No.
You can't prove scripture true or false with a genetic test. Or the bible would be out too.
The DNA argument seems to have been reignited recently, but it hasn't shaken any faith that I am aware of. Perhaps a few opponents have decided to rest their objections on it, but it is an inexact science that cannot 'prove' veracity of a prophetic text.
Yes, I've read the arguments. But I've also read the counterarguments. And there are plenty, and they are convincing.
I'm not a geneticist, so I won't take on the task of a detailed refutation. You can find that elsewhere. Suffice it to say I still accept the Book of Mormon to be exactly what it claims to be. Science's arguments have done little to dissuade Christianity in general from our belief in the flood or the creation as told in Genesis. And science's 'proofs' have failed before.
My question is, how do these scientists explain the things in the book that 'prove' my faith? Historical, linguistic, and so on? It can't possibly be the product of a boy's mind.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
What's with the sign on the plaza in Salt Lake City?
A coworker e-mailed me a link to this news story this week - the church has put up a sign on the plaza next to Temple Square warning that we have the right to ask people to leave.
The action has a lot of people in a tizzy. It was taken after a male couple was asked to leave. According to the security people involved, the couple was drunk, loudly profane, and kissing on the property.
Of course, it's private property adjacent to a place of worship. But that hasn't stopped the activist mormon-hater community from firing off thousands of articles and web posts about the evil mormon church.
Many of them argue that since the church doesn't pay taxes, and the property is owned by the church, it's technically (or should be) public property. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem like an argument that would stand up in court.
The real reason for the outpouring of anger is tied to a bigger issue: The church has lent heavy support against pro-gay measures and for measures that protect the traditional family. And many people feel this is a 'political' issue, so the church should be banned from commenting on it.
The church has not endorsed a platform or candidate, but it has given its specific opinion with regards to laws and amendments being offered on the topic. The opinion is this: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage was instituted by God, not the Government.
The so-called 'separation of church and state', which I've not found yet explicitly stated in the constitution, is at least based in some constitutional ideas that are supposed to protect the people from the abuses of a state-sponsored religion. But it is not designed to muzzle speech rights, which actually do exist in the first amendment to the Constitution.
The debate is not going away any time soon. The church is not softening its stance - political pressure simply forces us to define it even more clearly and sharply.
Regarding our stance on the deeper issue:
Our intention is not to be hateful or fear-mongering; it is simply to advocate for the path that we believe (and experience has proven) will bring the most happiness to individuals and families.
People are being misled to believe that there are not consequences for their choices, especially those related to emotional and physical intimacy, and the use of the powers of procreation.
Much of the social misinformation is being propagated institutionally, lending it academic or even governmental credibility. And people are being trapped in behaviors and lifestyles because there is very little support for the other position.
Someone's got to be the champion for truth and values.
The action has a lot of people in a tizzy. It was taken after a male couple was asked to leave. According to the security people involved, the couple was drunk, loudly profane, and kissing on the property.
Of course, it's private property adjacent to a place of worship. But that hasn't stopped the activist mormon-hater community from firing off thousands of articles and web posts about the evil mormon church.
Many of them argue that since the church doesn't pay taxes, and the property is owned by the church, it's technically (or should be) public property. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem like an argument that would stand up in court.
The real reason for the outpouring of anger is tied to a bigger issue: The church has lent heavy support against pro-gay measures and for measures that protect the traditional family. And many people feel this is a 'political' issue, so the church should be banned from commenting on it.
The church has not endorsed a platform or candidate, but it has given its specific opinion with regards to laws and amendments being offered on the topic. The opinion is this: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage was instituted by God, not the Government.
The so-called 'separation of church and state', which I've not found yet explicitly stated in the constitution, is at least based in some constitutional ideas that are supposed to protect the people from the abuses of a state-sponsored religion. But it is not designed to muzzle speech rights, which actually do exist in the first amendment to the Constitution.
The debate is not going away any time soon. The church is not softening its stance - political pressure simply forces us to define it even more clearly and sharply.
Regarding our stance on the deeper issue:
Our intention is not to be hateful or fear-mongering; it is simply to advocate for the path that we believe (and experience has proven) will bring the most happiness to individuals and families.
People are being misled to believe that there are not consequences for their choices, especially those related to emotional and physical intimacy, and the use of the powers of procreation.
Much of the social misinformation is being propagated institutionally, lending it academic or even governmental credibility. And people are being trapped in behaviors and lifestyles because there is very little support for the other position.
Someone's got to be the champion for truth and values.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Do you wear funny underwear?
I've been asked about garments. The church has provided an answer in its newsroom that is succinct and complete, and I don't feel any need to expand it:
Like members of many religious faiths, Latter-day Saints wear religious clothing. But members of other faiths — typically those involved in permanent pastoral ministries or religious services — usually wear religious garments as outer ceremonial vestments or symbols of recognition. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God.
Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation.
Here is the source: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6b4daf3d29baf010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
Like members of many religious faiths, Latter-day Saints wear religious clothing. But members of other faiths — typically those involved in permanent pastoral ministries or religious services — usually wear religious garments as outer ceremonial vestments or symbols of recognition. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God.
Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation.
Here is the source: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6b4daf3d29baf010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
Friday, August 7, 2009
I have a Mormon friend who…
Yes. Don’t we all. I can fill in the blank as easily as anyone. This week the conversation came up in a business dinner. One of my business partners noted that I was not drinking wine and, recalling that I am Mormon, told me he has another Mormon associate that will ‘test’ a sip of the wine at dinner but not drink a glass of it.
Other iterations are ‘lived with his girlfriend before they got married’, ‘buys lottery tickets when the jackpot gets really big', ‘drinks Coke’ or ‘watches Rated-R movies’.
Some of the instructions that we have been given leave room for personal interpretation. For example, plenty of Mormons drink Coke. It doesn’t affect their standing in the church. I don’t drink Coke. I expect my children to refrain from it as well. But I don’t have a problem with those members who do.
By the way, just because specific behaviors are left to personal interpretation, it doesn't mean I have to explore its boundaries. Much of the purpose of the gospel lies in refining ourselves without written, specific obligations.
Now, other instructions do not leave room for personal interpretation. ‘Lived with his girlfriend before they married’ is cohabitation and prohibited by prophetic instruction. Even if they ‘aren’t having sex’ (yeah right).
None of us is perfect. In some of these cases these indiscretions were just that, and if the member chooses to repent, the Lord forgives them and they can enjoy all of the blessings of church membership without hesitation. In some other cases, the members seek to justify their behavior to other members and demonstrate that ‘you can still be a good person even though’… In the case of someone who breaks a commandment (I consider all prophetic instruction to be commandments) and then tries to demonstrate they are ‘faithful to the church even though’, they are not doing themselves or the church any good. And they still need to repent.
But we still love them. And we still stand by our principles. Yes, it is possible to do both. Just because I refuse to participate in the same behavior does not mean that I don’t love you and want the best for you. And just because I try to teach a better way – a way that I have found brings happiness – doesn’t mean that I am bigoted, intolerant, or arrogant.
By the way, if his Bishop knows about it, your friend that ‘tests’ the wine probably doesn’t hold a temple recommend any more, and won’t be considered a ‘member in good standing’ until he repents and changes, although that would not be public knowledge.
Other iterations are ‘lived with his girlfriend before they got married’, ‘buys lottery tickets when the jackpot gets really big', ‘drinks Coke’ or ‘watches Rated-R movies’.
Some of the instructions that we have been given leave room for personal interpretation. For example, plenty of Mormons drink Coke. It doesn’t affect their standing in the church. I don’t drink Coke. I expect my children to refrain from it as well. But I don’t have a problem with those members who do.
By the way, just because specific behaviors are left to personal interpretation, it doesn't mean I have to explore its boundaries. Much of the purpose of the gospel lies in refining ourselves without written, specific obligations.
Now, other instructions do not leave room for personal interpretation. ‘Lived with his girlfriend before they married’ is cohabitation and prohibited by prophetic instruction. Even if they ‘aren’t having sex’ (yeah right).
None of us is perfect. In some of these cases these indiscretions were just that, and if the member chooses to repent, the Lord forgives them and they can enjoy all of the blessings of church membership without hesitation. In some other cases, the members seek to justify their behavior to other members and demonstrate that ‘you can still be a good person even though’… In the case of someone who breaks a commandment (I consider all prophetic instruction to be commandments) and then tries to demonstrate they are ‘faithful to the church even though’, they are not doing themselves or the church any good. And they still need to repent.
But we still love them. And we still stand by our principles. Yes, it is possible to do both. Just because I refuse to participate in the same behavior does not mean that I don’t love you and want the best for you. And just because I try to teach a better way – a way that I have found brings happiness – doesn’t mean that I am bigoted, intolerant, or arrogant.
By the way, if his Bishop knows about it, your friend that ‘tests’ the wine probably doesn’t hold a temple recommend any more, and won’t be considered a ‘member in good standing’ until he repents and changes, although that would not be public knowledge.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Don’t you guys harass people with your religion?
We’re not supposed to. But we’re human, and sometimes (especially with youthful enthusiasm) we push too hard. We teach love, not pushiness, and we teach boldness, but not rudeness. The line between the two is crossed on occasion.
Of course, more often we’re unfairly accused of crossing the lines. Some people are sensitive to any invitation or contact, and take it as harassment. Some people confuse us with other groups that really are pushy.
You can and should expect respectful dialog from representatives of our church. We want to bless your life, not stress it.
The invitation to preach the Gospel came from the Savior himself, and is plainly printed in the New Testament. That other churches take the less controversial approach and choose not to evangelize is, in my view, at odds with the key doctrines of Christianity. So yes, I’m going to tell you about my religion. If you’re not interested, just say so and I won’t be hurt (much) and we will still be friends.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
What's with the two kids in white shirts and black nametags?
They're missionaries. I've gotten a lot of questions about missionaries - it is difficult to not be curious about such a lifestyle. Missionaries serve 18-24 months, sometimes are sent to live in a foreign country and learn a foreign language, and live by a stringent set of rules including not dating, dressing formally, and keeping a demanding schedule of study and work.
Some people find proselityzing missionaries annoying. That is understandable - they sometimes bear the same stigma as a door-to-door salesman, with the added negative of the fact that they are 'selling' religion, an unpopular product. From time to time one earns that reputation as well - if they are overly pushy or insensitive. We do, after all, send them out pretty young. But for the most part, our missionaries are what they claim to be: emissaries of Jesus Christ with a message. If you don't like it, don't talk to them.
These young men get up at 6:30 in the morning, study and pray for several hours, and then knock on doors and visit with people and extend invitations to them to improve their lives and their families. Their teachings range from explaining the nature of God to the Plan of Salvation and Jesus Christ's role, to principals of happiness, such as how to pray, how to get a long in a family, and how to shed unwanted habits such as smoking and drinking. They provide community service every week; where I live, they volunteer in a nursing home that is run by a local protestant church. In other places they teach English or literacy, or work at a food shelf. They pay for this experience themselves - through savings and contributions from family and friends.
Some people think we have no business proselityzing in Christian areas. I think a quick glance over what we believe about practicing Christianity (chaste living, sabbath day observance, and other forms of self-restraint) should make it clear that we believe we have something to offer above and beyond 'mainstream' Christianity. That is not meant as an offense to our Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters, it is simply a fact of life. If we thought what we had was the same as what they offer, we'd just join them - it would be much easier. And if it makes you feel any better, we send Missionaries to Utah too, the geographic center of our own religion.
In addition to the benefit that these young men provide to their communities and the people they teach, the mission is a great benefit to them and the church in terms of the character it builds in the missionary himself. Missionary work produces the best fathers, husbands, and leaders possible. In a world where leaving home means experimenting with the evils that are out there to offer whether in the nightlife of a college campus or exposure to all that is in the working world, the only two programs I have seen make decent men out of boys are the military and the Mormon Mission. And the military comes complete with its own morally risky activities at times, so choices are even more limited.
I would not be half the man I am without my mission. I am proud to be associated with the boys in the white shirts and the nametags.
Some people find proselityzing missionaries annoying. That is understandable - they sometimes bear the same stigma as a door-to-door salesman, with the added negative of the fact that they are 'selling' religion, an unpopular product. From time to time one earns that reputation as well - if they are overly pushy or insensitive. We do, after all, send them out pretty young. But for the most part, our missionaries are what they claim to be: emissaries of Jesus Christ with a message. If you don't like it, don't talk to them.
These young men get up at 6:30 in the morning, study and pray for several hours, and then knock on doors and visit with people and extend invitations to them to improve their lives and their families. Their teachings range from explaining the nature of God to the Plan of Salvation and Jesus Christ's role, to principals of happiness, such as how to pray, how to get a long in a family, and how to shed unwanted habits such as smoking and drinking. They provide community service every week; where I live, they volunteer in a nursing home that is run by a local protestant church. In other places they teach English or literacy, or work at a food shelf. They pay for this experience themselves - through savings and contributions from family and friends.
Some people think we have no business proselityzing in Christian areas. I think a quick glance over what we believe about practicing Christianity (chaste living, sabbath day observance, and other forms of self-restraint) should make it clear that we believe we have something to offer above and beyond 'mainstream' Christianity. That is not meant as an offense to our Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters, it is simply a fact of life. If we thought what we had was the same as what they offer, we'd just join them - it would be much easier. And if it makes you feel any better, we send Missionaries to Utah too, the geographic center of our own religion.
In addition to the benefit that these young men provide to their communities and the people they teach, the mission is a great benefit to them and the church in terms of the character it builds in the missionary himself. Missionary work produces the best fathers, husbands, and leaders possible. In a world where leaving home means experimenting with the evils that are out there to offer whether in the nightlife of a college campus or exposure to all that is in the working world, the only two programs I have seen make decent men out of boys are the military and the Mormon Mission. And the military comes complete with its own morally risky activities at times, so choices are even more limited.
I would not be half the man I am without my mission. I am proud to be associated with the boys in the white shirts and the nametags.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Do you guys have something like a Pope?
We have a Prophet.
A Prophet? You mean like... Old Testament, talks to God, has power to perform miracles, that kind of Prophet?
Yes.
Do you understand what that means?
Yes.
And you accept it? Really?
Yes.
Prophets have a bad name these days. The world has seen its fair share of nut jobs proclaiming themselves to be a Prophet. In too many minds the term Prophet is equated with secretive cults, illegal activities, and mass suicide. Whether it is Waco, Texas, or the so-called 'fundamentalist LDS' church, or the various cults of a generation past, the word Prophet conjures up images of compounds, weapons caches, female oppression, and sedition against the government.
That would not be us.
It should come as no surprise that the devil would want to paint prophets with a nice, broad, ugly brush. After all, Prophets are what saved Israel over and over again. And Prophets are what brought us the Bible. And Prophets talk to God. All things that the devil would prefer did not happen.
So when I say I accept the idea of a modern prophet, I am not suggesting that I have plans to move to a compound in the central US and stockpile tear gas.
One stark difference between the Prophet and the nut jobs in the cults is that the nut jobs have serious control issues - the last thing they would preach is individual, personal revelation. The Mormon church is the opposite - the Prophet encourages the members to learn to receive revelation and live by the Spirit. If everything is working the way God says it should (and I find that it does), the Spirit confirms individually what the Prophet teaches generally.
So, would you like to see what today's Prophet is saying? His name is Thomas S. Monson. He travels a lot and speaks in various meetings and conferences around the world, but twice a year he presides over a worldwide conference of the church, broadcast by satellite to nearly all of its buildings. It happens usually in April and October. The full text and the audio, and the video, if you'd like to hear his voice or see what he looks like are available on LDS.Org. Look for 'General Conference'. In fact, the proceedings of the conference are also streamed live on the internet, and available on KBYU on consumer satellite services. Put it on your DVR or Tivo, or print off a copy of a talk, or download the audio to your iPod sometime, and see what you think.
A Prophet? You mean like... Old Testament, talks to God, has power to perform miracles, that kind of Prophet?
Yes.
Do you understand what that means?
Yes.
And you accept it? Really?
Yes.
Prophets have a bad name these days. The world has seen its fair share of nut jobs proclaiming themselves to be a Prophet. In too many minds the term Prophet is equated with secretive cults, illegal activities, and mass suicide. Whether it is Waco, Texas, or the so-called 'fundamentalist LDS' church, or the various cults of a generation past, the word Prophet conjures up images of compounds, weapons caches, female oppression, and sedition against the government.
That would not be us.
It should come as no surprise that the devil would want to paint prophets with a nice, broad, ugly brush. After all, Prophets are what saved Israel over and over again. And Prophets are what brought us the Bible. And Prophets talk to God. All things that the devil would prefer did not happen.
So when I say I accept the idea of a modern prophet, I am not suggesting that I have plans to move to a compound in the central US and stockpile tear gas.
One stark difference between the Prophet and the nut jobs in the cults is that the nut jobs have serious control issues - the last thing they would preach is individual, personal revelation. The Mormon church is the opposite - the Prophet encourages the members to learn to receive revelation and live by the Spirit. If everything is working the way God says it should (and I find that it does), the Spirit confirms individually what the Prophet teaches generally.
So, would you like to see what today's Prophet is saying? His name is Thomas S. Monson. He travels a lot and speaks in various meetings and conferences around the world, but twice a year he presides over a worldwide conference of the church, broadcast by satellite to nearly all of its buildings. It happens usually in April and October. The full text and the audio, and the video, if you'd like to hear his voice or see what he looks like are available on LDS.Org. Look for 'General Conference'. In fact, the proceedings of the conference are also streamed live on the internet, and available on KBYU on consumer satellite services. Put it on your DVR or Tivo, or print off a copy of a talk, or download the audio to your iPod sometime, and see what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)