(Not Professional) Wrestling with God

After his mother had helped him impersonate his brother Esau, Jacob had received a great blessing from his father Isaac.  Anticipating the fury of Esau, Jacob followed the instructions of his parents to flee to the land of Padan-aram.  In his flight, he stopped at a place where he had a vision from the Lord.  He promised that if the Lord would help him to eventually return to his father's house in peace, that he would serve the Lord faithfully. (Genesis 28:20-21)

The Lord did indeed prosper Jacob, and when he departed from the house of his Father-in-law Laban, he was a wealthy man with servants, flocks, herds, and a large family.  Notwithstanding the blessings that he had received, he was afraid that Esau would kill him and his family.  He had prepared numerous gifts, and also divided his procession so that some of his family would be spared if the worst should happen.

After making his initial preparations, a very unusual event is described:

"And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Genesis 32:24-30)

Initially, the account states that he wrestled with a man.  At the end of the passage, he says that he has seen God face to face.  One of the most fundamental aspects of this wrestling match is that it somehow involved communion with God.

Additionally, Jacob said that he would not let the man go unless he received a blessing by him.  Obviously, Jacob would not have done this with just a stranger.  He knew that this individual had power to help him.  But if he recognized the man as an agent of God, then why attempt to wrestle?  Why make demands?  Should he not have bowed himself down and obeyed?  Was not this the righteousness with which Abraham was credited when he would not withhold Isaac from sacrifice?  Why the wrestling match?

The words of Jesus provide clarity on the subject in the form of this parable:

"And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me." (Luke 18:1-5)

The idea of the parable of the unjust judge is that God hears the persistent cries of his children.  This is something to which many people can relate.  A child might go through a phase where they desire something, but by the next week, the thing is forgotten and they have moved onto other things.  Even for adults trying to make better financial decisions, it is common to hear counsel to wait on purchasing decisions to avoid impulse buying.

Ultimately, what seems to be a confusing story in the old testament with wrestling matches is actually guidance for understanding the question "why isn't God answering my prayer?"

Certainly specific requests demonstrate a level of thought about a given request or issue, but remembering it every day, or multiple times each day, represents a completely new level of sincerity.  Given enough time, if it is still important, and if an asker still believes that God can answer their prayer, a person can demonstrate they are not wanting God to fulfill their whims.  They are seeking something more earnestly.

Although theses are not the only requirements that accompany receiving answers to prayer, it is clear that it made a difference for Jacob.  When he finally met his brother Esau, they embraced one another and wept.  The promises of God had been fulfilled, and there was peace between Jacob and Esau.

Sincerity, diligence, and faith go a long way to helping prayers ascend to God.

Divine Intervention

I have known several people who lose their faith in God because of the lack of divine intervention when catastrophes strike.  It does not seem unfair, if God is all-knowing and all powerful, to ask why he does not intervene when a terrorist activates a bomb, opens fire on a public building, or guns down innocent people at a school.  If murder is such a serious sin, why not prevent it?  If human life, especially that of innocent children, is so precious, why not protect it from malevolent force?

Events of violence that seem to be increasing in frequency certainly seem to contradict the message of Christians who claim that God loves us and seeks our happiness.  It is little comfort to the families of victims to hear that God loves them when it seems that he does not love them enough to spare them pain.

The confusion can be compounded when a person opens the scriptures and discovers numerous times in which God did intervene.  Though people go hungry today in many parts of the world, he sent manna to the children of Israel in the wilderness (Exodus 16:35).  Though people are driven from their homes today, God send an angel to smite the invading Assyrians in the days of Hezekiah (Isaiah 37).  Though people are filmed being burned alive by brutal regimes such as ISIS, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego were spared the afflictions of Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace (Daniel 3).

Why does God intervene in some cases and not in others?  An examination of the first real crime is in order.

Adam and Eve had taught their children about offering sacrifices to the Lord.  Abel did as the Lord directed and offered the firstlings of his flock, but Cain offered the fruit of the ground, which was not what the Lord had asked.  Cain was furious that God had not respected his offering.  The Lord spoke to Cain using this language:

"Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." (Genesis 4:6-7)

God knew exactly what would happen next.  He recognized how Cain was being manipulated by Satan, and warned Cain against following the Lord of sin.  He did not however warn Abel.  Cain indulged in his wrath and murdered his brother.

Why did God not protect Abel?  Why not stop Cain before he could commit this horrific crime?

Obviously, God was never a fan of murder, otherwise he would not have decreed the death penalty for those who committed this crime ("Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Genesis 9:6).  This means that more than preventing murder, he wanted something else.  This is not limited to the case of Cain and Abel... more than preventing harm, he wants something else.  

People become frustrated that God does not answer prayers asking to spare them pain and loss, but God is not playing favorites...  Ultimately, this something else was more important than the torture and murder of his own son.  Jesus Christ also prayed that the cup might pass from him: "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done... And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." (Luke 22:42-44)  God allowed his son to be betrayed, tortured, and murdered... and all this even though Jesus was innocent of any crime.

The suffering and death of Christ does not necessarily explain why God has at some times offered intervention.  Why free the Hebrew children from Egypt?  Why cleanse Naaman the Syrian of leprosy?  Why feed 5,000... but only on rare occasions?

Perhaps God intervenes more than people realize.  The servant of Elisha was surprised when he beheld the mountains filled with chariots of fire (2 Kings 6:17), and even greedy Balaam found deliverance when his animal warned him of an angel in the way (Numbers 22:27-31).

Additionally, Jesus Christ is now alive and well... and in the end, all the righteous who have trusted in the Lord (including Abel) will rise again and live beyond the power of pain and loss or crime and abuse.  From the beginning, life on earth was always meant to be provisional.  We are born, we live, we die, but this was never the end or purpose.  Injustice can, in its worst manifestations, be only temporary.  Ultimately, there is something else that drives purpose here.

When confronted with tragic circumstances, it is easy to ask why God did not intervene, but it is very difficult to focus on the something else that God hopes to achieve.  

What is that something else?  It is the thing that governs Divine Intervention.  It is the cause for which the world was forged.  It is the purpose humans learn by experience to love goodness, kindness, selflessness, justice, and honor.

That something else is the hope that you can become something more than you are:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:21)

In other words, those who have faith and persist in following Christ will have access to Divine Intervention... Jesus is, in fact, trying to save us all.

Do prayers actually help?

Recently, there has been a lot of talk decrying the thoughts and prayers offered in the wake of the tragic shooting in San Bernardino, California.  Perhaps the most widely spread is the controversial cover of the NY Daily News which claims "God isn't fixing this."

I have seen a renewed effort among leftists and activist atheists to try and discredit prayer, and mock those who pray.  One of the most recent efforts I read involved an "experiment" like this (paraphrased):

Many Christians explain that God answers prayers in one of the following ways: (1) Yes, (2) No, or (3) Not now.  This type of thinking can be applied to anything though.  If you pray to a milk jug for a million dollars and you get it, you could say that the milk jug answered your prayer.  If you don't get it, you could say that the milk jug said no.  If you get it much later, you could say that the milk jug answered your prayer by saying "not now."  Rational people understand that because these types of "answers" can be assigned to anything, it shows that God is not real.

Similar "tests" have been proposed such as praying to Zeus that flipping fifty coins in a row will produce all "heads" results, and comparing the observations from that test with a similar prayer to Jesus.  If we conclude that Zeus is fictitious, we must therefore (to be consistent) conclude that Jesus is also fictitious.

Of course, these tests are completely illegitimate.  Let's apply the "milk jug" logic to something else:

If you go to your parents and ask them for a million dollars, they might respond in the same way as the milk jug.  If they are extremely affluent, they might say "yes."  Probably they will say "no."  If perhaps they become affluent later, and give you money in the future, you could say that the answer was "not now."  Because these are the same responses that Zeus, God, or a milk jug might give, therefore, your parents are not real.  They are most likely an elaborate scheme you came up with in order to explain your existence.

 More important than identifying flaws in the thinking of people who would tear down your faith, individuals should learn how prayer actually works.  Then when the next completely invalid test of prayer appears, it can be recognized.  Consider these principles:

1. People sometimes want things that are harmful to them.  Any parent of young children has probably had to deal with a child that begs not to have to go to bed, or not to have to eat their vegetables, or that the limits on dessert foods be removed.  Even as we age, there are times we do and/or say things that initially seem desirable, but are afterwards regretted.  I have known people who regret things from abusing drugs and alcohol or indulging in infidelity, and also people who regret watching "just one more episode" of a binge-worthy series on Netflix.  Would a loving parent give their child something they new would lead to pain and regret later?

2. Prayer is not designed as a mechanism to "get stuff" from God.  Most people know a person who only seems to be available when they need things.  It is difficult to have genuine friendship for someone who only asks for favors, and does not seem to ever appreciate them when they are given.  Why would people think this type of relationship is appropriate with God?  Jesus taught that people should use prayer as a form of worship.  He said, "After this manner therefore pray ye:  Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (Matthew 6:9-13)  He gave thanks before he called Lazarus to come forth from his tomb.  He refused to use prayer as a "test" for God (Matthew 4:1-10), and even after leading a perfect life, when he begged his Father to remove that bitter cup from him, he added " if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42)  If not even Jesus could get everything he wanted from God, why should anyone think themselves more deserving?

3. People are fickle, and sometimes ask for conflicting favors.  In a moment of determination, a person might give all of their sweets to a friend.  In a moment of weakness, they might return to their friend and demand their sweets back.  This trope has been used in a number of comedies, and it is funny because everyone can relate to how difficult self-control can be.  Whether it is quitting smoking or sticking to a diet or exercise routine, people tend to be inconsistent.  Before the world was, humanity rejoiced at the opportunities that mortality would bring.  God has made a huge investment giving us a world in which we could be as we are, and where we could learn for ourselves.  Of course he would like to rush in and spare his children from tragedy.  Of course he does not enjoy the savagery that some of his children perpetrate against others in the forms of shootings or terrorist attacks or bombings or all manner of other cruelty.  That having been said, he is not going to undo the state of mortality into which he has spent so much time and energy, and because of which he allowed his only begotten son to suffer and die.  That would conflict with our previous request to participate in this mortal experience.  In fact, in allowing prayer, he pushes the limits of faith-based mortality.  Not only that, but he sends prophets and apostles to beg people to pray more... Persistence and diligence are vital to success with prayer.  This leads us to the final principle...

4. God says yes far more than people realize.  Jesus taught this: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" (Matthew 7:7-11)  Of course, some people might say "why doesn't he heal all the sick?" or "why doesn't he stop cancer?" or "why doesn't he bring back the victims of San Bernardino or Paris or Boston?"  These seem like legitimate requests to offer a totally omnipotent being who loves us perfectly.  So, would it be acceptable if God brought back all of the victims of these tragedies, healed every injury, and cured cancer permanently, but you had to wait two days before it would happen?  Would it be acceptable if you had to wait ten days... to heal everyone, and bring back perfectly every victim of every tragedy ever?  Could you wait a month?  Is there a period of time that, if you had to wait, you would say "never mind, that's too long... don't heal the sick or bring back the dead or cure anyone..."?  If there is a duration that is too long, then that isn't really God saying "no"... is it?  And ultimately, this is the point.  In the end, God will heal every wound, mend every flaw, remove every defect, and bring back everyone who has ever been lost.  To all who have prayed for San Bernardino, or for Israel, or for peace on earth... to all who are praying for a child, a parent, a wife, a husband, a sibling, or a friend... the answer is YES!

Prayer may not be a replacement for helping others, and it is not an excuse for withholding service from those in need... but prayer does have power to augment the abilities of those who seek to help others, and those who are trying to serve those in need.  Prayer allows people to access divine power, and ultimately, begin to perceive the relationship of humanity to the throne of Heaven.  If you have felt like God is distant... pray.  If you have felt like your prayers have gone unanswered... pray some more...  If you have felt like your prayers aren't doing enough, pray some more, and then work to make life better.  God is indeed a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.

Shocking Details From the Other Mormon Handbook

Recently, my Facebook feed has been filled with comments, memes, and images regarding some shocking changes that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints made to a handbook of instructions for church leaders regarding homosexuality and apostasy.

The headlines in blogs and from the stories of news organizations emphasized only one possible outcome of the changes: that Mormon Leaders would refuse baptism to the children of gays.

I read a number of reactions that ranged from people encouraging trust in the leaders of the church to posting apologetic explanations to people considering leaving the Mormon church because of this shocking truth.

I was a bit surprised at the volume of reactions to this news.  It seemed to me that after the headline had drawn traffic and people saw what it was really about, some new bit of information would draw attention away and it would be rapidly forgotten.  Days later, I still see numerous posts, comments, and reactions to this news.  I have read posts wherein people still express shock and surprise that the Mormon church would implement such a policy that seems to target individuals based on their sexual orientation.

If you are among those who were shocked by the new details from the Mormon Handbook of Instructions, then perhaps you could particularly benefit from learning the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook.  You know, the one that no one seems to be talking about, but that makes policies on apostasy seem as shocking as the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes in Jesus Christ...  Even if you are not among those shocked by the recent policy news, the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook, will still be beneficial.

Of course, by Other Mormon Handbook, I mean The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

The circumstances of this books arrival and the claims made in this book are more shocking than any policy decision the church has ever made (and that includes decisions regarding plural marriage, priesthood availability, or sticking with the Boy Scouts).  Think about it.  A young man in upstate New York was personally visited by an Angel and told about a book of scripture, hidden for centuries, written in a language that no one spoke, and that the record had been inscribed on plates of gold.  Additionally, this record represented proof that peoples who had inhabited the American continent ages earlier had been Christians, and that they had fallen apart when they rejected Christ.

If these claims are not shocking enough, Mormons claim that Joseph Smith Junior, an uneducated laborer, was able to translate this record into English through the power of God himself.  As miraculous as the use of diverse tongues on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), this young man not only produced a translation in a short time, but did it while enemies tried to attack him and his supporters.  He also persuaded friends to help finance its publication, which was not an inexpensive investment.  After it was done, he stood behind the work that he claimed God had helped him perform by saying: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Introduction to the Book of Mormon)

The idea that it is the most correct book is certainly shocking, but that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book, is incredibly bold.

Rational individuals should immediately demand (in light of these shocking details and claims) what the Mormon Church intends to do to back them up (if they haven't already).

Of course, the way in which the Mormon Church backs up these claims is perhaps more shocking than anything else.  This translation is not in some "leaders-only" handbook or kept in a vault in the mountains near Salt Lake City.  The Church has gone to great lengths and great expense to make this handbook available to everyone.  If you like to read physical books, check here: https://www.mormon.org/free-book-of-mormon.  You can read it online for free here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng.  Yes, there's an app for it too: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_day_Saints_Th?id=oAkd9j3xSqoC.  Additionally, volunteer missionaries across the world are eager to provide individual support as you put the shocking claims of the Mormons to the test by reading this book and praying to God to come to your own conclusion.

For those who are already members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the need to read the Book of Mormon has not diminished.  Shocks from changes in church policies (or any other aspect of the faith) are best handled by returning to this handbook, which laid the foundation of the Mormon Church.  If you have read it, read it again.  If you have not read from it today, read from it today.  If you have not prayed to our Heavenly Father regarding the shocking claims that it makes and that it represents, pray today.  If you have prayed, but you have not been willing to act according to the answer you have received, then read it some more.  If you have prayed, but you do not believe that God will answer your prayer, then read it some more.

Ultimately, the more that you read, study, consider, and pray about the Book of Mormon, the more you will see that the claims, practices, policies, and traditions in the Mormon Church are not shocking at all.  The real shock is that Jesus Christ (who is very much alive and well) is reaching out to you in a personal way through this book.  Joseph Smith was not exaggerating or being rhetorical when he said that you could get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.  Whatever other news headlines arise in the future, you can be confident that God lives and that he will make sure everything works out in the end.  In the end, he is coming to save us all.

What Type of Marriage Discrimination Will Gay Marriage Advocates Continue To Support?

I have seen many rainbow picture profiles on Facebook and many "love wins" sentiments after the 5-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in which they used the 14th amendment to discover a "right to marry."  There are numerous legal reasons why this move represents a dangerous precedent, and how wrong it is for justices to find "implied rights" are more important that explicitly stated rights (such as in the 10th amendment).  For those that have interest in the legal side of this (or those who claim that defense of traditional marriage is indefensible), reading the dissents of the four justices who did not support this finding is illuminating.

I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad.  I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.

It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage.  In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:

• That I "probably don't have a lot of gay friends"
• That I have a phobia of homosexuals
• That I am a bigot
• That I am hateful
• That I don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That I might be gay myself if I am "threatened"
• That I am fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That I am encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That I am being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

The list is not comprehensive, but it never ceases to amaze me how many accusations are made about any person who believes in traditional marriage.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to be married, the question I have for gay marriage advocates is whether they plan to extend these rights to everyone.  (This is a rhetorical question, I don't want you to tell me about it, I want you to actually open your mind to the consequences of "love" "winning.")

Take for example the polygamous group.  (Now before you say that this is a straw man argument, and no one is advocating for it, read this article)  So if seven people decide that they are in "love", how can a person say that they should be denied the right to marry?  Obviously not because we adhere to a standard of traditional marriage.  If you are opposed to polygamy, let me suggest the following reasons:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of polygamous friends"
• That you have a phobia of polygamists
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have polygamous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the biological brother and sister that have fallen in love, but that the state will not issue a marriage license because they are related.  If marriage is a right, then who are you to say that being related should deprive a person of this right?  If you still disagree that incestuous relationships should be able to have legal recognition in the form of marriage, may I suggest the following reasons that you believe this:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of incestuous friends"
• That you have a phobia of incest
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have incestuous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the man that has fallen in love with his pet dog.  They would like to make their love officially recognized in the form of marriage.  Who are you to say that the dog doesn't love its owner.  I have spoken to many vegetarians who insist that animals have all the same feelings that humans have, and that the most important of those feelings is love.  Who are you to say that this type of relationship is "not natural."  For thousands of years the majority of civilization believed the exact same thing about homosexuality (and many still do.)  Just because Leviticus 18:23 says "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion" doesn't mean anything.  After all, the Bible also forbids eating pork or women speaking in church, so you can't accept everything in the Bible... right?  Certainly this form of "love" may not be traditional, but the man has a right to be married, and if you try to discriminate against the form of his love, it can only be because:

 

• That you "probably don't have a lot of animal-loving friends"
• That you have a phobia of human-animal relationships
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have bestiality desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the forty-year-old man that has fallen in love with a twelve-year-old boy.  The boy says that he is happy with the man, and who are you to say their relationship is taboo?  Of course, the boy may not be an adult, to which traditional marriage relationships typically are limited, but tradition is not the basis for love anymore, right?  It's only love.  Nothing else matters, right?  And who are you to say that the boy is not capable of being in love?  If young people are not capable of love, then are you advocating banning relationships in high school between students who are under the age of eighteen?  No more "cutest couple" in the year book, right?  Your "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" is not allowed.  There are no gay teens, right, since they are too young to understand or participate in sexual activities, right?  Or perhaps you truly believe that "love" should win?  Perhaps the pedophile is just another "non-traditional" relationship that has been negatively stereotyped by society.  No?  Then perhaps you say this because:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of pedophile friends"
• That you have a phobia of pedophilia
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have pedophilia desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

If you are a gay marriage advocate, you may be tempted to let me know about how these ideas are totally different than those of gay marriage.  You may be tempted to shout "slippery slope" or "no one is going to advocate that" or "straw man" or whatever else makes you feel better about the fact that you believe (as I do) that there should be some discrimination in who we permit to marry.  Please, before you begin sending me messages about how awful a human being I am... consider for just a moment that perhaps gay marriage advocates are not so very different from the traditionalists, cake bakers, and people of faith that many of them tend to demonize.

If the reasons for why you might be opposed to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and other unnatural relationships are not accurately represented by the bullet point lists... then consider for a moment the possibility that the reason I am opposed to homosexual marriage may not be accurately represented by these things either.

Additionally, if you have thrown "traditional marriage" out the window as a valid reason to discriminate against other unorthodox types of unions, consider for a moment the actual reasons that you are opposed to them.  Examine why you believe that some types of unions are not good, and should not be condoned by society.

It is my earnest hope that perhaps, in the moment when you struggle to define why it is OK to discriminate against some marriages, that you will see that advocates of traditional marriage are not the demons they are painted to be.

Being like a sheep

Most Christians do not take issue with the idea that Christ is like a shepherd, which is good because Jesus was the source of this analogy:

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 16:11-14)

The point with which many Christians seem to take issue is the idea of the sheep.  I have personally been called a "sheep" and a "blind follower."  I know many people who have been ridiculed for not questioning church leaders, and I have seen those that do rebel against their religious authorities defend themselves by asking if they are "not allowed to question."

I would like to tell a story to illustrate a point regarding sheep:

Once there was a good shepherd that had a flock of sheep.  He kept watch over them with the help of a faithful sheep dog.  Together, they spent their time in a beautiful meadow near a cool clear river of water.  The sheep loved grazing and being with the shepherd in the sunshine, and they trusted his care as they slept at night.

Not far from the meadow was a dark thick forest that frightened the sheep.  There were odd creaks and groans that echoed from within the mysterious darkness, and the sheep were certain that there were dangerous predators in the wood.

After many days, the shepherd turned to the sheep and spoke to them saying: "follow me into the woods."  He then turned and walked toward the dark forest.  The sheep whispered among one another, but after a few moments, the dog began encouraging the sheep to follow, and the majority of the sheep headed toward their shepherd.  There was a group of sheep that became angry at the situation, and resolved to remain behind.  They called to the other sheep telling them that they would be killed in the forest, and that it was madness to follow the shepherd with no reason.

Eventually, the sheep dog came back and confronted the group of defiant sheep.  He told them that the shepherd had asked them to go to the woods, and that they should follow.

"Why?" asked one of the sheep.

"Trust in the judgement of the shepherd, and trust in his power to protect you," encouraged the dog.

"That's it?" snorted the sheep.  "Just blindly follow?!  Am I not allowed to ask questions?!"

"Of course you're allowed to ask questions," said the dog.  "But do not let your questions keep you from following the shepherd."

"But I don't even know that he has our best interests at heart," replied the sheep.  "There could be dangerous creatures in the wood.  Also, there is not enough sunlight for grass to grow on the forest floor... what would we eat?  What would we drink?"

"Has the shepherd ever given you reason to think he does not care for you?" asked the dog.

"He has now," replied the sheep defiantly.  "If he has good reason, let him come and explain himself."

"He has good reason," said the dog.  "Go to him and see it if you will..."

"We will stay where it is safe," replied the sheep.  The dog shook his head in sorrow.

"I hope you will reconsider," said the dog.  The dog turned and rushed into the woods.

The sheep that remained returned to the grazing, the water, and the sunshine.  They felt free from having to follow blindly, and they laughed at the foolish sheep that were likely starving or dead in the ominous forest.  Their happiness persisted for several days, and their friendships with one another seemed to strengthen.  They were happy that they had left the shepherd.

One night as they slept, they were awakened by noise.  As they opened their eyes and looked around, they found themselves surrounded by orcs with sharp teeth and drawn swords.  One of the orcs stepped up and shouted.

"Looks like meat's back on the menu boys!"

Of course, this is obviously made up.  The idea is that the blindly obedient were spared and the defiant questioners were consumed.  The counsel of the scriptures was not trust in your critical thinking skills with all your heart but instead "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Proverbs 3:4-5)

Of course it is allowed to have questions, but do not let questions keep you from following the shepherd.  In the end, he will save those that trust in him.

If judging is wrong, then God won't judge... right?

Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty (a show I admittedly have never watched), has once again waded into controversy with the following statement (taken from this link):

“I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him and then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of ‘em and then shoot him and they take his wife and decapitate her head off in from of him. And then they can look at him and say isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged … there’s no right or wrong … and then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say wouldn’t it be something if this was something wrong with this, but you’re the one who says there's no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong…. so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head. Have a nice day.”

Of course, atheists are quickly shouting that this is a "straw man" argument... that no one is advocating these practices, and that this example is outrageous and argumentative.

I know a couple atheists, and I have definitely never heard anything to make me think that they would advocate such behavior.  In fact, I frequently see these people advocating for kindness and benevolence, and often for individuals who are disadvantaged... quite different from the hypothetical antagonists in Phil Robertson's example.

General advocacy for benevolence seems to be prevalent, even as religious devotion seems to wane.  I have frequently seen memes and articles that decry exclusion, bullying, and the practice of judging others... many of which are quite clever.  I saw a meme that said "don't judge me because I sin differently from you" (apparently President Uchtdorf saw something similar).  Certainly this thought is not reserved as a slogan for agnostics; it definitely resonates with Christians.  Jesus himself said "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)

I myself have been accused of being excessively judgmental, and in spite of the irony that individuals have judged me as being so, there is certainly room for me to improve.

That having been said, all the "hold hands and sing kumbaya" sentiment can distract from legitimate problems that exist in society.  While the vast majority of people would never break into a home and perform violent acts for entertainment, there exist some that would and do.  The media has shared stories of people who have killed dozens in schools and theaters.  Enemies in foreign lands share their own videos of brutal executions with knives or with fire.  There exist areas of the world where even innocent children are exploited as slaves to slake the lust of adults.  There are few people who would suggest that such deeds are "right" or that the perpetrators of such crimes should not be judged because they "sin differently."

Additionally, there exist people that believe they are justified in committing acts that society at large considers atrocious.  Consider the example of Nehor from the Book of Mormon.  He was a large and mighty man that preached the "judge not" brand of religion:

"And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life." (Alma 1:4)

This idea was popular, and Nehor boldly went preaching against the church of God, which advocated not only righteous living, but also repentance for sinners.  In other words, the church taught that bad men should become good, and good men should become better.  They judged unrighteousness as being bad.

In the process of "educating" these "ignorant" Christians, Nehor sought them out for argument and debate.  On one such occasion, he found an elderly man named Gideon who resisted Nehor's teachings.  Anger led to violence.  Nehor slew Gideon.

Instead of admitting that what he had done was wrong, he actually held to his doctrine of universal salvation.  He defended himself boldly, and insisted that what he had done was not wrong.  Of course, the law saw it otherwise, and Nehor was executed for his crimes.

Of course, Nehor is not the first one to become confused as to what is right and what is wrong... and that is the real question that Phil Robertson was illustrating in his example... How do you know what is right and what is wrong?

Those that embrace atheism may be quick to shout "straw man," but for a group of people that claim to espouse reason, there is no consensus about how to answer this question.  Without an answer to this question, how does one answer the question "why not murder, rape, and steal?"  It cannot be answered by "because these practices are wrong" without the existence of universal right and wrong.  I suppose it could be answered by "because these practices are illegal" but in many places, gay marriage is illegal, and most atheists I know are in favor of legalizing this practice.  So if morality cannot be coupled to the law, then what?  Harm?  What if a society does not recognize something as harmful... or cannot currently prove that something is harmful?  Who will do the study on whether intimate relationships between humans and animals is harmful?  Are there some applications of eugenics that have a net positive effect on society?  Who can prove otherwise?

Also, to whom must something be proven?  What if someone performs an act without knowing it could be harmful (a lobotomy for example, which is now considered harmful)?  And if not knowing something is harmful makes it unethical, can ignorance excuse unethical behaviors such as robbery, murder, rape, etc...?

While evolutionary biology has become popular in classrooms and creationism has fallen into controversy, the ethical implications of saying that people are "intelligent animals" are rarely considered.  If evolutionary fitness is the means by which humans became the dominant species on the planet, then are we on equal moral standing as cattle?  Certainly there are some humans who would like to criminalize the slaughter of pigs, cattle, chickens, and other animals for human consumption... but does that also mean we should prosecute lions, hyenas, leopards, wolves, and other predators for murder?  Is there a moral difference in killing a human, a dog, a rat, or a cockroach?  If so, what causes this difference?

Even though these ethical questions can be difficult to answer, there seems to be a general understanding that is common to most humans.  The feeling of guilt for doing something that a parent has forbidden is present even in very young children.  The sense of happiness that comes from helping another is also found in young children.  There is something intangible that is present in all humans that steers us toward goodness and virtue, and repels us from evil and vice.  Of course, its intangibility, as well as a number of other factors, can cause this to diminish or even disappear for some... Nehor was a clear example of this.

Ultimately, this intangible force is to help us to recognize other things beyond our immediate perception.  This is precisely why Jesus taught:

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14, emphasis added)

The ability to recognize right can also lead us to recognize our God.  Honing this spiritual awareness is a fundamental purpose to the mortal experience.

While it may be popular to say "judge not," or that "judging is wrong," it is important to know that these thoughts do not remove the personal responsibility of each individual.  Ignorance, popularity, available proof, empirical evidence, or evolutionary biology will not be sufficient defenses on that day when a man stands before God to be judged.  This is not to say that there is no mercy... the power of Jesus Christ is available to those that have faith, repent, and live as he taught.

Yes, Jesus did condemn hypocritical judgment.  Yes, Christ said "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her..." (John 8:7)  But he also said "go, and sin no more..." and "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20)  Vital to following Christ is changing our lives to better.  Vital to salvation is learning and doing good.  (James 1:22)

Also, if all judgement were wrong... then Christ would not be a judge himself.  Consider this passage:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23, emphasis added)  In the end, though right and wrong are nearly impossible to comprehend alone, the man that truly follows Christ can be confident that he is doing right.

People can say what they may about Phil Robertson's example, his show, and his facial hair... but in the end there is definitely value in understanding the importance of God as a source of goodness, authority, and judgement.