inherently personal. They are observable only by the individual, since they occur within the soul. They are hardly even describable using secular language, and the religious terms are meaningless to people who have not had such an experience, since religious experience has no close analogy in secular experience. But those who have experienced it know that it is real, that it is not the result of wishful thinking or mere emotion, and based on that, they are willing to place trust in religious belief. As they base their actions on their religious beliefs, they observe the results, both observable and personal. They don't demand proof for everything their religion teaches, because their past experience has shown that the religion is trustworthy. Their faith is active, it informs their choices and their lives, and it is practical, requiring sacrifice before the person has any evidence of what benefit will result. Sometimes those results are slow in coming. Sometimes they are of a purely spiritual nature. But ultimately, people of faith continue to exercise faith because doing so has produced positive results in the past.
In summary
Criticism: Faith is synonymous with irrationality; it is the antithesis of reason. It means deciding to believe something illogical because you want to, not because it makes any sense.
Response: Faith is synonymous with trust; it is the antithesis of fear. Religious faith is based on the same basic principle of hope in the unknown on which every action is based, but religious people accept that there are other types of evidence beside those that are outwardly observable and subject to scientific investigation.
*Lectures on Faith is a series of lessons prepared for the School of the Prophets, a theological seminar of sorts that Joseph Smith established in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1833. The exact authorship of the lectures is unclear, but it appears that Sidney Rigdon wrote them with input from Joseph Smith. Sections of the Lectures on Faith which conflict with Joseph Smith's later teachings on marriage and on the nature of God were most likely written by Rigdon. For a while the Lectures were included as the "doctrine" part of the Doctrine and Covenants, one of the books in the Mormon scriptural canon, but they were removed in 1921, since they had been included in the Doctrine and Covenants without being properly canonized.
Read More......
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Conspiracy theories about Satanic symbols
Conspiracy theorists like to say that the use of certain symbols on Mormon temples, particularly the inverted pentagram, is evidence of Satan worship or other elements of the occult in Mormonism. History begs to differ with these notions.
The inverted pentagram (upside-down five-pointed star) was first used on a Mormon temple in the mid-1840s. Back then, the symbol was not yet associated with Satanism. In fact, it was a Christian symbol. With one point up, it symbolized the five wounds of Christ (nails in the hands and feet; spear wound in the side), and with one point down, it symbolized the Morning Star or Star of Bethlehem, pointing down to where the Christ child lay in the manger. That is the sense in which it is used on the Nauvoo Temple and on other temples since then.
Other symbols used on temples include circles and squares, which traditionally represent heaven and earth; the sun, moon, and stars, to represent both God's creations in the heavens and the three kingdoms of heaven as understood in Mormonism (see 1 Cor. 15:40-42 and Doctrine and Covenants, Section 76); trumpets, to represent the preaching of the gospel; clasped hands, to represent covenants with God and fellowship with man; and an all-seeing eye, a symbol common in everything from ancient Egyptian religion to Freemasonry to Christianity to the back of the dollar bill, to represent the omniscience of God.
Claim whatever they might, there is nothing Satanic or occult about Mormonism or Mormon temples. Mormon temple ceremonies focus on Jesus Christ, the Atonement, and the family. But people are often suspicious of things with which they're unfamiliar, and sometimes they invent sensational stories rather than learn the truth.
In summary
Argument: The presence of inverted pentagrams and other symbols on Mormon temples is evidence that Mormonism is actually a satanic cult.
Response: The use of inverted pentagrams on Mormon temples began before that symbol was connected with Satanism. Originally, it was a Christian symbol, and that is how it is used in temple architecture.
Read More......
The inverted pentagram (upside-down five-pointed star) was first used on a Mormon temple in the mid-1840s. Back then, the symbol was not yet associated with Satanism. In fact, it was a Christian symbol. With one point up, it symbolized the five wounds of Christ (nails in the hands and feet; spear wound in the side), and with one point down, it symbolized the Morning Star or Star of Bethlehem, pointing down to where the Christ child lay in the manger. That is the sense in which it is used on the Nauvoo Temple and on other temples since then.
Other symbols used on temples include circles and squares, which traditionally represent heaven and earth; the sun, moon, and stars, to represent both God's creations in the heavens and the three kingdoms of heaven as understood in Mormonism (see 1 Cor. 15:40-42 and Doctrine and Covenants, Section 76); trumpets, to represent the preaching of the gospel; clasped hands, to represent covenants with God and fellowship with man; and an all-seeing eye, a symbol common in everything from ancient Egyptian religion to Freemasonry to Christianity to the back of the dollar bill, to represent the omniscience of God.
Claim whatever they might, there is nothing Satanic or occult about Mormonism or Mormon temples. Mormon temple ceremonies focus on Jesus Christ, the Atonement, and the family. But people are often suspicious of things with which they're unfamiliar, and sometimes they invent sensational stories rather than learn the truth.
In summary
Argument: The presence of inverted pentagrams and other symbols on Mormon temples is evidence that Mormonism is actually a satanic cult.
Response: The use of inverted pentagrams on Mormon temples began before that symbol was connected with Satanism. Originally, it was a Christian symbol, and that is how it is used in temple architecture.
Read More......
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Racism
Mormon doctrine teaches that all humans are the spirit children of God (Rom. 8:16), and that all races are equal in the sight of God (2 Nephi 26:33). But critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often claim that its teachings are racist—if not today, at least historically. This criticism is not true but deserves a closer look.
There are two primary reasons to claim that Mormon doctrine teaches (or used to teach) racist ideas. The first is that certain passages in the Book of Mormon seem to indicate that black skin is a curse from God. The second is the fact that from the 1850s until 1978, black members of the Church were not allowed to hold the priesthood or enter the temples.
What Does The Book of Mormon Teach About Race?
Let us first examine the controversial scriptural passages. 2 Nephi 5:21-22 says that the Lord separated the wicked Lamanites from the more obedient Nephites by causing their skin to be dark: “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.” See also 1 Nephi 12:23.
I want to make four points about the interpretation of these passages:
1) Many LDS commentators interpret 2 Nephi 5 to mean that the curse was separation from the true church and communion with God, and interpret the “skin of blackness” as merely the sign or mark of the curse. This somewhat softens the implication that being dark-skinned is itself a curse. As for the statement that the Lamanites would become “loathsome” to the Nephites’ sensibilities, it might not be the Lamanites’ skin color that was loathsome, but their way of life, which is described as “idle…full of mischief and subtlety…[they] did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.”
2) At any rate, the Lamanites who were set apart for their skin color can’t be identified with any modern-day race. The two peoples freely intermixed after the time of the Savior’s visit to the Americas, and when they again divided into two nations, the designations “Lamanite” and “Nephite” separated them by their beliefs, not by their skin color. Even if we feel secure in equating modern-day indigenous peoples of the Americas with the Lamanites, the Book of Mormon does not provide any basis for connecting their skin color after the time of Christ with the “skin of blackness” associated with the curse.
3) But what I find the most interesting suggestion is much more human: Perhaps the Nephite writers interpreted what happened through their own cultural lenses, incorrectly assuming that the change in skin color was a curse from God. Alternatively, the change in both skin color and lifestyle (both of which happened at the same time) could be attributed to intermarriage with other indigenous peoples in the area. This would also help explain why the Lamanite population was twice that of the Nephites upon their next encounter, despite the fact that the Nephites had absorbed another, larger civilization (the people of Mulek). It would also go a long way toward explaining why Middle Eastern DNA does not seem to be a significant part of the DNA of indigenous American peoples. We know from Jacob 3 that the Nephites had a tendency toward racism during that time period. It would have been natural for the Nephites to see that the Lamanites had become darker-skinned and think it was a curse from God. The biggest problem with this interpretation is that it would mean that the Book of Mormon contains at least one instance in which the prophet authors incorrectly ascribed an action to God. This should not undermine the book’s central message and claim to historicity—after all, every other historical document of any length contains human errors, and the title page itself acknowledges that the human role in the book's creation may have resulted in “mistakes of men.”
4) Most importantly, any attempt to label the Book of Mormon a racist document because of these passages must consider the entire context. It is not clear that the controversial passages are actually racist, but there are other passages that are absolutely unequivocal in condemning racism. In the book of Jacob, Chapter 3, the prophet Jacob sharply rebukes his people for holding racist attitudes against the Lamanites. Some Nephites had assumed that their skin color was indicative that they were purer and more pleasing to God than the Lamanites, but Jacob declares that the Lamanites are the more righteous of the two groups and that God will ultimately preserve and bless them, but allow the Nephites to be destroyed. “[W]herefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?” He then issues a specific commandment against racism—the only such commandment in the scriptures of which I am aware: “Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.” This passage is also significant because it makes it clear that the Lamanites’ “filthiness” was a separate consideration from their race, and must have referred to their diet and lifestyle, not skin color.
Other passages in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 17:35; 2 Nephi 26:33; 2 Nephi 29:12; Alma 19:36; Alma 26:37) teach the universality of the Gospel, that God loves people of all nations, and that a person’s righteousness determines his access to God, not his race. Even the title page of the Book of Mormon says that one of the core messages of the book is “the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations” (emphasis added).
The Priesthood Ban From 1852 to 1978
The Prophet Joseph Smith held very liberal views on race by the standards of his day. Even abolitionists usually believed that blacks were biologically inferior to whites, if not subhuman. By contrast, Joseph Smith taught that black people were not inherently inferior to whites; that their inferiority was due to their oppressive circumstances. “Change their situation with the white, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 259)(link to specific paragraph here). The Prophet ordained several free blacks to the priesthood.
Brigham Young’s views on race more closely mirrored the mainstream American thoughts of the day about people of African descent. He subscribed to the view that blacks are descendants of Cain and cannot hold the priesthood because of their lineage. This racial restriction became a church policy sometime around 1852, and although it was not given by revelation, with the passage of time it became entrenched. Most Mormons assumed that it was doctrinal and had come by revelation, and defended it as a tenet of faith. Apologists tried to explain the ban with theories about a curse on the descendants of Cain, or Ham, or Canaan. The church never prevented blacks from becoming baptized members of the church and always taught that they were children of God, but strictly prohibited them from receiving the priesthood or participating in the temple ceremonies.
Perhaps church leaders of the time saw their situation as analogous to the racial restriction that Jesus Christ imposed on the early Christian church, only allowing the gospel to be preached to the Israelites (Matthew 10:5-6). It was a while after Christ’s death and resurrection before Peter received the revelation allowing the gospel to be preached to other races (Acts 10). Just as the early Christian racial restriction had eventually been revoked, church leaders believed and made statements to the effect that the priesthood ban would someday be done away with. In the 1950s, church president David O. McKay began to be concerned about the race question and pray for revelation on the matter, but the church leaders continued to be too divided on the issue until 1978, when the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles finally sought and received a revelation rescinding the ban. The Church immediately began ordaining black members to the priesthood, issuing recommends so that they could enter the temples, and extending callings for full-time missionary service. Today, the Church is completely racially integrated, and no privilege or position is restricted to anyone based on race.
Why did it take so long? I can only speculate. It seems that the general church membership was more than ready to accept the change when it came. I wonder whether there was some reticence among church leaders to actively seek for such a revelation during the Civil Rights Era, for fear that it would be seen as motivated by popular trends. No doubt church leaders were also hesitant to take an action they feared might cause deep rifts in the Church. They were aware, for example, of the factions and apostate groups that formed as a result of the 1890 revelation banning polygamy.
The precise reasons for the ban, particularly the facts concerning its implementation, are not known. But it appears to have had more to do with human attitudes and assumptions than with revelation. Church leaders who had previously defended the ban recanted their old positions, saying that they had spoken from opinions, not doctrine or revelation. For example, Bruce R. McConkie said, “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past” ("All Are Alike Unto God," speech given August 18, 1978).
Addressing the men of the church, the late President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ… Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such” ("The Need for Greater Kindness," Priesthood Session, April 2006 General Conference).
In summary
Question: Does Mormonism include racist teachings in the Book of Mormon or elsewhere? Why weren’t blacks allowed to receive the priesthood until 1978?
Answer: Although some passages from the Book of Mormon have been read as having racist implications, the book actually condemns racism in no uncertain terms and teaches that all races are equal before God. The reasons for the race-based ban on the priesthood are debated, but it originated with racist opinions, not revealed doctrine. The policy was revoked in 1978, and Mormonism today rejects all forms of race-based discrimination
References:
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 269.
Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God,” address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 1978.
Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Need for Greater Kindness," Ensign, May 2006.
Read More......
There are two primary reasons to claim that Mormon doctrine teaches (or used to teach) racist ideas. The first is that certain passages in the Book of Mormon seem to indicate that black skin is a curse from God. The second is the fact that from the 1850s until 1978, black members of the Church were not allowed to hold the priesthood or enter the temples.
What Does The Book of Mormon Teach About Race?
Let us first examine the controversial scriptural passages. 2 Nephi 5:21-22 says that the Lord separated the wicked Lamanites from the more obedient Nephites by causing their skin to be dark: “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.” See also 1 Nephi 12:23.
I want to make four points about the interpretation of these passages:
1) Many LDS commentators interpret 2 Nephi 5 to mean that the curse was separation from the true church and communion with God, and interpret the “skin of blackness” as merely the sign or mark of the curse. This somewhat softens the implication that being dark-skinned is itself a curse. As for the statement that the Lamanites would become “loathsome” to the Nephites’ sensibilities, it might not be the Lamanites’ skin color that was loathsome, but their way of life, which is described as “idle…full of mischief and subtlety…[they] did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.”
2) At any rate, the Lamanites who were set apart for their skin color can’t be identified with any modern-day race. The two peoples freely intermixed after the time of the Savior’s visit to the Americas, and when they again divided into two nations, the designations “Lamanite” and “Nephite” separated them by their beliefs, not by their skin color. Even if we feel secure in equating modern-day indigenous peoples of the Americas with the Lamanites, the Book of Mormon does not provide any basis for connecting their skin color after the time of Christ with the “skin of blackness” associated with the curse.
3) But what I find the most interesting suggestion is much more human: Perhaps the Nephite writers interpreted what happened through their own cultural lenses, incorrectly assuming that the change in skin color was a curse from God. Alternatively, the change in both skin color and lifestyle (both of which happened at the same time) could be attributed to intermarriage with other indigenous peoples in the area. This would also help explain why the Lamanite population was twice that of the Nephites upon their next encounter, despite the fact that the Nephites had absorbed another, larger civilization (the people of Mulek). It would also go a long way toward explaining why Middle Eastern DNA does not seem to be a significant part of the DNA of indigenous American peoples. We know from Jacob 3 that the Nephites had a tendency toward racism during that time period. It would have been natural for the Nephites to see that the Lamanites had become darker-skinned and think it was a curse from God. The biggest problem with this interpretation is that it would mean that the Book of Mormon contains at least one instance in which the prophet authors incorrectly ascribed an action to God. This should not undermine the book’s central message and claim to historicity—after all, every other historical document of any length contains human errors, and the title page itself acknowledges that the human role in the book's creation may have resulted in “mistakes of men.”
4) Most importantly, any attempt to label the Book of Mormon a racist document because of these passages must consider the entire context. It is not clear that the controversial passages are actually racist, but there are other passages that are absolutely unequivocal in condemning racism. In the book of Jacob, Chapter 3, the prophet Jacob sharply rebukes his people for holding racist attitudes against the Lamanites. Some Nephites had assumed that their skin color was indicative that they were purer and more pleasing to God than the Lamanites, but Jacob declares that the Lamanites are the more righteous of the two groups and that God will ultimately preserve and bless them, but allow the Nephites to be destroyed. “[W]herefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?” He then issues a specific commandment against racism—the only such commandment in the scriptures of which I am aware: “Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.” This passage is also significant because it makes it clear that the Lamanites’ “filthiness” was a separate consideration from their race, and must have referred to their diet and lifestyle, not skin color.
Other passages in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 17:35; 2 Nephi 26:33; 2 Nephi 29:12; Alma 19:36; Alma 26:37) teach the universality of the Gospel, that God loves people of all nations, and that a person’s righteousness determines his access to God, not his race. Even the title page of the Book of Mormon says that one of the core messages of the book is “the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations” (emphasis added).
The Priesthood Ban From 1852 to 1978
The Prophet Joseph Smith held very liberal views on race by the standards of his day. Even abolitionists usually believed that blacks were biologically inferior to whites, if not subhuman. By contrast, Joseph Smith taught that black people were not inherently inferior to whites; that their inferiority was due to their oppressive circumstances. “Change their situation with the white, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 259)(link to specific paragraph here). The Prophet ordained several free blacks to the priesthood.
Brigham Young’s views on race more closely mirrored the mainstream American thoughts of the day about people of African descent. He subscribed to the view that blacks are descendants of Cain and cannot hold the priesthood because of their lineage. This racial restriction became a church policy sometime around 1852, and although it was not given by revelation, with the passage of time it became entrenched. Most Mormons assumed that it was doctrinal and had come by revelation, and defended it as a tenet of faith. Apologists tried to explain the ban with theories about a curse on the descendants of Cain, or Ham, or Canaan. The church never prevented blacks from becoming baptized members of the church and always taught that they were children of God, but strictly prohibited them from receiving the priesthood or participating in the temple ceremonies.
Perhaps church leaders of the time saw their situation as analogous to the racial restriction that Jesus Christ imposed on the early Christian church, only allowing the gospel to be preached to the Israelites (Matthew 10:5-6). It was a while after Christ’s death and resurrection before Peter received the revelation allowing the gospel to be preached to other races (Acts 10). Just as the early Christian racial restriction had eventually been revoked, church leaders believed and made statements to the effect that the priesthood ban would someday be done away with. In the 1950s, church president David O. McKay began to be concerned about the race question and pray for revelation on the matter, but the church leaders continued to be too divided on the issue until 1978, when the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles finally sought and received a revelation rescinding the ban. The Church immediately began ordaining black members to the priesthood, issuing recommends so that they could enter the temples, and extending callings for full-time missionary service. Today, the Church is completely racially integrated, and no privilege or position is restricted to anyone based on race.
Why did it take so long? I can only speculate. It seems that the general church membership was more than ready to accept the change when it came. I wonder whether there was some reticence among church leaders to actively seek for such a revelation during the Civil Rights Era, for fear that it would be seen as motivated by popular trends. No doubt church leaders were also hesitant to take an action they feared might cause deep rifts in the Church. They were aware, for example, of the factions and apostate groups that formed as a result of the 1890 revelation banning polygamy.
The precise reasons for the ban, particularly the facts concerning its implementation, are not known. But it appears to have had more to do with human attitudes and assumptions than with revelation. Church leaders who had previously defended the ban recanted their old positions, saying that they had spoken from opinions, not doctrine or revelation. For example, Bruce R. McConkie said, “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past” ("All Are Alike Unto God," speech given August 18, 1978).
Addressing the men of the church, the late President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ… Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such” ("The Need for Greater Kindness," Priesthood Session, April 2006 General Conference).
In summary
Question: Does Mormonism include racist teachings in the Book of Mormon or elsewhere? Why weren’t blacks allowed to receive the priesthood until 1978?
Answer: Although some passages from the Book of Mormon have been read as having racist implications, the book actually condemns racism in no uncertain terms and teaches that all races are equal before God. The reasons for the race-based ban on the priesthood are debated, but it originated with racist opinions, not revealed doctrine. The policy was revoked in 1978, and Mormonism today rejects all forms of race-based discrimination
References:
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 269.
Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God,” address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 1978.
Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Need for Greater Kindness," Ensign, May 2006.
Read More......
Monday, June 1, 2009
Theosis, or Deification
Mormonism is one of a few Christian religions (the others being primarily Eastern Orthodox) that teach the doctrine of theosis or deification, meaning that human beings have the potential to become gods. In Mormonism, theosis/deification is also called exaltation. This doctrine has been a favorite target of critics, many of whom portray it in an exaggerated way to make it appear ridiculous.
One of the purposes of religion is to answer the questions “Why are we here?” and “What is the purpose of life?” Nearly all religions appeal to beliefs about life after death in order to answer questions about the meaning of life. But mainstream Christianity faces a dilemma when it comes to teaching about the details of this subject: No one regards the popular image of angels strumming harps and sitting on clouds as an accurate conception of heaven, but very few people have any better idea what it will be like. Any specific proposal would seem pitifully insufficient as an explanation of the realm of God and what we will be doing there for an infinite period of time.
The very little that the New Testament has to say on the matter hints at something far greater than we can comprehend: “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ” (Galatians 4:7). “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16:15). “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne” (Revelation 3:21).
The power of the Atonement of Christ can make faulty, sin-prone humans into beings similar to God. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Jesus Christ affirmed the truth of the Psalm: “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34; Psalm 82:6)
That can be a disconcerting idea. Mediocrity is comfortable, and it may be more appealing to avoid the question than to recognize the magnitude of what God has in store for sincere followers of Christ. Others question whether the idea that humans can become like God is blasphemous. They believe that such a doctrine would threaten the greatness of God by narrowing the divide between God and man.
In Mormon theology, God is glorified, not diminished, when His children become more like Him. God is and always will be the omnipotent, omniscient, supreme ruler of the universe, and the idea that humans may eventually become gods does nothing to threaten Him. According to Mormon doctrine, people who are “exalted” will live in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ, enjoy their family relationships throughout eternity, and become gods, assisting the Father and Jesus Christ in their work of saving souls.
Although the idea of humans becoming gods may seem strange or scary to some modern Christians, the early church fathers were quite familiar with it. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130-200), wrote, "Do we cast blame on [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods?" Athanasius (ca. A.D. 296-373), bishop of Alexandria and author of the doctrine of the Trinity, wrote, "The word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. . . . Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Augustine of Hippo (ca. A.D. 354-430) wrote, "He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. `For he has given them power to become the sons of God' (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."
Some may argue that when the early church fathers made these statements, they had something very different in mind than the Mormon concept of exaltation. Both teach that humans may, through the Atonement of Christ, become heirs of all that God has and thus become gods. In order to obfuscate the striking similarities, anti-Mormons often paint a caricature of Mormon doctrine, supplying details that were never a part of our teaching. They claim that Mormons believe they will rule their own (choose one: planet, solar system, galaxy), that Mormons will become gods while everyone else will be their minions, and many other ridiculous embellishments meant to make Mormonism sound like science fiction. In reality, the doctrine of exaltation finds strong support both in the New Testament text and in the writings of the early fathers of the Christian church.
In summary
Argument: Mormons believe that humans can become gods in the afterlife. That is blasphemous and threatens the divinity of God.
Response: The Mormon belief that humans can become gods does not threaten God as the supreme ruler of all creation. Far from being a heresy original to Mormonism, it is an age-old doctrinal truth found in the New Testament as well as in the writings of the early church fathers.
References
Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” Book 4, Chapter 38; 4.11.
Athanasius, “Against the Arians,” 1.39; 3:34.
Augustine, "On the Psalms," 50.2.
Robert L. Millet, Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 193-194.
Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Read More......
One of the purposes of religion is to answer the questions “Why are we here?” and “What is the purpose of life?” Nearly all religions appeal to beliefs about life after death in order to answer questions about the meaning of life. But mainstream Christianity faces a dilemma when it comes to teaching about the details of this subject: No one regards the popular image of angels strumming harps and sitting on clouds as an accurate conception of heaven, but very few people have any better idea what it will be like. Any specific proposal would seem pitifully insufficient as an explanation of the realm of God and what we will be doing there for an infinite period of time.
The very little that the New Testament has to say on the matter hints at something far greater than we can comprehend: “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ” (Galatians 4:7). “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16:15). “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne” (Revelation 3:21).
The power of the Atonement of Christ can make faulty, sin-prone humans into beings similar to God. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Jesus Christ affirmed the truth of the Psalm: “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34; Psalm 82:6)
That can be a disconcerting idea. Mediocrity is comfortable, and it may be more appealing to avoid the question than to recognize the magnitude of what God has in store for sincere followers of Christ. Others question whether the idea that humans can become like God is blasphemous. They believe that such a doctrine would threaten the greatness of God by narrowing the divide between God and man.
In Mormon theology, God is glorified, not diminished, when His children become more like Him. God is and always will be the omnipotent, omniscient, supreme ruler of the universe, and the idea that humans may eventually become gods does nothing to threaten Him. According to Mormon doctrine, people who are “exalted” will live in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ, enjoy their family relationships throughout eternity, and become gods, assisting the Father and Jesus Christ in their work of saving souls.
Although the idea of humans becoming gods may seem strange or scary to some modern Christians, the early church fathers were quite familiar with it. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130-200), wrote, "Do we cast blame on [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods?" Athanasius (ca. A.D. 296-373), bishop of Alexandria and author of the doctrine of the Trinity, wrote, "The word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. . . . Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Augustine of Hippo (ca. A.D. 354-430) wrote, "He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. `For he has given them power to become the sons of God' (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."
Some may argue that when the early church fathers made these statements, they had something very different in mind than the Mormon concept of exaltation. Both teach that humans may, through the Atonement of Christ, become heirs of all that God has and thus become gods. In order to obfuscate the striking similarities, anti-Mormons often paint a caricature of Mormon doctrine, supplying details that were never a part of our teaching. They claim that Mormons believe they will rule their own (choose one: planet, solar system, galaxy), that Mormons will become gods while everyone else will be their minions, and many other ridiculous embellishments meant to make Mormonism sound like science fiction. In reality, the doctrine of exaltation finds strong support both in the New Testament text and in the writings of the early fathers of the Christian church.
In summary
Argument: Mormons believe that humans can become gods in the afterlife. That is blasphemous and threatens the divinity of God.
Response: The Mormon belief that humans can become gods does not threaten God as the supreme ruler of all creation. Far from being a heresy original to Mormonism, it is an age-old doctrinal truth found in the New Testament as well as in the writings of the early church fathers.
References
Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” Book 4, Chapter 38; 4.11.
Athanasius, “Against the Arians,” 1.39; 3:34.
Augustine, "On the Psalms," 50.2.
Robert L. Millet, Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 193-194.
Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Read More......
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Law of Chastity
Jesus Christ taught a number of “hard sayings” that cost him many followers. Perhaps the world today finds none of these a more difficult standard than the law of chastity. The Ten Commandments prohibited adultery (Exodus 20:14), but Jesus Christ required a stricter standard: even lustful thoughts are sinful! (Matt. 5:28)
In our sex-saturated society, some claim that pornography, fornication, and other violations of the law of chastity are victimless crimes. They claim that birth control and “safe sex” make extramarital sex acceptable. Some even argue that pornography empowers women. They imagine that it is liberating to be addicted to pornography, that it is empowering for women to reduce themselves to sexual objects, that sexual licentiousness doesn't hurt anyone, and that old-fashioned ideas about abstinence and chastity are irrelevant to today's modern world.
If anything, the law of chastity is more relevant to our world than it was to ancient societies, not less. In 2003, it was estimated that nearly a million Americans were living with HIV/AIDS. As many as 20% of Americans have been infected with a viral STD, and millions more have bacterial STDs such as syphilis and gonorrhea. Every year, an astounding 10% of American teenage girls become pregnant, and 30% of those pregnancies will end in abortion.
Some hold that the answer is to be found in the availability of contraceptives and “safe sex” education, and indeed, these methods have reduced teenage pregnancy rates. However, they have not reduced sexual activity in adolescents, and may actually encourage it. Further, it is important to understand that there is no such thing as “safe sex.” According to the National Institutes of Health, condoms do not eliminate the risk of acquiring HIV and gonorrhea, and are even less effective at preventing genital herpes, trichomoniasis, and chlamydia. They offer no protection against human papillomavirus, one of the most common STDs in America, with 20 million currently infected. The World Health Organization has stated, “Apart from abstinence, no protective method is 100% effective.”
The repercussions of sexual activity outside marriage are not limited to physical disease. Marriages are stronger and families are more stable when couples practice abstinence before marriage. In their book Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need To Know About Cohabitation Before Marriage, David Popenoe and Barbara Whitehead present their findings that living together before marriage increases the risk of breaking up after marriage and the risk to women and children of abuse. Cohabitating couples report lower levels of happiness and wellbeing than married couples and are more accepting of divorce than married couples and singles living alone. Three-quarters of children born to cohabitating parents will see their parents split up before they reach age 16.
Professor W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia's National Marriage Project reports, "Individuals who have more sexual partners prior to marriage are more likely to get divorced compared to those who do not. It’s something about forming a bond with someone that is then broken, and the way in which that may lead to a certain distrust of the opposite sex or a certain kind of loss of faith in relationships or in romance."
The law of chastity provides the answers to these problems, but our sex-obsessed culture often dismisses such a standard as unrealistic. The fact is that marriages are more likely to succeed, families are more likely to remain stable, diseases are more likely to be avoided, and people are more likely to be happy under the law of chastity. It is not an unattainable standard when people understand what is at stake. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches additional principles that help us understand the immense importance of the law of chastity:
1) Mormon doctrine places unusual emphasis on the sacredness of the physical body, and consequently, special emphasis on the importance of chastity. Mainstream Christianity inherited from Gnosticism the idea that the physical body is corrupt. Gnostics longed for liberation from the confines of the material world. This somewhat obfuscated the greatest promise of Christianity—that of the physical resurrection of the body. Mormonism embraces the idea that the physical body is not something to be detested, but to be treasured as a gift from God. One of the primary purposes for which we come to this earth is to gain a physical body and to learn to exercise discipline and control over it (1 Cor. 9:27), so that we may be prepared for our resurrected bodies, “fashioned like unto his (Christ’s) glorious body” (Philip. 3:21).
2) Sexual immorality is among the most serious of sins. In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Alma chastised his son Corianton for sexual promiscuity: “Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5)
3) The procreative power is sacred. It’s not just life that is sacred; the power to create it is also sacred. Arguing that fornication is acceptable if the risk of pregnancy is reduced with contraceptives does not change the fact that a sacred power is being abused, whether or not a child results.
4) Because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a lay ministry, all members participate in the work of the Church, and all are held to the same moral standards. “Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord” (Isaiah 52:11). There is no clergy that takes special vows or is held to a higher level of moral or spiritual dedication than the laity.
People who believe these doctrinal principles are far more likely to uphold the high standards of sexual purity that Jesus Christ taught. A study conducted in the mid-1990s revealed that while 77% of teenage boys and 66% of teenage girls nationwide had had sex, the corresponding figures for the Mormon teenage population were only 10% and 17%.
An LDS Church publication states, “Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage…Sometimes people try to convince themselves that sexual relations outside of marriage are acceptable if the participants love one another. This is not true. Breaking the law of chastity and encouraging someone else to do so is not an expression of love. People who love each other will never endanger one another’s happiness and safety in exchange for temporary personal pleasure. When people care for one another enough to keep the law of chastity, their love, trust, and commitment increase, resulting in greater happiness and unity. In contrast, relationships built on sexual immorality sour quickly” (True to the Faith, 29-30). The Doctrine and Covenants contains an additional, eerie prophecy: People who are sexually immoral and do not repent will deny the faith (D&C 63:16).
Any discussion of the law of chastity should mention the possibility of repentance. Without at all downplaying the seriousness of the sin and the importance of obedience to God’s laws, it’s important to emphasize that repentance is possible, through the Atonement of Christ, for those who have made mistakes (Alma 42:21-29).
In summary
Question: Why does the Mormon Church teach its members such an unrealistic standard of sexual purity? What's wrong with extramarital sex, pornography, and other violations of the law of chastity?
Response: What is unrealistic is expecting to be able to form healthy relationships and happy families based on a lifestyle of sexual promiscuity. In addition to being a commandment from God, obeying the law of chastity helps avoid the social, emotional, and physical dangers of immorality.
References
David Popenoe and Whitehead, Barbara. Should We Live Together? What young adults need to know about cohabitation before marriage (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1999).
Guttmacher Institute: Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health
World Health Organization: Abstinence only 100% effective method
CIA World Factbook: 950,000 Americans with AIDS
Read More......
In our sex-saturated society, some claim that pornography, fornication, and other violations of the law of chastity are victimless crimes. They claim that birth control and “safe sex” make extramarital sex acceptable. Some even argue that pornography empowers women. They imagine that it is liberating to be addicted to pornography, that it is empowering for women to reduce themselves to sexual objects, that sexual licentiousness doesn't hurt anyone, and that old-fashioned ideas about abstinence and chastity are irrelevant to today's modern world.
If anything, the law of chastity is more relevant to our world than it was to ancient societies, not less. In 2003, it was estimated that nearly a million Americans were living with HIV/AIDS. As many as 20% of Americans have been infected with a viral STD, and millions more have bacterial STDs such as syphilis and gonorrhea. Every year, an astounding 10% of American teenage girls become pregnant, and 30% of those pregnancies will end in abortion.
Some hold that the answer is to be found in the availability of contraceptives and “safe sex” education, and indeed, these methods have reduced teenage pregnancy rates. However, they have not reduced sexual activity in adolescents, and may actually encourage it. Further, it is important to understand that there is no such thing as “safe sex.” According to the National Institutes of Health, condoms do not eliminate the risk of acquiring HIV and gonorrhea, and are even less effective at preventing genital herpes, trichomoniasis, and chlamydia. They offer no protection against human papillomavirus, one of the most common STDs in America, with 20 million currently infected. The World Health Organization has stated, “Apart from abstinence, no protective method is 100% effective.”
The repercussions of sexual activity outside marriage are not limited to physical disease. Marriages are stronger and families are more stable when couples practice abstinence before marriage. In their book Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need To Know About Cohabitation Before Marriage, David Popenoe and Barbara Whitehead present their findings that living together before marriage increases the risk of breaking up after marriage and the risk to women and children of abuse. Cohabitating couples report lower levels of happiness and wellbeing than married couples and are more accepting of divorce than married couples and singles living alone. Three-quarters of children born to cohabitating parents will see their parents split up before they reach age 16.
Professor W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia's National Marriage Project reports, "Individuals who have more sexual partners prior to marriage are more likely to get divorced compared to those who do not. It’s something about forming a bond with someone that is then broken, and the way in which that may lead to a certain distrust of the opposite sex or a certain kind of loss of faith in relationships or in romance."
The law of chastity provides the answers to these problems, but our sex-obsessed culture often dismisses such a standard as unrealistic. The fact is that marriages are more likely to succeed, families are more likely to remain stable, diseases are more likely to be avoided, and people are more likely to be happy under the law of chastity. It is not an unattainable standard when people understand what is at stake. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches additional principles that help us understand the immense importance of the law of chastity:
1) Mormon doctrine places unusual emphasis on the sacredness of the physical body, and consequently, special emphasis on the importance of chastity. Mainstream Christianity inherited from Gnosticism the idea that the physical body is corrupt. Gnostics longed for liberation from the confines of the material world. This somewhat obfuscated the greatest promise of Christianity—that of the physical resurrection of the body. Mormonism embraces the idea that the physical body is not something to be detested, but to be treasured as a gift from God. One of the primary purposes for which we come to this earth is to gain a physical body and to learn to exercise discipline and control over it (1 Cor. 9:27), so that we may be prepared for our resurrected bodies, “fashioned like unto his (Christ’s) glorious body” (Philip. 3:21).
2) Sexual immorality is among the most serious of sins. In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Alma chastised his son Corianton for sexual promiscuity: “Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5)
3) The procreative power is sacred. It’s not just life that is sacred; the power to create it is also sacred. Arguing that fornication is acceptable if the risk of pregnancy is reduced with contraceptives does not change the fact that a sacred power is being abused, whether or not a child results.
4) Because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a lay ministry, all members participate in the work of the Church, and all are held to the same moral standards. “Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord” (Isaiah 52:11). There is no clergy that takes special vows or is held to a higher level of moral or spiritual dedication than the laity.
People who believe these doctrinal principles are far more likely to uphold the high standards of sexual purity that Jesus Christ taught. A study conducted in the mid-1990s revealed that while 77% of teenage boys and 66% of teenage girls nationwide had had sex, the corresponding figures for the Mormon teenage population were only 10% and 17%.
An LDS Church publication states, “Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage…Sometimes people try to convince themselves that sexual relations outside of marriage are acceptable if the participants love one another. This is not true. Breaking the law of chastity and encouraging someone else to do so is not an expression of love. People who love each other will never endanger one another’s happiness and safety in exchange for temporary personal pleasure. When people care for one another enough to keep the law of chastity, their love, trust, and commitment increase, resulting in greater happiness and unity. In contrast, relationships built on sexual immorality sour quickly” (True to the Faith, 29-30). The Doctrine and Covenants contains an additional, eerie prophecy: People who are sexually immoral and do not repent will deny the faith (D&C 63:16).
Any discussion of the law of chastity should mention the possibility of repentance. Without at all downplaying the seriousness of the sin and the importance of obedience to God’s laws, it’s important to emphasize that repentance is possible, through the Atonement of Christ, for those who have made mistakes (Alma 42:21-29).
In summary
Question: Why does the Mormon Church teach its members such an unrealistic standard of sexual purity? What's wrong with extramarital sex, pornography, and other violations of the law of chastity?
Response: What is unrealistic is expecting to be able to form healthy relationships and happy families based on a lifestyle of sexual promiscuity. In addition to being a commandment from God, obeying the law of chastity helps avoid the social, emotional, and physical dangers of immorality.
References
David Popenoe and Whitehead, Barbara. Should We Live Together? What young adults need to know about cohabitation before marriage (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1999).
Guttmacher Institute: Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health
World Health Organization: Abstinence only 100% effective method
CIA World Factbook: 950,000 Americans with AIDS
Read More......
Saturday, January 31, 2009
How to Lose Your Faith in Mormonism
I plan to post an explanation of the law of chastity soon—not a frequent topic of anti-Mormon criticism, but certainly something under attack in our culture. Until then, I thought I'd post this random thought.
There are a lot of bitter former Mormons out there. They like to frequent online message boards in order to vent their feelings. I've noticed a common thread in a lot of the things they say. It seems that many people who lose their faith in Mormonism (and this probably goes for other religions as well) do it something like this:
1. Form an unrealistic, idealized concept about what Mormonism means. Digress from the fundamental principles of the gospel (faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, the Atonement, the Restoration, etc.) to find out as much as you can about exciting speculations. Slowly replace the witness of the Spirit with anecdotal evidence as the basis of your testimony. Begin to think of the truthfulness of the Church and the truthfulness of faith-promoting rumors as one and the same.
2. At some point, come to the realization that the prophet cannot find out anything he wants whenever he wants by on-demand revelation, that most of what is done in the Church is the result of people doing the best they know how, that much of what is done in the Church is the result of people doing somewhat less than the best they know how, that the Book of Mormon contains some grammatical errors, that not every temple design is directly revealed to the architects, that Brigham Young said a few controversial things in his time, and that the BYU football team doesn't receive special divine assistance at bowl games.
3. Convince yourself that you've been the hapless subject of a giant fraud, but that you now see that it was all a big lie. Scoff at your own former gullibility. Fail to realize that you're not suddenly far wiser and shrewder than you used to be. On some subconscious level, feel a need for other Mormons to have the same epiphany in order to justify yourself. Simultaneously insulate yourself against the possibility of failing to convince them of the error of their ways by telling yourself how much smarter you are than them. Go online and vent your feelings by posting snide, improperly punctuated remarks on comment boards.
I don't mean to imply that this is true of everyone who loses their faith. But there sure are a lot of these.
Read More......
There are a lot of bitter former Mormons out there. They like to frequent online message boards in order to vent their feelings. I've noticed a common thread in a lot of the things they say. It seems that many people who lose their faith in Mormonism (and this probably goes for other religions as well) do it something like this:
1. Form an unrealistic, idealized concept about what Mormonism means. Digress from the fundamental principles of the gospel (faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, the Atonement, the Restoration, etc.) to find out as much as you can about exciting speculations. Slowly replace the witness of the Spirit with anecdotal evidence as the basis of your testimony. Begin to think of the truthfulness of the Church and the truthfulness of faith-promoting rumors as one and the same.
2. At some point, come to the realization that the prophet cannot find out anything he wants whenever he wants by on-demand revelation, that most of what is done in the Church is the result of people doing the best they know how, that much of what is done in the Church is the result of people doing somewhat less than the best they know how, that the Book of Mormon contains some grammatical errors, that not every temple design is directly revealed to the architects, that Brigham Young said a few controversial things in his time, and that the BYU football team doesn't receive special divine assistance at bowl games.
3. Convince yourself that you've been the hapless subject of a giant fraud, but that you now see that it was all a big lie. Scoff at your own former gullibility. Fail to realize that you're not suddenly far wiser and shrewder than you used to be. On some subconscious level, feel a need for other Mormons to have the same epiphany in order to justify yourself. Simultaneously insulate yourself against the possibility of failing to convince them of the error of their ways by telling yourself how much smarter you are than them. Go online and vent your feelings by posting snide, improperly punctuated remarks on comment boards.
I don't mean to imply that this is true of everyone who loses their faith. But there sure are a lot of these.
Read More......
Friday, November 14, 2008
"No on 8" Then and Now
1. Then: You religious people say that gay marriage could threaten your church's tax-exempt status. That is ridiculous fear-mongering; that would never happen.
Now: Tax the bigoted lobbyist churches that got involved in Prop 8!
2. Then: Proposition 8 is about basic civil rights and is morally wrong. It's a moral issue.
Now: This is a political issue, not a moral issue, so churches shouldn't be involved.
3. Then: It's unfair that so much funding is coming from out-of-state interests in places like Utah. This is a California issue; people in other places shouldn't get involved.
Now: Protest tonight outside the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City, Utah—or come to the protest tomorrow at the temple in New York City! Read More......
Now: Tax the bigoted lobbyist churches that got involved in Prop 8!
2. Then: Proposition 8 is about basic civil rights and is morally wrong. It's a moral issue.
Now: This is a political issue, not a moral issue, so churches shouldn't be involved.
3. Then: It's unfair that so much funding is coming from out-of-state interests in places like Utah. This is a California issue; people in other places shouldn't get involved.
Now: Protest tonight outside the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City, Utah—or come to the protest tomorrow at the temple in New York City! Read More......
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
On Gay Marriage
Until now, I have focused my blog posts on answering criticisms of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In light of the upcoming Proposition 8 measure in California and the legalization of gay marriage in Connecticut, I'm going to digress in order to voice my opinion on the matter.
That is not to say that our doctrine of marriage is not the target of criticism. And the issue of gay marriage is doctrinal for us. But I am going to spend very little time on an apologetic approach based in scripture. I recognize that most people who support gay marriage do not necessarily view the Bible as final in its moral authority, so an appeal to scripture would probably be of limited usefulness.
The Bible's Teachings About Homosexuality
Nevertheless, there are those who maintain that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality as far as Christianity is concerned. They believe that it is Christlike to be tolerant, and that the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to the enlightened period after Christ. They conclude that we ought to embrace gay marriage. Of course, you have to be very selective in your characterization of Jesus' teachings in order to come to that conclusion. Christ forgave sinners but did not tolerate sin. The New Testament provides plenty of passages condemning homosexuality (Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 1:7). Same-sex attraction is not a sin, and it is clear that we must show love and tolerance for all people, gay people included, but the New Testament is clear in condemning gay sexual acts.
Legal and Social Problems With Gay Marriage
One problem with gay marriage is that it destroys the only barrier protecting us from further extremes. Those judges who have legalized gay marriage (in all three states where it is legal, it has always become legal by judicial ruling, not by legislation) believe that it is unequal to limit the definition of marriage by gender. They say that "It is against our moral values" is too arbitrary an objection to gay marriage to be valid. They have not answered the question: If it is not acceptable to limit marriage by gender, is it acceptable to limit marriage by number? If mere violation of society's moral values is not sufficient grounds to prohibit a proposed form of marriage, then on what grounds could we prevent three women from marrying each other?
Up until now, we have prohibited incestuous relationships on moral objections. When pressed for a less "arbitrary" reason, we have said that society has an interest in protecting against the genetic problems that arise when close family members procreate. But gay partners cannot procreate. What basis do we have now to prohibit a father and son from getting married (if both are adults), or two brothers or two sisters? What about three siblings of the same gender, or two brothers and one of their buddies? The courts have not addressed these questions. I'm not convinced that they've even considered them.
The typical response to these objections is, "Oh, we won't do that. We're not interested in that." That response fails to consider that surely someone, sometime, will want to try out these more extreme forms of marriage. We live in a country of 300 million people. No one can guarantee me that it's acceptable to dismantle the legal protections against these scenarios because no one will ever push for something more extreme. Someone most certainly will. And while we may not allow two brothers to marry, we will have no excuse for our double standard.
Some gay marriage proponents will dismiss all of this as ridiculous, as if that negated the need for a straight answer. Without pressing the issue further, we can turn our attention to more immediate concerns. It is one thing for a government to allow for civil unions and adopt policies that tolerate and accommodate for such. It is quite another thing for a government to grant gay unions the status of marriage, an institution promoted, regulated, and endorsed by government, and completely equal to traditional marriage. When that happens, any public bias in favor of the traditional family or traditional marriage over gay marriage will be unacceptable. Sex education in public schools will be required to include education about gay sex. In California, state law requires that school curriculum promote the institution of marriage. Because marriage now includes gay marriage, the state will need to rewrite curriculum to promote gay marriage and same-gender parent headed families as completely equal to traditional marriage and families. In Massachusetts, gay marriage has been legal for several years, and these changes are now starting to take place. Kindergartners have been given children's books depicting same-gender parent headed families. Courts have ruled that parents have "no legal right to object" to such curriculum.
The Most Likely Scenario
Let's extrapolate one step further. Let's imagine that gay marriage remains legal in California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. One does not have to be a resident of California in order to be married there. So let's imagine that Prop 8 failed in November 2008, and it's now 2013. For five years, gay couples from all over the country have gone to California to be married. When their home states have challenged their marital status, they have sued, and courts have upheld the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (from Article IV, Section 1), ruling that other states must recognize gay marriages performed in California. Gay marriage is now practically legal in the entire country. Most states have simply legalized it in resignation. There have been attempts to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment, but these have not had sufficient support.
In our hypothetical scenario, gay marriage has become recognized and accepted in the entire country. Gay couples now want to not simply be married by a justice of the peace, but to have a wedding ceremony in a church with a walk down the aisle, organ music, recitation of vows, and all the trappings just like any other couple. The Episcopal Church has been happy to oblige, but the Catholic Church refuses to comply. It is against their fundamental doctrine, they say. At that point, the gay community has started to question the Catholic Church's ability to perform civilly recognized weddings. The government has authorized them to do so, despite the fact that they discriminate against a legally recognized and fully legitimate group. Gay advocacy groups have argued that the government should not recognize marriages performed by the Catholic Church and other churches if they won't perform gay marriages. Nor should they enjoy tax exemption.
I don't know how gay marriage advocates would respond to this scenario, but I imagine that they might say, "That would not happen. Gays understand the need for tolerance and compassion. They may disagree, but they would not try to punish churches that way." Elton John is at least one gay person who does not feel that way. "From my point of view," he said, "I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate." Is it any wonder that religious people do not trust the gay rights lobby?
Some think, "I don't see what's so wrong with gay marriage. If other consenting adults want to get married, that's their business. It doesn't affect me, and I don't have the right to tell them no." By now, it should be obvious that it does affect you. We do not live isolated lives on desert islands. We are all part of a society, and changes like this affect everyone. We have every right to have an interest in attempts to alter the moral values of our society.
Read More......
That is not to say that our doctrine of marriage is not the target of criticism. And the issue of gay marriage is doctrinal for us. But I am going to spend very little time on an apologetic approach based in scripture. I recognize that most people who support gay marriage do not necessarily view the Bible as final in its moral authority, so an appeal to scripture would probably be of limited usefulness.
The Bible's Teachings About Homosexuality
Nevertheless, there are those who maintain that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality as far as Christianity is concerned. They believe that it is Christlike to be tolerant, and that the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to the enlightened period after Christ. They conclude that we ought to embrace gay marriage. Of course, you have to be very selective in your characterization of Jesus' teachings in order to come to that conclusion. Christ forgave sinners but did not tolerate sin. The New Testament provides plenty of passages condemning homosexuality (Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 1:7). Same-sex attraction is not a sin, and it is clear that we must show love and tolerance for all people, gay people included, but the New Testament is clear in condemning gay sexual acts.
Legal and Social Problems With Gay Marriage
One problem with gay marriage is that it destroys the only barrier protecting us from further extremes. Those judges who have legalized gay marriage (in all three states where it is legal, it has always become legal by judicial ruling, not by legislation) believe that it is unequal to limit the definition of marriage by gender. They say that "It is against our moral values" is too arbitrary an objection to gay marriage to be valid. They have not answered the question: If it is not acceptable to limit marriage by gender, is it acceptable to limit marriage by number? If mere violation of society's moral values is not sufficient grounds to prohibit a proposed form of marriage, then on what grounds could we prevent three women from marrying each other?
Up until now, we have prohibited incestuous relationships on moral objections. When pressed for a less "arbitrary" reason, we have said that society has an interest in protecting against the genetic problems that arise when close family members procreate. But gay partners cannot procreate. What basis do we have now to prohibit a father and son from getting married (if both are adults), or two brothers or two sisters? What about three siblings of the same gender, or two brothers and one of their buddies? The courts have not addressed these questions. I'm not convinced that they've even considered them.
The typical response to these objections is, "Oh, we won't do that. We're not interested in that." That response fails to consider that surely someone, sometime, will want to try out these more extreme forms of marriage. We live in a country of 300 million people. No one can guarantee me that it's acceptable to dismantle the legal protections against these scenarios because no one will ever push for something more extreme. Someone most certainly will. And while we may not allow two brothers to marry, we will have no excuse for our double standard.
Some gay marriage proponents will dismiss all of this as ridiculous, as if that negated the need for a straight answer. Without pressing the issue further, we can turn our attention to more immediate concerns. It is one thing for a government to allow for civil unions and adopt policies that tolerate and accommodate for such. It is quite another thing for a government to grant gay unions the status of marriage, an institution promoted, regulated, and endorsed by government, and completely equal to traditional marriage. When that happens, any public bias in favor of the traditional family or traditional marriage over gay marriage will be unacceptable. Sex education in public schools will be required to include education about gay sex. In California, state law requires that school curriculum promote the institution of marriage. Because marriage now includes gay marriage, the state will need to rewrite curriculum to promote gay marriage and same-gender parent headed families as completely equal to traditional marriage and families. In Massachusetts, gay marriage has been legal for several years, and these changes are now starting to take place. Kindergartners have been given children's books depicting same-gender parent headed families. Courts have ruled that parents have "no legal right to object" to such curriculum.
The Most Likely Scenario
Let's extrapolate one step further. Let's imagine that gay marriage remains legal in California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. One does not have to be a resident of California in order to be married there. So let's imagine that Prop 8 failed in November 2008, and it's now 2013. For five years, gay couples from all over the country have gone to California to be married. When their home states have challenged their marital status, they have sued, and courts have upheld the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (from Article IV, Section 1), ruling that other states must recognize gay marriages performed in California. Gay marriage is now practically legal in the entire country. Most states have simply legalized it in resignation. There have been attempts to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment, but these have not had sufficient support.
In our hypothetical scenario, gay marriage has become recognized and accepted in the entire country. Gay couples now want to not simply be married by a justice of the peace, but to have a wedding ceremony in a church with a walk down the aisle, organ music, recitation of vows, and all the trappings just like any other couple. The Episcopal Church has been happy to oblige, but the Catholic Church refuses to comply. It is against their fundamental doctrine, they say. At that point, the gay community has started to question the Catholic Church's ability to perform civilly recognized weddings. The government has authorized them to do so, despite the fact that they discriminate against a legally recognized and fully legitimate group. Gay advocacy groups have argued that the government should not recognize marriages performed by the Catholic Church and other churches if they won't perform gay marriages. Nor should they enjoy tax exemption.
I don't know how gay marriage advocates would respond to this scenario, but I imagine that they might say, "That would not happen. Gays understand the need for tolerance and compassion. They may disagree, but they would not try to punish churches that way." Elton John is at least one gay person who does not feel that way. "From my point of view," he said, "I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate." Is it any wonder that religious people do not trust the gay rights lobby?
Some think, "I don't see what's so wrong with gay marriage. If other consenting adults want to get married, that's their business. It doesn't affect me, and I don't have the right to tell them no." By now, it should be obvious that it does affect you. We do not live isolated lives on desert islands. We are all part of a society, and changes like this affect everyone. We have every right to have an interest in attempts to alter the moral values of our society.
Read More......
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Faith and Works
Most Protestants believe that because humans are completely dependent on Christ for forgiveness, only faith matters for salvation. Good works are seen as a byproduct of faith in Christ, but one's actions or obedience to commandments are not seen as directly related to salvation. Because Mormonism maintains that works and faith are both required for salvation, critics sometimes accuse Mormons of blasphemy. To say that our works have anything to do with salvation, they say, is to arrogantly believe that we can earn our way into heaven, and denies the role of Christ.
Both Mormons and other Christians believe that there are requirements for salvation, and that our choices determine whether or not we will be saved. (Calvinism maintains that God has predestined some for heaven and others for hell, and that man has no freedom of choice to change his destiny. Protestantism has largely abandoned this doctrine.) Most Protestants believe that the only requirement is to exercise faith in Christ as the Savior, without whom we are all hopelessly lost, but with whose help anyone, even the vilest of sinners, may be saved.
Mormons, on the other hand, believe that there are additional requirements, such as the commandments to be baptized (John 3:5), repent (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38), and forgive others (Matthew 6:15), to name a few. It is true that no one can earn his or her own way into heaven, because we are all sinners who need Christ's saving grace. But in addition to our faith, God requires our best effort to obey, pitiful as that effort may be.
Two Extremes
There are two extremes regarding the importance of our works, and when we identify them, it is easy to see that the truth lies somewhere between the two. On the one hand, there were the Pharisees who believed in salvation through strict adherence to the Law of Moses. They did not understand the need for a Savior, because they thought they were righteous enough to deserve admission to heaven without the need for forgiveness of sins. Paul preached against that idea, saying that works cannot save us, because we are all sinners. In Romans, chapter 3, he explains that we must recognize that we are sinners and dependent on Christ for salvation. (See especially verses 23 through 28.)
On the other extreme, there are those who believe that one may accept the concept of Jesus Christ as Savior, and then receive forgiveness for any amount of sinful living. With this interpretation, the doctrine of Christ's Atonement is twisted into an excuse for unlimited sinning without consequences. James preached against this belief in James, chapter 2. He famously and clearly stated, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17), and "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24).
Works Necessary to Develop Faith
Perhaps the most significant of James' statements is in verse 22: "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" James says that faith is made perfect by works. In other words, strong faith is built through obedience to God's commandments. Jesus Christ also taught that doing the will of God was necessary in order to believe (John 7:17) and enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21). In the Book of Mormon, Alma taught that faith is like a seed, which must be carefully cultivated in order to grow. It begins as a mere desire to believe, but can become a tree of life, "springing up unto everlasting life," if we nourish it with our righteous efforts (Alma 32).
When we understand the interdependence of faith and obedience to God, we do not discount either. Both are necessary, and they lead to each other. Paul and James do not contradict each other. It becomes clear why the Bible says both that we are not justified by works (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:27), and yet that we will be judged by our works (Matthew 16:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Peter 1:17; Revelation 20:12).
In summary
Argument: It is blasphemous to believe that our works and actions affect our salvation. We are all sinners, and the only thing that makes any difference is whether we have faith in Christ.
Response: There is no such thing as accepting Christ without striving to obey Him. No one is perfect and everyone needs Christ's saving grace, but He requires us to make an effort nonetheless. Faith without good works is not true faith.
Read More......
Both Mormons and other Christians believe that there are requirements for salvation, and that our choices determine whether or not we will be saved. (Calvinism maintains that God has predestined some for heaven and others for hell, and that man has no freedom of choice to change his destiny. Protestantism has largely abandoned this doctrine.) Most Protestants believe that the only requirement is to exercise faith in Christ as the Savior, without whom we are all hopelessly lost, but with whose help anyone, even the vilest of sinners, may be saved.
Mormons, on the other hand, believe that there are additional requirements, such as the commandments to be baptized (John 3:5), repent (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38), and forgive others (Matthew 6:15), to name a few. It is true that no one can earn his or her own way into heaven, because we are all sinners who need Christ's saving grace. But in addition to our faith, God requires our best effort to obey, pitiful as that effort may be.
Two Extremes
There are two extremes regarding the importance of our works, and when we identify them, it is easy to see that the truth lies somewhere between the two. On the one hand, there were the Pharisees who believed in salvation through strict adherence to the Law of Moses. They did not understand the need for a Savior, because they thought they were righteous enough to deserve admission to heaven without the need for forgiveness of sins. Paul preached against that idea, saying that works cannot save us, because we are all sinners. In Romans, chapter 3, he explains that we must recognize that we are sinners and dependent on Christ for salvation. (See especially verses 23 through 28.)
On the other extreme, there are those who believe that one may accept the concept of Jesus Christ as Savior, and then receive forgiveness for any amount of sinful living. With this interpretation, the doctrine of Christ's Atonement is twisted into an excuse for unlimited sinning without consequences. James preached against this belief in James, chapter 2. He famously and clearly stated, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17), and "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24).
Works Necessary to Develop Faith
Perhaps the most significant of James' statements is in verse 22: "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" James says that faith is made perfect by works. In other words, strong faith is built through obedience to God's commandments. Jesus Christ also taught that doing the will of God was necessary in order to believe (John 7:17) and enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21). In the Book of Mormon, Alma taught that faith is like a seed, which must be carefully cultivated in order to grow. It begins as a mere desire to believe, but can become a tree of life, "springing up unto everlasting life," if we nourish it with our righteous efforts (Alma 32).
When we understand the interdependence of faith and obedience to God, we do not discount either. Both are necessary, and they lead to each other. Paul and James do not contradict each other. It becomes clear why the Bible says both that we are not justified by works (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:27), and yet that we will be judged by our works (Matthew 16:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Peter 1:17; Revelation 20:12).
In summary
Argument: It is blasphemous to believe that our works and actions affect our salvation. We are all sinners, and the only thing that makes any difference is whether we have faith in Christ.
Response: There is no such thing as accepting Christ without striving to obey Him. No one is perfect and everyone needs Christ's saving grace, but He requires us to make an effort nonetheless. Faith without good works is not true faith.
Read More......
Monday, September 15, 2008
Baptism for the Dead
Baptism for the dead is a unique doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The practice of baptizing someone as a stand-in for someone who died without being baptized was common among early Christians and is mentioned once in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 15:29), but the Mormons are the only ones who practice it today. Not surprisingly, baptism for the dead has been a target of frequent criticism.
Baptism for the dead is necessary because 1) baptism is necessary for salvation, 2) baptism can only be performed during our mortal lives, and 3) every person must have the opportunity to accept or reject baptism.
Jesus Christ taught, "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Recognizing that it would be hard to maintain that a just God will deny salvation to people who never had the chance to be baptized, some Christians have tried to reinterpret Jesus' words. I've heard some explain that any spiritual experience constitutes a baptism of the Spirit, and surmise that the requirement may thus be fulfilled. But Jesus said that we must be "born of water and of the spirit," not "born of water or of the spirit." Jesus Christ was clear enough: the ordinance of baptism is not optional for salvation.
Baptism can only be performed during this mortal life, when we have physical bodies that can be baptized. But the eternal laws of mercy and justice require that every person have the opportunity to be baptized. The law of agency also dictates that every person be able to choose for himself or herself whether to be baptized. In a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord gave the solution: living members of the church can be baptized for those who died without being baptized. The spirits of the deceased, who are in the spirit world awaiting resurrection and final judgment, may then choose to accept or reject the baptism that has been performed for them. That is why Jesus Christ bothered to preach to the disobedient spirits in the spirit world (1 Peter 3:18-20; 1 Peter 4:6). There is no need to reinterpret Jesus' words in order to soften the necessity of baptism, yet everyone still receives an equal opportunity to comply with the commandment.
Some have been offended that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "baptizes people against their will" after they have died. But when Mormons perform a baptism on behalf of someone who has died, they do not consider that person a member of the Mormon church. They do not assume that the person has accepted the ordinance. Church records only show that a baptism has been performed for the person; they do not list the person as a member of the Mormon church.
I, for one, have difficulty understanding why this would offend people who do not believe that we have power from God to perform baptisms. If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never received the priesthood authority from Jesus Christ as it claims, then wouldn't Mormon baptisms be null and void anyway, rendering this a non-issue? Nevertheless, some people apparently are offended at the mere concept. Hopefully it will help to explain that the concept is to extend the opportunity for baptism so that each person may choose, not to force anyone to be baptized against their will. The purpose of baptism for the dead is to honor individual choice, not to deny it.
In summary
Argument: Mormons use "baptism for the dead" to baptize people who have died against their will.
Response: When a Mormon is baptized on behalf of someone who died without baptism, he or she does not automatically become a member of the Mormon church. The deceased spirit of the person must choose to accept or reject the baptism before final judgment.
Read More......
Baptism for the dead is necessary because 1) baptism is necessary for salvation, 2) baptism can only be performed during our mortal lives, and 3) every person must have the opportunity to accept or reject baptism.
Jesus Christ taught, "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Recognizing that it would be hard to maintain that a just God will deny salvation to people who never had the chance to be baptized, some Christians have tried to reinterpret Jesus' words. I've heard some explain that any spiritual experience constitutes a baptism of the Spirit, and surmise that the requirement may thus be fulfilled. But Jesus said that we must be "born of water and of the spirit," not "born of water or of the spirit." Jesus Christ was clear enough: the ordinance of baptism is not optional for salvation.
Baptism can only be performed during this mortal life, when we have physical bodies that can be baptized. But the eternal laws of mercy and justice require that every person have the opportunity to be baptized. The law of agency also dictates that every person be able to choose for himself or herself whether to be baptized. In a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord gave the solution: living members of the church can be baptized for those who died without being baptized. The spirits of the deceased, who are in the spirit world awaiting resurrection and final judgment, may then choose to accept or reject the baptism that has been performed for them. That is why Jesus Christ bothered to preach to the disobedient spirits in the spirit world (1 Peter 3:18-20; 1 Peter 4:6). There is no need to reinterpret Jesus' words in order to soften the necessity of baptism, yet everyone still receives an equal opportunity to comply with the commandment.
Some have been offended that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "baptizes people against their will" after they have died. But when Mormons perform a baptism on behalf of someone who has died, they do not consider that person a member of the Mormon church. They do not assume that the person has accepted the ordinance. Church records only show that a baptism has been performed for the person; they do not list the person as a member of the Mormon church.
I, for one, have difficulty understanding why this would offend people who do not believe that we have power from God to perform baptisms. If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never received the priesthood authority from Jesus Christ as it claims, then wouldn't Mormon baptisms be null and void anyway, rendering this a non-issue? Nevertheless, some people apparently are offended at the mere concept. Hopefully it will help to explain that the concept is to extend the opportunity for baptism so that each person may choose, not to force anyone to be baptized against their will. The purpose of baptism for the dead is to honor individual choice, not to deny it.
In summary
Argument: Mormons use "baptism for the dead" to baptize people who have died against their will.
Response: When a Mormon is baptized on behalf of someone who died without baptism, he or she does not automatically become a member of the Mormon church. The deceased spirit of the person must choose to accept or reject the baptism before final judgment.
Read More......
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Does the Bible forbid scripture like the Book of Mormon?
The Book of Mormon is one of the most distinguishing features of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No other Christian denomination has produced additional scripture, and certainly none have claimed any non-Biblical writings to be equal to the Bible. The Book of Mormon is such a unique feature that the Church is most widely known as the "Mormon Church," after the book.
But does the Bible forbid scripture such as the Book of Mormon?
Critics claim that God intended the Bible to be a "closed canon," that is, his one and only book of scripture.
In support of this claim, they quote Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." This scripture makes it clear, they say, that Joseph Smith violated a Biblical commandment by publishing the Book of Mormon.
There are several major flaws with interpreting the passage from Revelation this way. First, commandments are for humans, not for God. John did not forbid God from revealing new scripture. Of course God has the divine prerogative to explain and clarify his word, reveal the mysteries of God (Matthew 13:11, Ephesians 3:3), and say whatever else he may see fit. The commandment was not meant to end divine revelation, but to forbid men from passing their own writings off as scripture. That is what John wrote: "If any man shall add unto these things..." Humans are not to take it upon themselves to write scripture. They may only do that when directly commanded by God. Luke saw that the Christian church had prophets who continued to reveal new scripture, and he took it as a sign that the church was true and prospering (Acts 6:7). The question remains whether Joseph Smith was commanded by God to translate the Book of Mormon, or whether he wrote the whole thing himself. But the mere existence of the book does not prove the latter to be the case.
It is also worth pointing out that John was not referring to the Bible when he said "this book." The Bible as we know it today did not exist when John wrote those words. The Old Testament existed as the Jewish scriptures, compiled as the Greek-language Septuagint. The various books of the New Testament circulated independently among Christians as separate manuscripts and had not yet been compiled into one book, and would not be for several hundred more years. The book he was referring to must be the Book of Revelation, not the Bible. He wanted to warn people that they should not alter the account of his vision.
Many groups have tried to close the scriptural canon and effectively declare God's mouth shut. Scholars believe that about A.D. 90, a group of rabbis held the Council of Jamnia to declare the Hebrew Old Testament the complete canon, and to reject any further scripture, such as the new Christian writings. Of course, such a decision cannot limit God's revelations. When Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon, other Christians tried to do the same thing: to declare that God cannot or will not add new scripture to the current canon. But that is what men have said, ironically speaking for God without authorization. God never said it, and the only scripture they cite for support does not mean what they interpret it to mean. "They that are unlearned and unstable wrest [the scriptures], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).
In summary
Argument: The Book of Revelation contains a commandment condemning additional scripture and declaring the Bible a closed canon. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not of God.
Response: The passage in question forbids humans from tampering with the word of God or speaking for God without authorization. It does not say that God will not reveal new scripture, and it does not refer to the Bible or declare the canon closed.
Read More......
But does the Bible forbid scripture such as the Book of Mormon?
Critics claim that God intended the Bible to be a "closed canon," that is, his one and only book of scripture.
In support of this claim, they quote Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." This scripture makes it clear, they say, that Joseph Smith violated a Biblical commandment by publishing the Book of Mormon.
There are several major flaws with interpreting the passage from Revelation this way. First, commandments are for humans, not for God. John did not forbid God from revealing new scripture. Of course God has the divine prerogative to explain and clarify his word, reveal the mysteries of God (Matthew 13:11, Ephesians 3:3), and say whatever else he may see fit. The commandment was not meant to end divine revelation, but to forbid men from passing their own writings off as scripture. That is what John wrote: "If any man shall add unto these things..." Humans are not to take it upon themselves to write scripture. They may only do that when directly commanded by God. Luke saw that the Christian church had prophets who continued to reveal new scripture, and he took it as a sign that the church was true and prospering (Acts 6:7). The question remains whether Joseph Smith was commanded by God to translate the Book of Mormon, or whether he wrote the whole thing himself. But the mere existence of the book does not prove the latter to be the case.
It is also worth pointing out that John was not referring to the Bible when he said "this book." The Bible as we know it today did not exist when John wrote those words. The Old Testament existed as the Jewish scriptures, compiled as the Greek-language Septuagint. The various books of the New Testament circulated independently among Christians as separate manuscripts and had not yet been compiled into one book, and would not be for several hundred more years. The book he was referring to must be the Book of Revelation, not the Bible. He wanted to warn people that they should not alter the account of his vision.
Many groups have tried to close the scriptural canon and effectively declare God's mouth shut. Scholars believe that about A.D. 90, a group of rabbis held the Council of Jamnia to declare the Hebrew Old Testament the complete canon, and to reject any further scripture, such as the new Christian writings. Of course, such a decision cannot limit God's revelations. When Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon, other Christians tried to do the same thing: to declare that God cannot or will not add new scripture to the current canon. But that is what men have said, ironically speaking for God without authorization. God never said it, and the only scripture they cite for support does not mean what they interpret it to mean. "They that are unlearned and unstable wrest [the scriptures], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).
In summary
Argument: The Book of Revelation contains a commandment condemning additional scripture and declaring the Bible a closed canon. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not of God.
Response: The passage in question forbids humans from tampering with the word of God or speaking for God without authorization. It does not say that God will not reveal new scripture, and it does not refer to the Bible or declare the canon closed.
Read More......
Friday, August 8, 2008
Polygamy
From 1852 to 1890, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught the doctrine of polygamy or plural marriage. In 1890, Wilford Woodruff, the president of the church, issued a "Manifesto" ending the practice. In 1904, the Church issued a second manifesto to clarify any misunderstandings about the universality of the ban.
The Church has prohibited polygamy ever since, and excommunicates anyone found to practice it. The "FLDS Church" and other polygamous groups that have recently received much media coverage are split-off sects not associated with the Mormon church.
Most criticism of the Mormon church related to polygamy is the result of simple misinformation. It is surprising how many people still believe that Mormons have multiple wives, despite the fact that polygamy was banned 118 years ago.
Of course, there are also those who understand that the Church no longer practices polygamy, who criticize it for ever having done so. They claim that God has never approved of polygamy and that the practice was the result of Joseph Smith's lustful desires, not revelation. They even claim that the Book of Mormon condemns the practice, showing that Joseph Smith's revelations contradict themselves.
Anyone who carefully and honestly reads the Bible will realize that many early prophets were polygamists, and that God approved their plural marriages. In Genesis 16, we read that Abraham took a second wife, and in the very next chapter the Lord makes a covenant with Abraham and promises him great blessings. In Genesis 29, Jacob marries both Leah and Rachel. In the next chapter, he takes a third and then a fourth wife.
Some argue that this was a cultural practice of the time, but that God was always opposed to the idea. This is a weak argument, however, considering that 1) there is no mention that God disapproved, 2) God certainly would have, as he was extremely strict about sexual sin during Old Testament times, and 3) in the Law of Moses, God gave specific rules concerning polygamy, to ensure that wives were treated equally. Furthermore, the prophet Nathan specifically said that it was the Lord who gave David his multiple wives (2 Samuel 12:7-8).
The argument that the Book of Mormon prohibits polygamy is based on Jacob 2:27, in which the prophet Jacob says as much. The critics conveniently ignore verse 30, which reads, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." The meaning is clear: Monogamy is the rule, but the Lord reserves the right to occasionally approve polygamy from time to time, as he sees fit. There is no contradiction.
The claim that Mormon polygamy was motivated by lust and not by commandment is baseless. Speculation might lead to this conclusion, but there is no evidence to indicate that carnal desires were the motivation. In fact, the historical record shows Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders reluctant to obey the new commandment. It appears that after Joseph Smith first learned that he would be required to take multiple wives, he put off complying for several years. Brigham Young recalled his feelings about learning of the commandment to take multiple wives: "I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin."
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had good reason for apprehension besides their own aversion to the idea. Mormon polygamy made the already severe persecution of the Church even more intense, and probably was a direct factor leading to the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. Yet all believing Christians (as well as Muslims and Jews) must acknowledge that God has at times approved of polygamy. The only difference is how recent that was.
In summary
Argument: God would never approve of polygamy. Even the Book of Mormon condemns it, showing that Joseph Smith contradicted his own revelations in order to accommodate his lustful desires.
Response: The Bible makes it very clear that God once approved of polygamy. The Book of Mormon says that polygamy is only justifiable when God specifically commands it, so there is no contradiction. The historical record suggests that Joseph Smith and other early Mormons were motivated by a desire to emulate the ancient prophets, not by lust.
References
Intellectual Reserve. 2003. Church History in the Fulness of Times (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Salt Lake City), 256.
Journal of Discourses, 3:266.
Roberts, B. H. 1930. A Comprehensive History of the Church (Deseret News Press: Salt Lake City) Vol. 2, 95.
Read More......
The Church has prohibited polygamy ever since, and excommunicates anyone found to practice it. The "FLDS Church" and other polygamous groups that have recently received much media coverage are split-off sects not associated with the Mormon church.
Most criticism of the Mormon church related to polygamy is the result of simple misinformation. It is surprising how many people still believe that Mormons have multiple wives, despite the fact that polygamy was banned 118 years ago.
Of course, there are also those who understand that the Church no longer practices polygamy, who criticize it for ever having done so. They claim that God has never approved of polygamy and that the practice was the result of Joseph Smith's lustful desires, not revelation. They even claim that the Book of Mormon condemns the practice, showing that Joseph Smith's revelations contradict themselves.
Anyone who carefully and honestly reads the Bible will realize that many early prophets were polygamists, and that God approved their plural marriages. In Genesis 16, we read that Abraham took a second wife, and in the very next chapter the Lord makes a covenant with Abraham and promises him great blessings. In Genesis 29, Jacob marries both Leah and Rachel. In the next chapter, he takes a third and then a fourth wife.
Some argue that this was a cultural practice of the time, but that God was always opposed to the idea. This is a weak argument, however, considering that 1) there is no mention that God disapproved, 2) God certainly would have, as he was extremely strict about sexual sin during Old Testament times, and 3) in the Law of Moses, God gave specific rules concerning polygamy, to ensure that wives were treated equally. Furthermore, the prophet Nathan specifically said that it was the Lord who gave David his multiple wives (2 Samuel 12:7-8).
The argument that the Book of Mormon prohibits polygamy is based on Jacob 2:27, in which the prophet Jacob says as much. The critics conveniently ignore verse 30, which reads, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." The meaning is clear: Monogamy is the rule, but the Lord reserves the right to occasionally approve polygamy from time to time, as he sees fit. There is no contradiction.
The claim that Mormon polygamy was motivated by lust and not by commandment is baseless. Speculation might lead to this conclusion, but there is no evidence to indicate that carnal desires were the motivation. In fact, the historical record shows Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders reluctant to obey the new commandment. It appears that after Joseph Smith first learned that he would be required to take multiple wives, he put off complying for several years. Brigham Young recalled his feelings about learning of the commandment to take multiple wives: "I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin."
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had good reason for apprehension besides their own aversion to the idea. Mormon polygamy made the already severe persecution of the Church even more intense, and probably was a direct factor leading to the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. Yet all believing Christians (as well as Muslims and Jews) must acknowledge that God has at times approved of polygamy. The only difference is how recent that was.
In summary
Argument: God would never approve of polygamy. Even the Book of Mormon condemns it, showing that Joseph Smith contradicted his own revelations in order to accommodate his lustful desires.
Response: The Bible makes it very clear that God once approved of polygamy. The Book of Mormon says that polygamy is only justifiable when God specifically commands it, so there is no contradiction. The historical record suggests that Joseph Smith and other early Mormons were motivated by a desire to emulate the ancient prophets, not by lust.
References
Intellectual Reserve. 2003. Church History in the Fulness of Times (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Salt Lake City), 256.
Journal of Discourses, 3:266.
Roberts, B. H. 1930. A Comprehensive History of the Church (Deseret News Press: Salt Lake City) Vol. 2, 95.
Read More......
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Why Mormons Don't Use the Symbol of the Cross
People often wonder why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not use the cross as its symbol. Some assume that Mormons do not display the cross because they do not believe that Christ was crucified for our sins. I've heard from another who thought that we eschewed all religious symbolism. Hopefully the other posts on this blog adequately answer those misconceptions.
Nevertheless, it is easy to see why some would be confused. The cross is used as the symbol of nearly every Christian denomination, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox alike.
There are several reasons why Mormons do not use the symbol of the cross. First, we see Christ’s Atonement as broader than the crucifixion. Mormon doctrine places greater emphasis on Christ’s passion in Gethsemane than most Christian denominations (Mark 14:32-36; Luke 22:39-44; Doctrine and Covenants 19:16-24). In Gethsemane, Christ suffered for the sins of all mankind. On the cross on Golgotha, he suffered crucifixion and death. From the sepulcher he was resurrected on the third day.
Thus, the cross represents only part of Christ’s Atonement. It represents that he died for us, without which death there could be no resurrection. Yet Christ suffered something far greater for us than mere death. The Roman torture known as crucifixion was horrifically painful, but it was not sufficient to pay the price of all the sins of the world. That suffering, unfathomable to mortal minds, occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane and was concluded with Christ's death on the cross.
In his book What Happened to the Cross?, Robert Millet writes, “We should note that historically, in the first few Christian centuries, the cross was not considered a virtuous or admirable symbol, but rather a terrifying reminder of what Jesus and thousands of others had ignominiously suffered. In fact, some scholars report that the cross did not appear in churches as a symbol of veneration until A.D. 431. Crosses on steeples did not appear until 586, and it was not until the sixth century that crucifixes were sanctioned by the Roman church.”
Not surprisingly, it was probably the late Gordon B. Hinckley, fifteenth president of our church, who explained it best. When a Protestant minister asked him about the absence of the cross in Mormon buildings, Pr. Hinckley recalled, “I responded, ‘I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.’
“He then asked: ‘If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?’
“I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.
“I hope he did not feel that I was smug or self-righteous in my response. Our position at first glance may seem a contradiction of our profession that Jesus Christ is the key figure of our faith. The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We worship Him as Lord and Savior. The Bible is our scripture. We believe that the prophets of the Old Testament who foretold the coming of the Messiah spoke under divine inspiration. We glory in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John setting forth the events of the birth, ministry, death, and Resurrection of the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh.”
In summary
Question: If Mormons are Christians, why don’t they use the cross as their symbol as other Christian denominations do?
Response: Because the Gospel is a message of hope, Mormons choose to focus on the living, resurrected Christ, rather than the instrument of his death. They know that Christ’s death was a crucial part of the Atonement, but do not want to focus on the cross at the expense of what occurred in Gethsemane and at the tomb.
References
Robert L. Millet, What Happened to the Cross? (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007), 102.
Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Symbol of Our Faith,” Ensign, April 2005, 2.
Intellectual Reserve, “Cross,” True to the Faith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004): 45.
Read More......
Nevertheless, it is easy to see why some would be confused. The cross is used as the symbol of nearly every Christian denomination, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox alike.
There are several reasons why Mormons do not use the symbol of the cross. First, we see Christ’s Atonement as broader than the crucifixion. Mormon doctrine places greater emphasis on Christ’s passion in Gethsemane than most Christian denominations (Mark 14:32-36; Luke 22:39-44; Doctrine and Covenants 19:16-24). In Gethsemane, Christ suffered for the sins of all mankind. On the cross on Golgotha, he suffered crucifixion and death. From the sepulcher he was resurrected on the third day.
Thus, the cross represents only part of Christ’s Atonement. It represents that he died for us, without which death there could be no resurrection. Yet Christ suffered something far greater for us than mere death. The Roman torture known as crucifixion was horrifically painful, but it was not sufficient to pay the price of all the sins of the world. That suffering, unfathomable to mortal minds, occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane and was concluded with Christ's death on the cross.
In his book What Happened to the Cross?, Robert Millet writes, “We should note that historically, in the first few Christian centuries, the cross was not considered a virtuous or admirable symbol, but rather a terrifying reminder of what Jesus and thousands of others had ignominiously suffered. In fact, some scholars report that the cross did not appear in churches as a symbol of veneration until A.D. 431. Crosses on steeples did not appear until 586, and it was not until the sixth century that crucifixes were sanctioned by the Roman church.”
Not surprisingly, it was probably the late Gordon B. Hinckley, fifteenth president of our church, who explained it best. When a Protestant minister asked him about the absence of the cross in Mormon buildings, Pr. Hinckley recalled, “I responded, ‘I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.’
“He then asked: ‘If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?’
“I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.
“I hope he did not feel that I was smug or self-righteous in my response. Our position at first glance may seem a contradiction of our profession that Jesus Christ is the key figure of our faith. The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We worship Him as Lord and Savior. The Bible is our scripture. We believe that the prophets of the Old Testament who foretold the coming of the Messiah spoke under divine inspiration. We glory in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John setting forth the events of the birth, ministry, death, and Resurrection of the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh.”
In summary
Question: If Mormons are Christians, why don’t they use the cross as their symbol as other Christian denominations do?
Response: Because the Gospel is a message of hope, Mormons choose to focus on the living, resurrected Christ, rather than the instrument of his death. They know that Christ’s death was a crucial part of the Atonement, but do not want to focus on the cross at the expense of what occurred in Gethsemane and at the tomb.
References
Robert L. Millet, What Happened to the Cross? (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007), 102.
Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Symbol of Our Faith,” Ensign, April 2005, 2.
Intellectual Reserve, “Cross,” True to the Faith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004): 45.
Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
