Why is a Common Thread of Perfectionism Inherent in the LDS Community?

Note: All textual references within this article strictly correspond to the LDS standard works and LDS-authorized literature.

The Greek word for 'sin' in the New Testament means "to miss the mark"

A recent article written by Gerrit W. Gong, an elder of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the LDS church, addresses "unrealistic expectations of what perfection is." His article1 published this July, is entitled, "Becoming Perfect in Christ." My first question is why exactly this would need to be addressed at all. LDS elder Gong writes:

The word perfection, however, is sometimes misunderstood to mean never making a mistake. Perhaps you or someone you know is trying hard to be perfect in this way. Because such perfection always seems out of reach, even our best efforts can leave us anxious, discouraged, or exhausted. We unsuccessfully try to control our circumstances and the people around us. We fret over weaknesses and mistakes. In fact, the harder we try, the further we may feel from the perfection we seek.

Although I agree with his view, the notion of perfection he describes is different from the traditional LDS teachings on perfection. And as I continue to review the LDS gospel, it stuck out to me that perfection is critical because of its role in salvation. Salvation first requires perfection. This is the teaching found directly within the scriptures and from LDS leadership on the matter; it is not unrealistic, incorrect or self-imposed. It is traditionally-taught LDS doctrine. That is why perfectionism is such an inherent force within the LDS community. That being said, I feel this raises a few questions. For answers, I look to Christ's words and the words of the Apostles. To begin:

How then, is perfection a prerequisite for salvation in the LDS gospel?
This depends on what it means to be saved, so take the next natural question in line:

How am I saved?
You are saved by grace after all you can do (2 Nephi 25:23).

What do we do?
We do not sin, because if we sin, there is no grace (Moroni 10:32). We cannot be saved in our sins (Alma 11:37). God cannot allow any sin (D&C 1:31).

But, humans are imperfect. Don't we still sin in that imperfection?
God wouldn't command us if it were impossible (1 Nephi 3:7), so it must be possible to not sin. And if we have sinned, we must repent.

What does repentance do?
Repentance is not a gift since it merits something: forgiveness.2 We cannot commit the same sin again, we must forsake it (D&C 58:42-43) or it is not at all true repentance.3

But what happens if the sin is performed again? Can't we just do our best?
If sin is not forsaken, the sins will return to us again (D&C 82:7). Again, the forsaking must be permanent.4 Moreover, it is not sufficient simply that repented sins are forsaken, but the urge to sin in general must be out of our life.5 If we haven't truly repented, then the devil has power over us after death (Alma 34:35). So it specifically is in this life, not the next, that we are to prepare for God (Alma 34:32). Having a desire not to sin or sincerely trying our best is not good enough in this continual progression, either.6We must live a sinless life, absent of all ungodliness – in both action and urge – unto the rest of our lives in order for grace to save us. In essence, we must be perfect. Only then, will we be saved.7

But isn't the LDS gospel what Jesus and the apostles taught?
Paul gives a detailed explanation of this in Romans, but also makes similarly clear and decisive statements as in Galatians 2:16, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." The LDS gospel does not exactly give the same message that is given in the gospel of the New Testament: "One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation." (Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 206-207). Unfortunately, the overwhelming manuscript evidence to the contrary refutes that notion - not just in 1 gospel account or epistle, but all over the correctly translated New Testament.

What about righteous works?
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28). That means that there is nothing a person can do, even in the Law, to be justified. It is by faith alone that people are justified. Continuing into chapter 4, Paul talks about faith (and not works) counting as righteousness: "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." This directly contrasts the verse prior, where Paul says that, "if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." So although Abraham may have done righteous works, these account for naught. And this makes sense, because even in the Old Testament, Isaiah speaks for God that "all our righteousness is as filthy rags…"

Paul continues to explain what he means by a work. He says "to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." A paycheck is not grace. A person earns a paycheck. Grace is not something that is earned, but given. Even Abraham received righteousness in his faith prior to circumcision. The covenant of circumcision came after Abraham was already justified in the righteousness of his faith. That was the blessing of promise God gave Abraham in Genesis 12:2: that righteousness comes by faith (Romans 4:13). If those are heirs of the world because of the law, then "faith is made void," and the promise is made of "none effect," that is, the promise is nullified. Even further, Paul repeats the distinction of grace and works in chapter 11:6 "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." So salvation cannot by both grace and works – Paul explains that they are mutually exclusive. That is, they cannot be mixed. Salvation is either by works or by grace, but not a combination of both. To be "saved by grace after all we can do" is in direct conflict with the gospel message Paul preaches us. If there were plain and precious truths that Paul left out regarding salvation, then Joseph Smith must have restored this when he restored the gospel.

What does it mean that Christ was a propitiation? (Romans 3:23-26)
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." A propitiation is an atoning sacrifice. But Christ's sacrifice imparts righteousness to those that have faith in his atoning blood. It is not about what we can do. He did it all for us on the cross. Christ speaks his last: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30). "It is finished" is not a difficult translation of Greek/Aramaic phrase. It means exactly that: it is finished. There is nothing else for us to do or earn, but to accept his free gift.

What about James' talk about showing faith by his works?
Because Christ has saved us, we love to do good works not to earn any righteousness (Paul already taught us that trying to earn righteousness before God is a worthless endeavor) but to bring glory to God because we love Him. James cites the same example that Paul does of Abraham (James 2:23), that faith brings righteousness, then goes on to say that a person is justified by works and faith. So is this a contradiction? No. James is correcting a distortion of Paul's teaching. James, in his very first verse, is specifically directing his letter to the Jews, and even more specifically, the Diaspora "The 12 tribes scattered abroad…" He is commanding them to be doers of the word, not simply hearers, because "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans10:17). They need to do, to put their faith into action. Just as much as the love of a spouse to the other makes them want to do things for the other, so too is the faith of a person in Christ. Their love for Him cultivates a spirit of action. That is what the apostle John is talking about in the beginning of his gospel account in chapter 15; abiding in Christ to bear fruit, which brings glory to God as well as makes one a disciple. And so, James continues to correct the behavior of the recipients of his letter. He gives them examples to continue to properly live out their faith, which has already saved them, and to continue to abide in the love of Christ. This love and the commandment, given by Christ to love one another, continues in John 15.

What about "be perfect, as our father is perfect?"
The Gospel is the euangelion (literally, "good news", where we get the root for terms like evangelical). Being perfect is not exactly good news. Here, knowledge of the language of the New Testament, Koine Greek (or "Common Greek") can shed light on such a passage. Thankfully, because we have an over-abundant plethora of manuscripts for the Bible, this task is possible. Take Matthew 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." The word for perfect is 'telayois' (τέλειος: complete – as in being fully grown; i.e. maturity, perfect, whole). This is the same type of perfection that occurs in James 2:22, "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" This perfection and idea of works is not talking about leading to salvation. This is talking about coming to a mature faith. And not just a maturity, but an ideal, a wholeness of faith. Again, notice what James does not say, that faith does not bring salvation. James is continuing the same idea of perfection as Matthew writes about, which is a maturity of faith that is ripened by loving works, which have themselves been borne out of saving faith in Christ.

Conclusion: Faith, Salvation, and Seeing God
Although striving to do God's will and earnestly seeking to glorify Him through good works is a worthy cause, it does nothing to change our state of salvation and where we wind up after death. Our trust in Christ accepts the gift of salvation. As Paul writes in Ephesians 2:8-10, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." And as John writes in his gospel account aDismisst 11:40, "Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?" Truly, this is the good news of the gospel - it's not at all about anything we can do - but that his loving atoning sacrifice completed it all for us. "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."(John 6:28-29)

References

1. Gerrit W. Gong, "Becoming Perfect in Christ," Liahona, (July 2014). 14-19. Elder Gong is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy.
2. Spencer Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1969. p. 354. "…the former transgressor must have reached a 'point of no return' to sin wherein there is not merely a renunciation but also a deep abhorrence of the sin – where the sin becomes most distasteful to him and where the desire or urge to sin is cleared out of his life"
3. Ibid., p. 37.
4. Spencer Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," Ensign, (November 1980). Exact page number unavailable at time of viewing; article only available as a webpage, not a re-print or PDF. Former LDS President Kimball explains that repentance "seems to fall into five steps." In step 2, "Abandonment of sin," (Italics in text) Kimball states of sin, "The discontinuance must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit repetition. The Lord revealed this to the Prophet Joseph Smith concerning repentance: 'By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them' (D&C 58:43)." And also: "Elder Kimball warns: 'Even though forgiveness is so abundantly promised, there is no promise nor indication of forgiveness to any soul who does not totally repent. . . . We can hardly be too forceful in reminding people that they cannot sin and be forgiven and then sin again and again and expect forgiveness' (The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 353, 360). Those who receive forgiveness and then repeat the sin are held accountable for their former sins (see D&C 82:7; Ether 2:15)" (Gospel Principles, pp. 252- 253). Kimball held this view as an LDS elder and as LDS president.
5. Spencer Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness. p. 355. This reference is merely the continuation of the quote starting on page 354. 6. Ibid., p. 163, pp. 164-165. 'There is one crucial test of repentance. This is abandonment of the sin. Desire is not sufficient. In other words, it is not real repentance until one has abandoned the error of his ways and started on a new path… the saving power does not extend to him who merely wants to change his life. Trying is not sufficient, nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin;' 'It is normal for children to try. They fall and get up numerous times before they can be certain of their footing. But adults who have gone through these learning periods must determine what they will do, then proceed to do it. To try is weak. To 'do the best I can' is not strong. We must always do better than we can'
7. Ibid., p. 163. In reality, this particular chapter is probably the most critical on the concept of simply trying one's best. It makes statement after statement affirming perfection in this life first.

Rights Don't Come From Nature

Last week I began to examine how the rights of all people, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, must be rooted in God. I looked at the concept of rights being bestowed by governments or by the common consent of the people within a society and found both wanting. Today, I'd like to look at the possibility that rights come from our natural existence rather than a divine creator.

In such discussions, it becomes important to clarify our terms. We must understand both the concept of rights and the concept of nature to which I'm referring. For rights, I've covered that somewhat in my last post. However, to reiterate I quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which has a fairly good summation on the universality of human rights:

Human rights are universal All living humans—or perhaps all living persons—have human rights. One does not have to be a particular kind of person or a member of some specific nation or religion to have human rights. Included in the idea of universality is some conception of independent existence. People have human rights independently of whether they are found in the practices, morality, or law of their country or culture. This idea of universality needs several qualifications, however. First, some rights, such as the right to vote, are held only by adult citizens or residents and apply only to voting in one's own country. Second, the human right to freedom of movement may be taken away temporarily from a person who is convicted of committing a serious crime. And third, some human rights treaties focus on the rights of vulnerable groups such as minorities, women, indigenous peoples, and children.1

When I am discussing nature as the supplier of rights, I'm pointing to the idea that the natural world is all there is; we exist only because of the physical laws of the universe and perhaps some fortuitous chemical combinations and mutations that ultimately resulted in human beings. This concept is well known as metaphysical naturalism or materialism and has many adherents within the scientific community. Those who ascribe to this worldview and still seek to maintain that human rights are real would seek to ground those rights in the natural world instead of God.

But this is where the problem lies. Nature cannot bestow rights at all. The natural world is what we observe. It has materials and laws, such as the laws of gravity or the laws of physics, which describe how certain materials interact. If one drops a cannonball off a ledge, it will fall at a certain acceleration. If one combines an acid and a base, the result will be salt and water (and possibly a big explosion!)

But laws such as these are merely descriptors. They tell what will happen if certain conditions are met. Human rights are something different. For while all living persons have rights, it is not the case that all living persons will be able to exercise those rights. People are denied their rights by dictators or repressive regimes all the time.

That means that nature only provides an "is" description of the way things are while someone being allowed to exercise his or her rights fall into an "ought" description. Rights are things based in the intrinsic value of being human. Nature doesn't care about value, it is indifferent to whether creatures live or die. Species have gone extinct since the dawn of time, even without man's help. Sickness can wipe out entire nations. That is simply how things are. This means that rights are fundamentally different from nature and the description of what is. An "ought" can only be derived from a moral law, which must come from a transcendent mind.

Scottish skeptic David Hume is famous for explaining the is-versus-ought distinction. Hume explains that simply because something is the case, it does not mean that such ought to be. In Book III, Part 1, Section 1 of A Treatise of Human Nature he expounds on this, writing that "moral good and evil belong only to the actions of the mind"2 and therefore cannot be reasonably derived from only external circumstances. He continues, "All beings in the universe, considered in themselves, appear entirely loose and independent of each other. It is only by experience we learn their influence and connection; and this influence we ought never to extend beyond experience… But to choose an instance, still more resembling; I would fain ask any one, why incest in the human species is criminal, and why the very same action, and the same relations in animals have not the smallest moral turpitude and deformity?"3

As Hume has shown, there is no way to connect the "is" of the natural world to the "ought" of human rights. Even if you argue that such rights help human beings survive, who is to say that humans shouldn't go extinct? Nature doesn't care. Therefore, as rights are part of those "actions of the mind" it requires a mind to ground them, and since human rights are universal, that mind must not only transcend all of humanity, but be able to establish value for all of humanity. The Creator of humanity would fill both necessary conditions for universal human rights to exist. Therefore, the Founding Fathers had it right: it is only in our Creator that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights.  No other explanation makes sense.

References

1. Nickel, James. "Human Rights." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ©2014 The Metaphysics Research Lab. Web. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/ 13-12-2013. Accessed 7-7-2014.

2. Hume, David. "Moral Distinctions Not Derived From Reason." A Treatise of Human Nature, Book II, Part 1,Sect. 1. Project Gutenberg. Web. 10-11-2012. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm#link2H_4_0085 Accessed 7-7-2014.

3. Ibid.

Top Five blog posts for June

Top Five Come Reason blog posts for June:

1. The Book of Mormon Shows Joseph Smith to be a False Prophet
2. Do homosexual couples value women less?
3. Watching the Car Crash of Colleges Purging Christians
4. Answering Memes: Christianity Spread Through Violence (to Christians!)
   
5. Afghanistan Across the Street

Rights and Their Freedoms Come from God Alone

Today, millions of Americans will celebrate the 4th of July, marking the founding of our nation. Many others across the world will also take note of the day because of the uniqueness of the founding of this country. This is the first and only nation in the history of mankind not to come about because its citizens share a certain family or ethnic heritage. It didn't form because of geographic boundaries or as a group of people coalesced from war. The United States of America is the only country on earth that was founded expressly on certain ideals.

Today, Americans celebrate not simply the birth of our nation, but also the freedoms this nation offers. It is the freedoms that we cherish that make a difference. But, where do those freedoms come from? The Founders unanimously agreed that that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."1 But if God doesn't exist, would the Declaration make any sense? From where could we derive our rights if not from God alone?

In thinking about this question, it seems to me that one has only four options when arguing for the rights of persons: Our freedoms either derive from the inalienable rights granted to us by the government, the common consent of the governed, by nature, or by God alone. In the next couple of posts I intend to argue that none of the first three options make any sense. Only God can grant inalienable rights and thus it is only through God that we have any right to the freedoms we enjoy. Then, I'd like to look at a couple of those rights specifically in light of the liberal backlash against the recent Hobby Lobby court decision.

Rights don't come from governments

The first option one has in establishing our rights is the claim that they are bestowed upon us by the government. This seems problematic on its face, though, for if a government can bestow rights on an individual, then that same government can take them away. Such actions are no longer rights, but should be considered privileges that the government allows the governed. I had heard this often in high school when I was taking drivers education classes. "A driver's license is a privilege, not a right."2 The state may revoke the license if it deems you unfit to drive or if you are uncooperative by not submitting to an alcohol test, for example.

Rights are different than privileges. They are things that cannot be removed by fiat. While a government may trample on one's rights or ignore one's rights, the right itself remains. For those individuals, such as criminals who are incarcerated, they may have their rights curtailed, but that is only after a trial that shows others' rights were being infringed upon by their actions. However, no one is divorced from his or her rights.

This is what Jefferson meant when he invented the word "unalienable," it is impossible to erase rights or transfer them to another. All people have them, and that was precisely the argument the Founding Fathers were making. They were separating themselves from the government because their rights were being abused and their freedoms were being trampled. They felt it was necessary to dissolve the bonds with the government of England, so that their rights would be exercised freely. Therefore, rights cannot come from the government. Rights exist prior to governments.

Rights don't come from the governed

Because we understand that rights precede governments and that they must be unalienable, option two becomes fairly easy to dismiss. Rights cannot come from the common consent of the governed because if our rights are given by common consent, then they may be removed by common consent. The United States is a government as Lincoln put it "of the people, by the people and for the people," formed "by Authority of the good People of these Colonies" as the Declaration says. But it is not simply the agreement of the citizens of a country that bestows rights upon themselves. Such rights are again not unalienable. If they can be agreed upon my mutual consent, then they can be removed by mutual consent. Therefore, rights given by common consent are not inalienable. They are again not rights but simply agreed upon privileges.

Rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not the happiness one feels when receiving a birthday gift, but the more sublime pursuit of contentment in life) must be unalienable if they are to be rights at all. That means they must transcend any human authority, for human authorities can never bestow anything unalienable. It is God alone who can do so. The Framers knew this and they appealed to God repeatedly in the Declaration. They declared that it was necessary for them to assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." They said that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." They even finished the Declaration with an appeal to God and His authority: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States."

In my next post, I will look at the idea that rights are not derived from nature, but for now we should remember that to celebrate the freedoms that we cherish as Americans means to celebrate the rights we recognize as the basis for those freedoms. But for rights to be real, they must be grounded in Almighty God. So, say a prayer during your holiday celebrations, and thank your Creator for giving brave men the wisdom to recognize where your rights come from. Without God, there can be no freedom.

References

1 The Declaration of Independence (transcript). The National Archives. Web. 4 July 1776. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html Accessed 4 July 2014.

2 In the article "Law Talk: Who says driving is a privilege and not a right?" Barton Dieters cites the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, where the court ruled that there simply is no "fundamental right to drive. See . http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html for more.

Are Mormons Christians, too?

Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with a lot of Mormons during my trip to Utah. When we visited Temple Square, I spoke with a couple of Sister Missionaries who were giving us a tour of the facilities. Both sisters echoed the official Latter-day Saints claim that they were Christians even as I am. One said, "Of course we're Christians. We worship Jesus Christ just as you do. Even the name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, we are definitely Christians."

This stance of the Mormon Church has always bothered me. In The Pearl of Great Price, considered to be sacred scripture by the LDS church, Joseph Smith canonized his account of the "first vision" of two personages (identified as God the Father and Jesus Christ) that supposedly gave birth to the church.1 Smith explains:

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."2

Smith here clearly states that all the Christian denominations are "all wrong," "their creeds are an abomination," those that profess Christianity "were all corrupt," and they are denying the power of godliness. These are basically the harshest condemnations one could receive from God, and yet Mormons are steadfastly claiming "I'm a Christian, too!" If Mormons and the LDS church believe this vision is true and God really did day these things, then why on earth would they want their name associated with an apostate group whose beliefs are an abomination before the Lord?

To look at it another way, imagine that I was discussing my beliefs with a group of Wiccans. Further, imagine me stating, "I know that we disagree on the nature and character of God, but because I believe that God is responsible for creation and you do too, that makes me as pagan as you. I'm a pagan Christian!" The claim is not only nonsense, it would offensive to both the Wiccans and it would be offensive to Christianity. Paganism is the opposite of what Christianity teaches, just as the Mormon view that man may become God is the opposite of Christianity's transcendent Creator.

Christianity throughout its history has faced heresy and apostasy. Jesus warned his followers to ""Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matt 7:15) and Paul cautions the church in Galatia that "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:8). Jesus and Paul were exclusivists; they held — and the early church codified — there are certain beliefs that identified someone as a Christian. If one rejects any of those essential beliefs, they must be excluded and considered not a Christian.

While the LDS church likes to use the line "we're Christians, too," it doesn't mean it's true. Perhaps they can gain some PR or a sympathetic listen from a potential convert, but Mormonism is as far from Christianity as I am from becoming a God myself. Why they would claim such is disingenuous and insulting to both their beliefs and to mine.

References

1. There exist a lot of conflicting accounts about this first vision in documents written both before and after the one included in The Pearl of Great Price. This has caused many scholars to doubt that Joseph Smith repeated the story consistently. For a few of these, see Tanner, Sandra. "Evolution of the First Vision and Teaching on God in Early Mormonism" Utah Lighthouse Ministries. Web. 8 Nov 1998.http://utlm.org/onlineresources/firstvision.htm Accessed 3 July 2014.

2. Smith Jun., Joseph. "Joseph Smith—History." The Pearl of Great Price. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Web. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng Accessed 3 July 2014.

The insanity of denying differences between the sexes

I enjoy parody as much as the next guy. Articles like those from The Onion are funny because they take a position and ridicule it through exaggeration. That's why I was completely surprised when I saw an article by Christin Scarlett Milloy entitled "Don't Let the Doctor Do This to Your Newborn" on Slate's web site and not the Onion.

In the article, Milloy paints a picture of a woman who has just given birth holding her infant when the doctor walks in and ominously announces that the newborn is due for its "treatment" which will give the child some social advantages, but also runs a risk of dangerous side effects. Milloy puts these in the mouth of the doctor:

"Oh, in 1 or 2 percent of cases, we see long-term negative reactions to this," he says with a hint of distaste. "It leads to depression, social ostracism, difficulty finding or keeping a job. Those with negative reactions often become subject to intense discrimination in society. Suicide is not uncommon."1

Then, with a theatrical flourish, Milloy supposedly drops the bomb:

It seems unlikely that doctors, hospitals, parents, or society in general would tolerate a standard practice like this.

Except they already do. The imaginary treatment I described above is real. Obstetricians, doctors, and midwives commit this procedure on infants every single day, in every single country. In reality, this treatment is performed almost universally without even asking for the parents' consent, making this practice all the more insidious. It's called infant gender assignment: When the doctor holds your child up to the harsh light of the delivery room, looks between its legs, and declares his opinion: It's a boy or a girl, based on nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring's genitals.2

Oh, please. You note the quick dismissal of sex as "nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring's genitals." That's what those who promote sexual fluidity would have us believe. The reality is that every cell of one's body defines one's sex. Even high school biology students know this; human beings have 23 pairs of genes and the last set is either XX or XY, which determines one's sex. Those chromosomes begin a process that change hormone development, brain development, muscle mass, and bone physiology. Basically, they change the entire person's anatomy.

Because a man's or woman's sex is coded into the very DNA of an individual, it's a bit more than disingenuous to claim that we don't have to identify a child's sex at birth. Even those who claim to be transsexuals cannot have any kind of surgery to remove the offending chromosome from their system. They simply wish to pretend it doesn't exist. However, as I've written before, surgery to make one appear physically as the other sex isn't the answer. Walt Heyer, a former transsexual himself, reports that Transgender suicide death rate is at 30% regardless of whether one has had transformative surgery or not:

One out of every 3 transgenders, even after undergoing a surgical gender change, will die from suicide. Gender surgery is no help in preventing or reducing transgender suicide deaths. More than 40% of transgenders will attempt suicide and 30% will not survive the attempts and die.3

This argues that the condition of not identifying with one's sex is a mental illness which can never be treated with a plastic surgeon's scalpel.

 Milloy, if you hadn't guessed already, identifies as a transsexual and is an activist for transsexual issues, and the bias is evident in every paragraph of the article, except one. In his opening sentence he writes, "Imagine you are in recovery from labor, lying in bed, holding your infant. In your arms you cradle a stunningly beautiful, perfect little being." There is simply no way a person born with an XY set of chromosomes is in view here. He is addressing a mother who has just given birth, and no amount of fear-mongering can spin that role to something else. He later writes:

We tell our children, "You can be anything you want to be." We say, "A girl can be a doctor, a boy can be a nurse," but why in the first place must this person be a boy and that person be a girl? Your infant is an infant... The world is full of possibilities that every person deserves to be able to explore freely, receiving equal respect and human dignity while maximizing happiness through individual expression.

The problem is that a boy cannot be a mother and a girl cannot be a father, no matter how much they want to be. Such roles are not up for grabs. They are too important. The survival of the human race relies on infants having XX or XY chromosomes. Without both, we can never produce another generation. To flippantly dismiss those very real differences as meaningless shows that Milloy would damn the necessary in order to maximize his own happiness. Now that I think about it, it doesn't strike me as funny.

References

1. Milloy, Christin Scarlett. "Don't Let the Doctor Do This to Your Newborn." Slate Magzine. The Slate Group, LLC. Web. 26 June 2014. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/26/infant_gender_assignment_unnecessary_and_potentially_harmful.html Accessed 2 July 2014.
2. Milloy. Ibid.
3. Heyer, Walt. "Transgenders suicide death rate at 30%." Sex Change Info. Web. 29 Dec 2012. http://waltheyer.typepad.com/blog/2012/12/transgenders-suicide-death-rate-at-30.html Accessed 2 July 2014.

The Lost Tomb of Jesus and Ovaltine

One of my favorite movies is the holiday-themed A Christmas Story. Every year as Christmas approaches, I pull out the tale of Ralphie, a 1940's kid who listens to Orphan Annie on the radio and pines for "an official Red Ryder carbine action two-hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time."

One scene in the film shows an excited Ralphie receiving his Orphan Annie secret decoder pin. After transcribing the radio code, he locks himself in the bathroom, working feverishly to crack Annie's urgent communiqué. Ralphie wonders, "What could this important code from Annie be?" The message finally translates to "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine" and Ralphie is crushed that he placed all his faith in a "crummy commercial".

That's the way it is for many folks in Hollywood. They want to sell you the illusion, and make money off it in the process. Even if there is no real danger or real secret, they'll make it up just so they can market something to an unsuspecting public. As an example, let's look at the Discovery Channel's special from a few years ago, The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Produced by James Cameron of Terminator and Titanic fame, and directed and narrated by Simcha Jacobovici, the show tries to claim that "the 2,000-year-old ‘Tomb of the Ten Ossuaries' belonged to the family of Jesus of Nazareth."1

They further try to press the point that this somehow deals a fatal blow to the New Testament. James Cameron states in an interview that "Faith and forensics make very uneasy bedfellows.. Faith implies essentially the lack of a need for evidence… The scientific method is in direct opposition to that. You have to investigate, you have to find the proof."2 Jacobovici tantalizes us with lines such as "The New Testament doesn't say that Jesus had a son, but perhaps in this instance, archaeology forces us to throw a different light on the New Testament".3

What We Know About the Tomb

Is there reasonable evidence to believe that a Jewish burial tomb containing Jewish burial boxes from the first century held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family? When we look at the evidence, what we find is that Cameron and Jacobovici are more interested in selling the idea that what they found is new evidence than producing actual evidence for a find. We have a two-hour television special that is nothing more than hype with no substance. First, let's strip away the hyperbole and see exactly what was found.

Facts from the Special:

1. A tomb was found in 1980 in the Talpiot area of Jerusalem, hewn out of rock
2. The tomb contained ten ossuaries to hold the remains of the dead buried there.
3. Six of the ossuaries bore names inscribed on them including Jesus, son of Joseph; a form of Joseph (Jose), Matthias (Matthew) and Judah son of Jesus
4. Two ossuaries bear female names: a Latin version of the name Mary using Aramaic letters (Mariah); and another with a version of the name Mary (Mariamne) and a full title supposedly reading "Mary known as the master".
5. Some residual DNA shows that several of the people who were buried in the tomb were related in some way.
6. The DNA also shows that the occupant of the Jesus ossuary was not related to the occupant of the Mariamne ossuary.

From these facts, the filmmakers make all kinds of assumptions. First, the coffin marked "Jesus, son of Joseph" pricks their interest. They then note that all the names in the tomb are also found in the New Testament. They believe that since the Mariah ossuary uses a Latin version of Mary, this could likely be Jesus' mother, since she was known by the Latin version of her name. They believe that the Mariamne box held the bones of Mary of Magdala, who would be Jesus' wife, since she is not a blood relative of the family.

Seeing the Truth

I think even a cursory look at the actual evidence and the conclusions that the show tries to draw demonstrate just how much the filmmakers are straining to make a connection. Let's take the names as an example. Dr. Darrel Bock pulled data from Richard Baukham of St. Andrews, in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. He gives us a breakdown of name frequencies in first century Palestine:

"Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews. The first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuaries.

1 Simon/Simeon 243 - 59
2 Joseph 218 - 45
3 Eleazar 166 - 29
4 Judah 164 - 44
5 John/Yohanan 122 - 25
6 Jesus 99 - 22
7 Hananiah 82 - 18
8 Jonathan 71 - 14
9 Matthew 62 - 17
10 Manaen - Menahem 42 - 4

For women, we have a total of 328 occurrences (women's names are much less often recorded than men's), and figures for the 4 most popular names are thus:

Mary/Mariamne 70 - 42
Salome 58 - 41
Shelamzion 24 - 19
Martha 20 - 17 4

You can see at once that all the names you're interested were extremely popular. 21% of Jewish women were called Mariamne (Mary). The chances of the people in the ossuaries being the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the New Testament must be very small indeed."5

Of course, you never hear that 122 tombs have been found with the name of Jesus and that Joseph is the second most popular name discovered on ossuaries. Or, the show doesn't report that an ossuary in 1926 was found with the same "Jesus, son of Joseph" inscription.

The authors next try to impress us with the facts that another other ossuaries bear names identical to Jesus' brother, Joses (Joseph). While this may be true, we saw that Joseph is the second most common name in first century Palestine. But what about Jesus' other brothers? If this is a family crypt, where are James, and Simon, and Judas? The Judas we have in the tomb is the son of Jesus, not his brother. And who is the Matthew? We have no history of a Matthew as being a living blood relative during Jesus' time.

Of course the fact that there's a tomb at all causes all sorts of problems. First, Jesus' family was too poor to afford a rock -;hewn tomb which was quite expensive in that day. Even if they could afford one, though, the family resided in Nazareth, not Jerusalem. Why wouldn't the entire family have a crypt there?

Next, you come to the problem of the reports of the empty tomb itself. Bodies take about a year to decompose before they are ready to be placed into an ossuary. If Jesus' family had a tomb in Jerusalem, do you think that the leaders of the Sanhedrin would have gone to find it and squash the Christian young Christian movement before it started? And why would all the apostles, including Jesus' brothers James and Jude, die martyrs' deaths without even one of them recanting and confessing that they made the resurrection story up.

Finally, we have DNA evidence that proves, well, nothing at all. So Mariamne wasn't related to Jesus. So what? This doesn't make her his wife. She could have been Matthew's wife, or Judah son of Jesus' wife. It's a huge stretch to try and connect two people in a civil union just because they aren't blood relatives.

An Attempt to Sell

There are more problems, but space prohibits me from going into any further detail. In fact, there are so many more problems with this "lost tomb" that Professor Amos Kloner, the respected Israeli archeologist who was in charge of the initial examination of the tomb and its contents says that the special is nothing more than a marketing ploy. Kloner remarks, "The claim that the burial site [of Jesus] has been found is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell. I refute all their claims and efforts to waken a renewed interest in the findings. With all due respect, they are not archeologists."6

Like Ralphie in the Christmas movie, I hope that folks take a skeptical look at specials like this and see them for what they really are: empty messages that are nothing more than people hoping to make money off controversy. Perhaps the Discovery Channel needs to get some cross-play between their shows. I'm sure that someone with the skepticism of the MythBusters would be able to see the flaws in this special and take it for what it really is: a two-hour "crummy commercial".

References

1. This title was used in the special's web site located at http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html?dcitc=w99-502-ah-1024
2. "The Lost Tomb of Jesus: Cameron Interview - Part 2"
http://dsc.discovery.com/beyond/player.html?playerId=203711706&bclid=537085188
3. "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" as seen on the Discovery Channel March 4, 2007 9:00 PM
4. "Hollywood Hype: The Oscars and Jesus' Family Tomb, What Do They Share?" Darrell Bock, Bible.org
http://dev.bible.org/bock/node/106 accessed online 3/5/2007
5. "Excerpt: 'The Jesus Dynasty' by James D. Tabor" ABCNews.com
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=1746724&page=3 Accessed online 3/5/2007
6. "Jesus' burial site discovery is just PR spin" YnetNews.com
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3369346,00.html Accessed online 3/5/2007

Does the Resurrection Require Extraordinary Evidence?

I recently was invited to a meeting where several Christians were discussing the existence of God and the reasons they hold to Christianity with a group of atheists and agnostics. Eventually, the point about Jesus' resurrection was raised. When this issue was brought up, one of the skeptics said, "this is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence."

Now, I'm not sure how it follows that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In fact, when you think about it, most extraordinary advances in human knowledge came without extraordinary evidence, but merely the supporting testimony of others who were eyewitnesses to the achievement. When Admiral Peary was the first to cross the North Pole or Sir Edmund Hillary scaled Mt. Everest, these were reported in newspapers all around the globe, but what was the evidence offered? Eyewitness testimony.

Now, granted, these kinds of achievements are somewhat different from the claim of the resurrection because they're repeatable - others have gone on to duplicate them. But my point is that when they were accomplished the first time, no one asked for evidence above and beyond the testimony of those who accompanied these men. That type of evidence was sufficient.

Another difference, though, may be in the fact that one could argue that while those achievements are remarkable, it is nonetheless conceivable that someone could accomplish them. All the facets for so doing (the strength, planning, etc.) already exist within humanity. Something like the resurrection, however, is on a vastly different plane: it's something never before seen in history. Well, let's look at another investigation that would also be on a vastly different plane, the search for intelligent life in outer space.

Searching for Extraterrestrial Life

The existence of life on other planets is a very controversial topic. There exists good research by scientists who have looked at the number of factors required for any life to exist have noted how incredibly balanced all things must be for living things to survive.1 Therefore, they highly doubt that intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the universe. However, there are other real scientists who are right now engaged in the search of extraterrestrial life. The project is called SETI and is funded largely by NASA and the National Science Foundation.

If you ever saw the movie Contact, starring Jodie Foster, you would be familiar with the SETI project. SETI stands for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, and these scientists aren't just looking for life, but intelligent life - aliens who can communicate with us. If they were to claim that they've found intelligent alien life, it would be an extraordinary claim.

So, how do they hope to prove that such life exists? Do they seek some extraordinary evidence, such as a flying saucer or to display the creature in front of the world? No, they simply point giant radio dishes to the heavens and listen for signals. In the movie Contact, the signal was something as banal as a set of blips in the sequence of prime numbers. This is not "extraordinary evidence". The scientists are simply looking for a signal that cannot be considered random - signals that hold information and therefore imply an intelligent mind. This is very standard evidence; the same type archaeologists look for when trying to understand ancient cultures.

Evidence that Explains the Observable Phenomena 

The reason the SETI scientists are looking for information-bearing signals in outer space is because the explanation for the existence of that signal can only be intelligent life. I guess one may surmise that a group of natural events could happen simultaneously to generate a signal that produces the first ten prime numbers or something like that, but that does not strike me as a reasonable explanation. For one thing, it's too ad hoc. In other words, it's so unlikely and contrived that it seems to be forced and not the way we see the world really work.

When trying to understand the historic claim that the resurrection of Jesus really happened, we must look to see if we have good evidence for it. Much like the SETI project, if the only workable explanation for that evidence points to a resurrection, then we are reasonable in believing that the resurrection did occur. It's not required for us to have "extraordinary evidence", but reliable evidence where the resurrection fits all the facts better than any other. If a competing theory is offered that also fits all the facts, then it should also be considered and both explanations should be weighed to see which is more likely.

I believe that we have such facts in the historical accounts of Jesus' resurrection. We have strong reasons to believe Jesus was crucified and was buried, that His tomb was empty, skeptics James and Paul  were converted, and the unwavering belief of the Apostles that they were eyewitnesses to the risen Christ. According to Dr. Gary Habermas, these are well-established historical facts accepted nearly universally by both liberal and conservative scholars.2 The question then becomes, what is the best explanation to fit these facts? Perhaps Jesus really did not rise from the dead - but then how do you explain the empty tomb? How do you explain the conversion of Paul from a zealous Jew and church persecutor to the biggest proselytizer the Christian church had?

Just as SETI, these evidence we have is not extraordinary in itself, but it is extraordinary in the fact that it leads to only one conclusion - that a man really did rise from the dead 2000 years ago and proved it by showing himself not only to His followers, but to His persecutors as well. There is no other explanation that fits the facts.

References

1. See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. (New York: Oxford University Press,1988 ).
2. Habermas, Gary R.  and Michael R. Lincona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Pub, 2004.)

Afghanistan Across the Street

Missions work can be exciting and exotic. Visiting foreign lands and experiencing different cultures emphasizes some of the differences people have even though we all have much in common, like the love of family, the desire to prosper, and the need for worship. Different cultures have different worldviews.

The phrase "mission opportunities" frequently triggers thoughts of faithful souls braving cultures unfamiliar with Christianity. The Joshua Project defined any nation that has less than a 2% Christian as an unreached people group.1 Nations like Afghanistan, Iran, and Somalia fit this category.

Christless Counties in Utah

You wouldn't have to go as far as Africa or the 10/40 window to find an unreached people group, though. This week I have taken a group of students to Sanpete County in Utah to witness to Mormons. Sanpete County has a population of almost 28,000 people and according to Tri-Grace ministries less than 1% of the people who live here are Christian, and Sanpete County isn't the only county in Utah where that's true.2 That means in the Unite States of America there are several large geographic areas that contain unreached people groups.

My experience in talking with people this week has proven that out. All the Mormons I talk with not only don't know any Christians, they completely misunderstand Christianity. They are convinced that Jesus taught eternal marriage and that we all existed as spirit children in a pre-mortal state. They believe that Christian ministers, being paid, must be in ministry for the money. They think that the Book of Mormon is comparable with the Bible and they think that Jesus taught one must perform certain works in order to be in the presence of God. Mormons I've talked with don't say "we were married in Salt Lake"or "we were married in Manti."They say "we were sealed in Manti."

This grieves my heart. One high school student who lives here told me today that when they were studying Martin Luther in her class as student exclaimed with amazement, "Martin Luther believed that you can get to heaven by faith alone?"The teacher affirmed her incredulity by answering, "I know, right?"The basic concepts of Christianity were as foreign to them as Arabic.

Making No Assumptions

Of course, it's easier to approach the people of Utah. I didn't have to learn a new language, eat strange foods, or figure out what cultural triggers are insulting. I can talk sports or child-rearing with the folks here just as I do my neighbors. And that is my point. No Christian should assume that just because you share a common bond with a neighbor or acquaintance you should never assume they know even the basics about the Gospel. Even those who use Christian phrases may not know what the gospel truly is.

I am very proud of these kids that took a week out of their summer to come to Utah and begin to reach these unreached people. They are amazing. I hope to lead many more trips out here during the year. If you or your church is interested, please contact me to discuss what's involved. It's the least we can do for those who are as desperately lost as those who live on the other side of the world.

References

1 "Definitions." JoshuaProject.net. The Joshua Project. Web. http://joshuaproject.net/help/definitions Accessed 6/28/2014.
2 "Field Demographics.” www.trigrace.org. Tri-Grace Ministries. Web. http://www.trigrace.org/Demographics.html Accessed 6/28/2014

The Book of Mormon Shows Joseph Smith to be a False Prophet

Last night on the streets of Manti, I had an interesting discussion with a man about his beliefs and the Book of Mormon. He was older, in his sixties, and he had been studying the book fervently. Born and raised in Utah, he came from a multi-generational family that was faithful to the LDS. He said that he had to read the book "hundreds of times" before he could truly understand it, but he now does and it drove him to some interesting conclusions. One of the most surprising admissions he made to me was that the later revelations of Joseph Smith were wrong and he was a false prophet!

A statement like the one above strikes people as counter-intuitive, but I actually agree with the man. If you were to read the Book of Mormon alone, you would never arrive at Mormon doctrine. In fact many passages in the Book of Mormon directly contradict the later revelations that Smith taught, even regarding the nature of God Himself.

Eternal Progression

The central concept of LDS theology is the doctrine of eternal progression. That doctrine teaches that God is a man who was a faithful Mormon in his physical life and has now been exalted. As the LDS prophet Lorenzo Snow famously put it, "As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be."1 While Snow coined that phrase, he didn’t create the doctrine. Joseph Smith originally taught this idea in a very famous sermon known as the King Follet sermon. There, Smith in his office of prophet who is to present the revelation from God Himself, Smith teaches:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.2

Smith goes on to explain that "you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves" in order to have eternal life.

The unchanging nature of God in the Book of Mormon

The teaching of the exaltation of God from a man is in direct contradiction to Smith’s Book of Mormon, though. Moroni 8:18 declares, "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity."3 Mormon 9:9, borrowing from the book of Hebrews reinforces the idea that God is changeless. "Do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing."4  According to the Book of Mormon, then, Joseph Smith’s teaching that God was once a man is false.

It is interesting that Joseph Smith prefaced his remarks about God by saying how important it is to get the doctrine correct. He put it in no uncertain terms:

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence ... But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world—a false teacher.5

I believe Smith is a false teacher.  The man with whom I was conversing did as well, however he still held to the Book of Mormon and claimed that Smith was called to be a translator, not a prophet or political leader. I think that someone who claims to be a prophet and is proven to be false would not be used of God to reveal his word. That’s pretty simple since the definition of a prophet is someone who reveals the word of God to the people. Smith is a false teacher, and none of his teachings, including the Book of Mormon should be trusted.

References

1. The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow. (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2012). 83.
2. Smith, Joseph, Jr. "The King Follett Sermon." Ensign Magazine. April 1971. Web. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng Accessed 27 June 2014.
3. Smith, Joseph. "The Book of Moroni." The Book of Mormon Online. (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Web. 2007. Accessed 27 June 2014.
4. Smith, Joseph. "The Book of Mormon." The Book of Mormon Online. (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Web. 2007. Accessed 27 June 2014.
5. Smith, Joseph, Jr. "The King Follett Sermon." Ibid.

Mormon Testimonies and the Feedback Loop

Yesterday, on our Apologetics Missions trip, I took the team to Salt Lake City to visit Temple Square. We talked with a couple of Mormon missionaries there who were very nice and showed us some of the grounds. One of the missionaries explained that one aspect of the weekly Mormon church service was to offer their testimony. The LDS web site defines a testimony as "a spiritual witness given to an individual by the Holy Ghost… that Joseph Smith is a prophet, which God called to restore Jesus Christ's church to the earth; that we are led today by a living prophet; and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior's Church restored on the earth today."1

The missionary explained that everyone was to offer their testimony at some point. On the first Sunday of the month, in the Mormon sacrament meetings, the attendees are encouraged to share their confirmation of the truth of Mormonism.2 Those who teach are also encouraged to share their testimonies to one another.3

Later, when I was asking a few questions, I had said that I understood God and heaven differently than the LDS doctrine she had stated and I explained how the Bible promises that not just my family would be together in eternity, but that I would have a relationship with all the saints in Heaven, and we would be closer than even my family and I am now. This obviously caused some significant problems because shortly afterwards, I was warned by Mormon security that I am not allowed to share my testimony with the missionaries. Basically, they require visitors to just listen to missionaries talk about their faith; it should never go the other way. It seems that the Mormon church's use of testimonies in their services are a lot like that feedback loop.

The Feedback Loop

I've been a professional musician for over thirty years, so I know a little bit about feedback.Some people may not know the term feedback, but you are probably familiar with the concept. Feedback is that high-pitched squeal that gets really loud and hurts everyone's' ears. Sometimes it comes from a guitar but you more often hear it coming out of the PA.

Feedback is caused when a signal amplifies itself. Singers will use wedge speakers on the floor to project their voices and the music back at them for a reference monitor. If the singer's microphone isn't positioned correctly, it will catch the monitor's sound output and send it back through the PA, amplifying it again. Of course, you can see where this will lead: as the monitor gets louder, the mic catches more signal and sends it back to the PA which then sends a louder signal back to the monitor and everything begins to increase exponentially until either the speaker blows out or someone's eardrums do!

The Mormon use of testimony is a lot like a feedback loop. Good Mormons will stand up and share how they "know" that the Mormon doctrine is true because of the feelings they have. This truth-bearing isn't based on scholastic research. As the Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains, "Latter-day Saint missionaries, in particular, rely on testimony bearing, rather than on logic or artifice, to reach their listeners."4 So testimony isn't about logic. But the result is that people hear other's unwavering devotion to Mormonism and they don't feel like they are good Mormons unless they have a testimony to offer as well.So, just as everyone's life looks a lot more perfect on Facebook than it is in reality, the Mormons' use of testimony simply makes doubt or questioning seem foolish or unholy. Testimonies simply amplify the one message the Mormon church wants people to hear: that it is beyond question.

Ultimately, I believe this is one sign that Mormonism is a cult. When another person explaining his understanding of spiritual things is questioned by security because he dared do so on Temple grounds, it raises suspicion. When the security guard told me that we are not allowed to share our testimony, it revealed what the practice of testimony really is: to keep the faithful Mormons faithful and only hear the message the church wants. But, like that signal from the PA, you don't get truth from a feedback loop. Ultimately, you end up with a lot of noise that will hurt people.

References

1. "What is a 'testimony' that Mormons speak of?" Mormon.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Web. http://www.mormon.org/faq/purpose-of-testimony. Accessed 6/26/2014.

2. Christensen, Clayton "Testimony Bearing." Encyclopedia of Mormonism. (New York : Macmillan, 1992) 1470. Digital version may be found at http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Testimony_Bearing
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

Of Pageants and Propaganda

Yesterday, we arrived in Manti for the first night of our Apologetics Missions Trip. Each year for two weeks in June, the LDS Church hosts The Mormon Miracle Pageant in Manti, reenacting Joseph Smith's claims of visions from God, an intricate history of ancient Israelites transplanted to the Americas with wars and revivals, and the ultimate exaltation of faithful Mormons to Godhood. It was a big production, with thousands coming out to watch each night.

The interesting thing about this performance is it fits the same mold as other official church "biographies" produced about Joseph Smith and the Mormon church. Every one I have seen really whitewashes the history of Smith and his followers, and falsely characterizes what traditional Christianity teaches. I get that people want to hold their leaders I high regard, but Smith is clearly inhuman in LDS presentations. Even in the Bible, the Apostle Peter is shown as a flawed man who denied Christ in Jesus' hour of trial. This is peter, the one whom Jesus called "rock", the one whose declaration of Jesus as the Christ prompted Jesus to respond that His entire church would be built on it.

I think many people relate to Peter in the Bible not because he was given such revelations from God, but because he was so flawed and carried away by his emotions. Peter was a "ready, fire, aim" kind of guy; he said what he felt at the time even when it was wrong. I think that's why so many people relate to him so well; he was human.

We see none of that humanity in Joseph Smith. Instead he is portrayed in mythic form, like Hercules. Smith is portrayed as pious at the tender age of fourteen and the play's script hammers home this point with a narrative that has Smith clinging to his first vision "in spite of persecutions and threats of death." Of course, it wasn't the first vision that upset the people of Illinois and Missouri so much. It was the fact that the Mormons were polygamous, which endangered their daughters, and later they were politically manipulative, controlling the vote.1

Beyond the fanciful representation of Smith, the retelling of the Book of Mormon's account of the history of the Americas. As the tale unwinds of the great civilizations of the Nephites and Lamanites who go to war again and again, with various revivals and fallings away, and with the supposed appearance of Jesus on this continent to establish His church here, it becomes clear just how mythical the story is. Forget the fact that there is no archaeology to support any recognition of any civilization advanced as the Book of Mormon claims. Forget the fact that there isn't a shred of DNA to show the native American peoples were of Semitic descent. The Book of Mormon has huge historical anachronisms that show it couldn't be an account written in the time period given.

One of the biggest was on full display at the Pageant as the supposed ancient faithful continued to proclaim that they had established themselves on this continent for the reasons of worshipping the true God, practicing the true faith and pursuing freedom and liberty.2 As Americans, we understand the idea of freedom of religion and freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, but such words don't fit in a civilization existing about one hundred years before Christ. Those are words coming from the American revolution. They are a out of place as someone today finding a supposedly ancient scroll from Egypt and translating it to say that someone chose to open a home office. They also repeated the canard that people who lived prior to Jesus would claim the name Christian. As I've explained before, this makes no sense at all.

I had the opportunity to talk with a Mormon couple before the pageant and asked them why they were Mormons. How did they know that this is the true faith? Although they were both raised Mormon, the wife said that there was a time when she had to "investigate these things for herself." She ultimately admitted that the truth value of the entire LDS faith rests on the truth or falsehood of the Book of Mormon's claims. "If it isn't true, then everything we've been teaching in our churches and classrooms is wrong." I agree with her. The question is only will she be open to investigating the facts instead of her feelings towards her church?

References

1.In Joseph's Smith's idyllic community of Nauvoo, Illinois, even some of his followers including publisher William Law grew increasingly disenchanted with the changes that Smith was instituting, including such political manipulations. Law published a single edition of the Nauvoo Expositor that highlight's Smith's interests with politics. In the online copy found here, he writes:

The next important item which presents itself for our consideration, is the attempt at Political power and influence, which we verily believe to be preposterous and absurd. We believe it is inconsistent, and not in accordance with the christian religion. We do not believe that God ever raised up a Prophet to christianize a world by political schemes and intrigue."

2 Alma 43:47-48 specifically uses the concepts not only of freedom from bondage, but the idea of freedom of religion and liberty, wording more indicative of a 9th century author rather than an ancient author.

Changing Lives Through Apologetics Missions Trips

As you're reading this, I will have already hit the road, leading a group of students from Harvest Christian Fellowship to Utah for one of our Apologetics Missions Trips. You may wonder what exactly an Apologetics Missions trip is. Basically, it's a way to train Christians on how to discuss and defend their faith while witnessing to those who need to hear the Gospel.

The idea is simple: take Christians out of their familiar environment and place them in a location where the vast majority of people do not believe as they do. This helps the students see what the world is like from a non-Christian viewpoint; it takes them out of their bubble and out of their comfort zones. Then, we teach them how to respectfully and graciously interact with others on campus or our on the streets and we set them loose.

We've taken such trips since 2010, going to such diverse areas as UC Berkeley, Salt Lake City, and Dearborn Michigan (a predominately Muslim community). The results are astounding. Kids learn not only to support their own worldview, but they see how atheists or those with different faiths are not equipped to answer the hard questions themselves. We don't pull punches on these trips, either. For Berkeley, we brought in Richard Carrier to address the kids, as well as a couple of notable atheists. In Michigan, we brought in a Muslim apologist. In Salt Lake, we went to the center of Mormonism at the Temple Square and interacted with the missionaries assigned there.

In each outing, I've seen our students become more confident and more assured that the Christianity they hold is true, it not only holds its own against these different worldviews, it offers a much better explanation of how the world works. These kids now know how to answer questions on matters like moral absolutes, the Trinity, the exclusive claims of Christianity and so much more.

Another amazing aspect of the trips is the ongoing witnessing opportunities the kids have. Students will continue conversations they started by e-mail after they return home. I've talked with kids who have continued to witness to those they've met for over a month afterward! The ministry opportunities are great.

This year, we are heading to Manti where thousands of Mormons come to witness the Manti Miracle Pageant, which reenacts the trek of Mormons for Missouri to Utah. We will be on the streets each night, talking with Mormons and asking them if they believe that joseph Smith was a prophet and why. Check back here as I provide daily update.

If you or your church is interested in participating in an Apologetics Missions Trip, just drop me a note at Missions@comereason.org and I'll be sure to get back to you. To support such trips, please click the donation button at the bottom of this post.For now, I will leave you with a letter I received from Skyler, a young girl who participated in our Dearborn trip last year. She writes:

Hey Lenny,

I thought you might find it interesting to hear an update on what positive outcomes have come from last year's trip to Dearborn. I have made good friends with two different Muslim girls whom I met there. I have an opportunity to go back to Dearborn next month with Ministry to Muslims. While I am there I am planning to hang out with my Muslim friends that I met there last year on our trip.

Aside from that, through the connection of some of the Christians we met in Dearborn I have made more connections to various ministries in the Arab world and have now received a brand new opportunity to go to Lebanon, which I am prayerfully pursuing. Please be encouraged in your ministry, and know that God is truly using it in mighty ways.

Last year's mission trip to Dearborn has completely changed my life in the most glorious of ways! I am praying that God will continue to use these trips to positively affect the Kingdom in many more ways.

Skyler

Do Homosexual Couples Value Women Less?

What a mess in Texas. Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs are homosexual partners who decided they wanted a family. Because the two men cannot procreate with each other, they enlisted an egg donor and a surrogate who gave birth to two boys, one sired by each man who was listed as that child's father on the birth certificate along with the surrogate. Hanna and Riggs wanted to adopt each other's boy so they could be legally recognized as parents; however a Texas judge disallowed the listing.1

This whole issue is a mess and it grieves me that Hannah and Riggs don't like the ramifications of their choice to be a homosexual couple. Part of choosing a homosexual relationship is knowing that one can never naturally produce children. It simply cannot be. Instead, they decided to father children through artificial means. This means that the two men enlisted the aid of at least two women in their desire to create children, one or more as the egg donor and another woman to carry the babies to term.

The fact that women are necessary to the child-bearing process shouldn't surprise anyone; even a third grader can tell you that every baby had a mommy and a daddy at some point. But Hanna and Riggs really don't like that reality. They are trying to manufacture a family while still holding onto their male-only relationship. But the question then arises: If a mother is necessary for the first nine months of human development, why would anyone think that she is optional for the next eighteen years? Why are the same feminists who scream because there are no women priests not screaming when two men appear before a Texas judge and say, "We would like you to legitimize our choice to deprive two children of their biological requirement for a mother"? Of course, they didn't put it in those terms, but that's what is implied by the action. Hanna and Riggs think that women add nothing essential to the proper development of human beings. Two people are all that matters, even if they are the same sex.

As an aside, why two? Where does the idea of a couple come from? That is also a result of biology, because only one man and one woman can procreate. You can't get a child with one or three. But if one ignores biology it could be one or five or perhaps even the government itself.

Perhaps that's the solution; take all biology out of the equation, have the government create the babies and assign them to people. Everyone gets the same chance that way and orientation or fertility never come into play. Or, we can say that we feel for the individuals who cannot conceive, but such a solution is worse than the affliction.

Riggs has protested the court decision, claiming that it isn't good for the babies. "Ultimately, we're talking about is what's better: one parent or two parents. For me it's two parents. It's a no-brainer."2 If Riggs was thinking about what's better for children, then he should have thought twice about the surrogacy itself. As I've written before, children from sperm donors don't do as well as children from biological parents.  Also, Mark Regenerus' huge study comparing same-sex families to natural families underscores the fact that if one wants the best outcome for a child, they should be reared with a mother and a father.

 I therefore think that it is right for the judge to rule as she did. Interestingly, I think a case can be made that those who hold to natural marriage as the appropriate environment in which to rear children actually value women more than those lobbying for the legal rights of homosexual men adopting children. Natural marriage proponents see women as irreplaceable—irreplaceable!—in the development on young lives. While some children may tragically lose the opportunity for a mother, to create that scenario by design strikes me as cruel.

References

1 Jehangir, Mariam. "Texas Judge Denies Gay Couple Legal Parenthood of Biological Sons." First to Know. Web. http://firsttoknow.com/texas-judge-says-gay-couple-cant-adopt-listed-birth-certificates-biological-sons-gay-couple-adoption/ 18 June 2014. Accessed 23 June 2014.

2 Ibid.

The Challenge of Islam (podcast)

Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world, but is still a mystery to most Christians. Is it a religion of peace and a breeding ground for terrorists? Join us as we examine Muslim beliefs and discuss how to effectively witness to Muslims.

• The Challenge of Islam (Part 1)
• The Challenge of Islam (Part 2)
• The Challenge of Islam (Part 3)
• The Challenge of Islam (Part 4)

Keep Your Maybes Away from Our Babies - Arguing when Life Begins

It is a common bromide for people to claim that taking a secular approach to moral issues is better since secular positions aren't as biased by dogma. They claim religion will yield conclusions that are unscientific and unproven. The abortion debate is a perfect example, with the pro-abortion side creating placards of "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" and other nonsense.

However, in the last couple of weeks it has been telling how much pro-abortion supporters don't want to face science; they are looking increasingly desperate in their attempts to shove the question of when a human life begins into the domain of dogma. The whole thing started when Florida Senator Marco Rubio made the statement, "Science is settled — it's not even a consensus, it is a unanimity, that human life begins at conception."1

Rubio is right, of course. Take any human being and trace their point of origin and that being begins his or her existence at the point of conception. A fertilized egg, left to its natural progression, has all the information within itself to develop into a fully functional human being. Pulling just one quote from many, The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines an embryo as "An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."2 This seems like a no-brainer, right?

As you can imagine, the pro-abortion crowd went into overdrive to try and counter Rubio's assertion. Phillip Bump of the Washington Post went to a single source (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Hal C Lawrence, III, MD) and derived a comment of when pregnancy begins, not life. Bump then concludes, "'Life' is something of a philosophical question."3 Planned Parenthood's president Cecile Richards at first refused to answer the question of when life begins, claiming it is a question "that will be debated through the centuries."4 She then said that for her her three children weren't alive until they were born.

While folks like Mollie Hemingway over at the Federalist has done a good job taking apart the claim of no scientific consensus, I wanted to approach the view from another angle. If the beginning of life is something that can be debated and relativized for each person, then it stands to reason that the end of life can also. If science cannot determine if a human zygote is alive, then they cannot identify the clear signs of life at all. So, does that mean that death is a "philosophical" question that doctors cannot answer? Should doctors refrain from judging a person who claims his beloved wife is not dead? How can one pronounce a scientific assessment of death, given all its ramifications, for such a philosophical issue? Perhaps every hospital should have a staff philosopher on hand to help declare things alive and things dead!

Determining life is actually easier than determining death, as two separate entities (egg and sperm) come together to form a new thing. Death doesn't always offer such a clear hallmark; there are cases where it is difficult to determine whether or not a person is dead. However, those are usually dealing with rare situations involving minutes or hours. A person who is dead for a week is definitively dead. In that sense it makes it even less plausible to beg off the beginning of life as "philosophical" while trying to retain a medical standard for the cessation of life.

It's obvious that pro-abortion advocates are running scared in this line of questioning. They are making bad excuses and trying hard to marginalize a significant question of human existence for political and profit motives. They are trying to create a new dogma about life, while seeking to ignore the clear science that agree with the position of those who hold to the biblical view of human life beginning with conception.

References

1 "Rubio: It's 'the left' that denies 'scientific consensus' — on abortion." Speed Reads. THE WEEK Publications, Inc. Web. 15 May 2014 http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/261630/speedreads-rubio-its-the-left-that-denies-scientific-consensus--on-abortion Accessed 20 June 2014.

2 Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993. 146 Taken from "Life Begins at Fertilization." Princeton University. Web. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

3 Bump, Philip. "Marco Rubio demanded people look at the science on abortion. So we did." The Washington Post. Web. 15 May 2014.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/15/marco-rubio-demanded-people-look-at-the-science-on-abortion-so-we-did/ Accessed 20 June 2014.

4 Ernst, Douglas. "Planned Parenthood president: Start of life not ‘really relevant' to abortion discussions." The Washington Times. 28 Feb. 2014. Web. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/planned-parenthood-president-start-life-not-really/ Accessed 20 June 2014.