Didn't you know there is scientific proof that the Book of Mormon is false?

I love science. I've taken university courses in biology, genetics, archaeology, astronomy, geology, anthropology, and so on - and enjoyed them all, despite their occasional challenges to the doctrines that I center my life on.

Unfortunately, I am not, in fact, a scientist. I don't have all of the tools to evaluate the science behind each of those arguments against my faith.  I have read many refutations by prominent LDS scientists, which are equally or even more (when viewed with faith) convincing.  But I can not claim the credentials to give a proper response to each argument.

One of those arguments, that the Book of Mormon is disproved by genetic research, is trumpeted around my town by a local Pastor (also not a scientist).  Doesn't it seem hypocritical for a person of faith to denounce another's faith on a scientific basis?

To those self-proclaimed Christians that are participating in that criticism, I would love to ask:

1. If scientific "proof" were produced by genetics, carbon dating, or archaeology that apparently undermined the Bible, would your faith be diminished? (Hint - such proof does exist, and abundantly.  Mormons aren't the only Christians being attacked by critical 'science'.)

2. If scientific "proof" were produced by genetics, carbon dating, or archaeology that supported the Book of Mormon, would it build your faith? (Hint - such proof does, once again, exist, and abundantly. There is a wealth of information that was unavailable to Joseph Smith buried in the Book of Mormon, that has now been substantiated scientifically. And it comes from additional disciplines too - astronomy, physics, linguistics, and so on.)

Ironically, many of those proofs supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon sprang from "infallible" scientific research that, just a few years before, seemed to contradict its authority.

So, my dear argumentative friend, I would be careful about trumpeting your objections too loudly, lest science - so much more fickle than faith - should turn on you.

The critic's version of science first loosens the skeptic's shoelaces as it rejects the Book of Mormon, then trips the feet of those who hoped that God still speaks to His children in modern times. Next it reduces the Biblical account to the status of mere mythology, and loosens the belt of moral authority as it repaints the prophets as fanatics. Then the whole person is laid bare. The seeming liberation from the restricting clothing of organized religion then exposes its practitioner to the elements, and no protection is offered from the shame and bitterness that plague the human condition. Finally its victim, shorn and unshod, is unable to flee from the real enemy of the soul.

Today I watched the final flight of the Space Shuttle Program, STS-135.  I can remember seeing its first flight in 1981, on a fuzzy (CRT?) television at school. I remember watching the Challenger disaster, live as it unfolded on television. There was a touch of nostalgia today as I watched, this time in High Definition over the internet, the orbiter lift one final time from Cape Canaveral. I am sad to see it end. But science will march on and evolve, and so will my love for it.

However, those things that have already withstood the test of time and criticism, those things that resonate deep within my mind and heart, those things that consistently produce the kinds of outcomes I want in my life, they will outlive science - eternal, unchanged, evermore.

Are Mormons Allowed to Wear Jewelry?

Easy: Yes.  Now, if you read only one more thing today, skip to the italicized paragraph below.

Boring Paragraph Here:
However, men are discouraged from piercing their bodies, and women from wearing more than one set of piercings.  I suggest two possible reasons: One is we try to treat our body with respect because they are a gift from God. The other is that we try to maintain a respectable appearance because the reality of things is, that our ability to influence others for good can be limited by an appearance that distracts people from our message.  Mormon or not, I recommend this to you; you can argue for the ideals of tolerance and non-judgemental-ism all you want, but in most cases a tattoo or a nose ring is still a check against you in a job interview or a new relationship.

Now, on to the bigger, more interesting issue: 
Are Mormons Allowed _____?  People like to define religion in terms of its negative space - Jehovah's Witnesses can't have a blood transfusion. Catholics can't eat beef on Fridays during Lent.  Where I grew up, the Lutherans traditionally gave something (anything) up for Lent too.  Some injunctions are specific to subsets of a religion. Catholic Priests can't marry. Moslem and Mennonite Women can't go about with their head uncovered. And so on.

So pervasive is the 'definition by exclusion' approach to understanding a theology, that pretty soon the groups do it to themselves. Ask a Mormon Teenager what their religion means, and they might say "No Smoking or Drinking". If they feel bold, they might mention prohibitions on extramarital sex, or sports on Sunday.

Shouldn't a religion be defined in terms of what it does for and to you positively?

It's no wonder that the world views religion generally (and Mormonism especially) as prohibitive.  But what do we gain for these exclusions? Is it limited to the vague and seemingly unprovable promise of escaping from Hell? Or is there more to it than the threat of spiritual death?

In my view, Mormonism is a liberal religion. It believes in widespread (not exclusive) salvation. That's why we baptize for the dead - because while we believe that baptism is required, we believe that you don't necessarily have to have been Mormon to get in to heaven.  Along with that liberal approach to salvation, we believe in good things on this earth. We believe in education: in the Doctrine and Covenants, given by revelation to Joseph Smith, we are commanded to learn history, languages. We are expected to dance, to sing. We are commanded to eat wholesome herbs, fruit, meat, grains, and to enjoy them with thanksgiving. We are expected to marry, to enjoy marital intimacy, to rear children.  Modern prophecy adds to the list: planting a garden, wholesome recreational activities, and so on.

I cannot help but feel that my life would be empty if I had followed the path the world prescribes for me; I would have missed out on the greatest things in life.  I have many beautiful children, I speak different languages, I have seen the world, I cook good food, I play piano and read good books. I have restful Sundays  and associate with many good people.

Of course we have commandments. They are designed to protect the most precious gifts in life.  They prevent us from trading the big blessings for little thrills.  You can ruin a family with infidelity.  You can ruin a college education with alcoholism. You can ruin a friendship with dishonesty. No surprises there.

But I am not defined by what I 'cannot' do.  I am the sum of the good things my religion has taught me to become.

What's with the Kolob thing?

Sigh.

The short answer is:
Kolob is another word we use (occasionally) for the place where God lives.

The long answer is
Kolob is a star that is close to God's world.  We believe that God, a glorified yet physical person, has a glorified (yet physical) home, and the star there (like our Sun) is called Kolob.

The word sounds funny because it comes from Egyptian (I think). It comes from a book that Joseph Smith translated that we call the Pearl of Great Price.  The Pearl of Great Price is special because it contains a less garbled (freshly translated) copy of Moses's account of the creation than what has been passed down to us in the Old Testament, and it has some additional information about Abraham.  But I can't recall the word Kolob ever having been used in a talk or lesson.  It appears in one hymn, which we don't sing very often.

Apparently, Abraham was a really smart guy, and it appears that God revealed to him a little more about science and math and astronomy than we typically teach in church.  That extra knowledge is briefly touched on but not expounded.  Intellectuals in the church have tried for years to unlock additional knowledge through this snippet of scripture.  Some of them have proposed some weird theories (although, who knows, they might be right).  But these do not constitute the core and accepted doctrine in the church -- any more than the mystics or super-intellectuals in your church represent the minister or the Pope.

The great teaching that I have taken away from this handful of verses is that God wants his children to learn about lots of things, and if I am sincere and obedient, God will reveal to me things that are sacred and not available to the world, just like he did for Abraham. (And God will likely tell me to keep it between Him and me, so they won't be posted on my blog. Sorry.)  The sun and moon and stars were created to bless us, and to remind us of God, and since God's knowledge is Endless, I assume there are some things that he can teach me about Math or Astronomy or how to do my job or rear my family, if He sees it as helpful to my salvation and progress.

Do you really believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?

I've never heard it taught that way in church.  But I suppose that you can see it that way - sort of.  You see, we do believe that we all lived together before we came to earth, and we were one big family.  Some of Heavenly Father's children were rebellious and decided to try to lead us astray.  They became the devil and his angels.  

So the important doctrine (and the one we do teach in church) is that Jesus is our older brother.  We acknowledge the existence of the Devil (or Lucifer, or the adversary, or Satan, or whatever name you'd like), but we try not to spend a lot of time on him.

Also, since Lucifer's decision to rebel cost him his inheritance and place in the Kingdom, I think he's been effectively disowned. So I guess, technically, he is no longer our brother (Or Jesus's). 

The doctrine that Lucifer is a fallen angel is, by the way, based on the Bible.  Isaiah 14.

Now, good Christian, let me put it back to you.  Where do you believe the devil came from? Was he created by God?  Is there anything that was not created by God?  Did God create evil? 

You see, no matter how you answer this, it creates logical problems - and opportunities for me to distort your beliefs.  Which I would not do, because my focus (and the teachings of the church) are centered on a loving God who is our father, and we are his children.  Most of the complications come from this thing that Mormons call "agency" - the right to make decisions, which God gave to his children to help them.  It is where  the struggles with faith come from. You can distill this and many other questions back to this one: Why does a loving God allow bad things to happen like war and suffering? It takes an understanding of the whole plan (and believing that there is, in fact, a plan) to address the hard questions.

The Mormon "Profit"

One of the accusations made of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that its leadership has become wealthy off the backs of its members.  Time Magazine spotlighted the the financial strength of the church in a cover story a few years back called "Mormons, Inc." And the frequent, unoriginal reference to our Prophet as a 'Profit' by critics across the internet is buried in thousands of personal blogs and news comments, usually closely accompanied by unintentional misspellings and other errors. (The lack of literate critics is disheartening sometimes.)

I needn't point out the specifics of hypocrisies when this charge is leveled by Catholics or the various Evangelical mega-churches.

But I do wish to call out a handful of specifics that those engaging in such accusations should be aware of and treat fairly.

1. The vast majority of Mormon leadership is uncompensated.  Congregational leaders (Bishops), missionaries, and so on - all volunteer their time.  Mormons believe that ministers should work to support themselves with their own hands, and that the preacher and learner are equal.

2. The handful of leaders that receive remuneration have other administrative duties in the church that require full-time attention.  Our church has buildings and schools and charities to manage that have heavy overhead. Our charities are, by the way, some of the most efficient in the world in terms of how contributed dollars are used.

3. In no case does the church's remuneration afford a luxurious lifestyle.  As I understand it, most if not all church leaders take a step down in income when they choose to enter the ministry full time.  Many are very successful scientists, doctors, businessmen, and so on - and could do much better in the private sector.  President Gordon B. Hinckley lived out his years in an apartment by Temple Square.  It was pointed out to me once; his wife kept flowers on the balcony.  Also the private jet.  Just kidding - no private jet.

4. At any rate, the accrual of wealth would be pointless since many of the highest callings in the church have a lifetime tenure. There is no retirement, no condo in Florida, no Vegas weekend - just ministry to the very end.  If there is anything luxurious about the lifestyle at all, it is that they are afforded travel expenses to go around the world and visit with members. But again, not on a private jet. When they travel, they buy a commercial ticket; they are picked up at the airport by local membership; they often stay in members' homes, eat with their families, and so on.

So, even if the President of the Church really made $500,000 per year (which is both doubtful and yet would be in line with typical salaries for someone leading such a large entity), it is of very little benefit, as he will spend it serving the church.

And those of us who have had the privilege of standing in the presence of one of the 15 men we believe to be Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, of shaking their hands, of speaking with them directly, have no doubt that their every intention in their church service is completely selfless.  I have had that privilege many times in my young life, and each time recognized the character of a man who has been refined by decades of unselfish service and sacrifice.

Do Mormons Worship Joseph Smith?

No. We don't worship Joseph Smith. Or Mormon, or Moroni (the guy on the Temples with the trumpet) or anyone other than Jesus Christ. Those other people are messengers. They are not even 'intermediaries'. A true messenger brings teachings from God, but then directs us to establish a direct, personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ.

God does now (and has always) used messengers to establish his Word. But all of our prayers are directed to God our Heavenly Father and closed in the name of his only intermediary, his son Jesus Christ.

With regards to the mission of Joseph Smith (and the Mormon view of what a Prophet is), consider this excerpt from an article by James Faust, a former member of the Church's First Presidency:

"As I submit to you my testimony of Joseph Smith, I acknowledge his humanness along with his great spiritual powers. He did not claim to be divine, nor a perfect man. He claimed only to be a mortal man with human feelings and imperfections, trying honestly to fulfill the divine mission given to him. He so describes himself in recorded counsel given to some of the members of the Church who had just arrived in Nauvoo on October 29, 1842. Said the Prophet, 'I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.' (History of the Church, 5:181.)"I am impressed with his complete candor, for in addition to admitting his own humanness, he also recorded the declarations from the Lord which were given to him in the nature of loving reproof. . . ."While Joseph sought perfection, he did not claim perfection. If he were intending to fabricate a great falsehood or wanted to perpetrate a fraud or practice deceit, would he have been so truthful about his own humanness? His complete candor in admitting human frailties and in declaring the loving discipline of God offers powerful proof of his honesty and probity. His statements stand on more solid footing because they were declarations against human nature and admissions against self-interest."

- James E. Faust, "The Expanding Inheritance from Joseph Smith," Ensign, Nov. 1981, 76–77"

Why are there so many contradictions in the Mormon Scriptures?

Last night I was asked this by a young lady who has been faithfully reading but was not satisfied by her father's answer.  Her father's answer was to 'pray about it'.

Her frustration with the answer is understandable.  Dismissing a concern by conveniently referring a person's sincere inquiry to spiritual processes might come across as disingenuous. After all, if your faith is in something that is true, it should ultimately reconcile with any tests of science and logic (assuming those tests are not flawed).

But in his defense, that is the correct answer.  All religion (not just the 'Mormon' religion) have a faith element. And making sport of other religions when their faith seems to cross the line into a dogmatic acceptance of things that seem plainly to be wrong is not a new pastime. And part of maintaining faith is using prayer to reconcile attitudes and feelings. Some would classify this phenomenon as perfectly psychological, while I firmly believe that it evidences the divine and direct involvement of a loving Heavenly Father.  

The contradictions I have encountered fall in to one of three categories: Weakness of human language, contextual misunderstanding, and paradoxes.

Weakness of human language is seen in texts that have been mistranslated or sometimes in the ambiguous use of words. The Bible itself is full of these - it is not a 'Mormon' problem.  One of my favorites is the story of David performing a census. The story is told in two places in the Bible; in one, the Lord encourages David to perform the census; in the other it is Satan who inspires it in David.  If one accepts the two at face value, the only way to reconcile them is to believe that the Lord and Satan are the same person - that is obviously not true.  Furthermore, if you accept the idea that the Lord incites the census, which is described as a sin, it means that the Lord caused someone to sin - and the God I believe in would not do such a thing. The loss of a single word creates a flaw in the text that is just that - a textual flaw.  Reading under the influence of the Spirit (specifically, after praying about it) can help you to understand what is supposed to be taught by the story, without the crisis of faith that might result from finding an error in an otherwise holy text.

In addition to errors introduced through generations of translation, there is the recycling of words in a single language.  Words are only symbols, and only effective in communicating ideas when the symbols match up.   Again in the Bible, if I recall correctly, the word "Angel" occurs in places where it was translated from 5 different words.  If we get down to the intended meaning, very often 'Messenger', then problems of textual understanding are resolved.

Contextual Misunderstanding:  If you remove a single phrase or passage from scripture and compare it with another from another part of scripture, the two will often not seem to line up.  Understanding the historical background, doctrinal intention, and cultural and language aspects of a teaching will go a long ways towards fixing apparent discrepancies.  To give a simple example, in one place, "God is Love". In another place "God is a Father".  Is "Father" equal to "Love"? Well, in some respects, yes.  A horse is a four-legged animal, a cow is a four-legged animal, so a horse is a cow? Obviously not.  

Paradoxes are my favorite discrepancy.  Why? Because they are deliberate contradictions... and one must assume when an author introduces such a thing, it is not because the author is stupid.  It is because they are teaching us something and challenging us.  When you find something that seems to be placed there to challenge our faith, there is often (perhaps always) a much deeper truth beneath it; one that reconciles the ideas together and teaches us how to be.

Since I think Paradoxes are placed in scripture to hide sacred things, I will avoid delving too deeply in to them here.  But to postulate an example of a crisis that might be created, consider this simple example: Does the Lord care how we dress and groom?  On the one hand, we are not to judge by appearances, since the Lord 'looketh on the heart'.  On the other hand, the Spirit whispers that being neat and comely (for example, when we attend worship services) is good.  It should not be hard for you to see how extremes in either direction would be wrong, and under what situations the Lord (or His Prophet) might direct people to focus less or more on appearance.  There must be, then, an underlying principle that reconciles the two principles together.

And praying sincerely might help you find it.