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.

Peaceful feelings of total destruction

After the books of Nephi and the book of Jacob, there are a number of short books in the Book of Mormon.  It can be easy to overlook these books... and while many latter day saints remember the story about Enos praying all day and night, few recall the details of Jarom, or the numerous individuals in the book of Omni.

Of course, the prayer of Enos is significant.  The determination he had in persistently seeking an answer from God, and that faith he had in believing the answers when they came represent important lessons in communicating with our Father in Heaven.  The fact that his guilt was swept away is moving for those that have experienced the miracle of Christ's power, and the mercy of his forgiveness.  His beneficence is demonstrated in how he immediately prayed for the salvation of his people, the Nephites.  It is notable to realize that he spent effort on behalf of the Lamanites, who continually sought to kill his people.  It is important that he hoped for the welfare of the records of his people, so that, in time, the Lamanites might have knowledge of and peace through Jesus Christ.

Having had what he described as "rest" (Enos 1:17), he went to his people to persuade them to believe in Christ.  After having a spiritual experience as he had, where he obtained peace, confidence, and joy... one might imagine the means by which he taught his people would be expressed in a similar tone.  It would not be unreasonable to think he would emphasize the love and mercy of God to all those who would come to him.

Instead, he records the following:

"And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up continually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction." (Enos 1:23)

Certainly there are few things that inspire feelings of peace, love, and harmony more than threatening of "wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity..."  (Sarcasm... in case that was unclear.)

To the saints in the latter days... this may seem odd.  When I attend conference and hear the words of modern day apostles and prophets, I come away with the idea that they do not use the same approach Enos did.  In fact, it is frequently that these men plead with us to be a little bit better, to try a little harder, and to be a little kinder.  While the call to repentance is not absent from their messages, it is always accompanied by descriptions of the love and mercy of the Son of God.

Perhaps even adding to the contrast is the fact that in the latter days, there are numerous prophecies that indicate the increased danger and destruction that will prevail in the last days.  Consider these examples:

• "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:1-7)
• "And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." (Revelation 13:6-7)
• "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." (Matthew 24:7-12)

With great perils in the last days, more so than in any other time, it can seem confusing as to why the strategy of Enos is not employed more frequently.  Why do we hear so little about the threats of "wars, and contentions, and destructions?"  Why are we not continually reminded of death and the duration of eternity?

I suggest that we are given these reminders, but indirectly.  We are asked to read the scriptures.  We are asked to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  We are taught that the messages of these ancient prophets (especially those in the Book of Mormon) are specifically intended for us in modern times.

It becomes everyone who reads these scriptures not to skim over the short books or the minor prophets.  There are messages in many of them (both the Bible and the Book of Mormon) that warn us of the dangers that come from not heeding the counsel of the Lord.  There are promises and examples that demonstrate the power and peace available to those that do follow him.  These messages blend well with the teachings of modern prophets and apostles that remind us of the great love that Christ has for us... such that it becomes easy to see that God is actively trying not only to grant us incredible blessings, but also that he is trying to save us from terrible harm.

Perhaps being aware of what awful destruction awaits those that fend for themselves rather than come to Christ can provide a feeling of peace and confidence.

The famous Confederate General Stonewall Jackson is quoted as saying this:
"Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. Captain, that is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave." (The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations, 2006)

The Tongue of Angels

When I was very young, I remember going on trips to Los Angeles to visit the LDS Temple there.  It is a large building set up on a hill on Santa Monica Blvd, surrounded by lovely landscaping without fountains and trees.  The outside of this temple, for the most part, is plain.  It does not have the ornate granite look on the temple in Salt Lake City, nor does it have the stunning white spires of the temple in San Diego or the temple in Washington DC.  Perhaps it is because of its plain appearance that the golden statue fixed to the top of it always seemed to stand out to me.

The golden statue depicts an angel sounding a trumpet facing the east.  The concept comes from a biblical depiction in the book of Revelation, chapter 14, verses 6-7: "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."

The fulfillment of John's prophecy was realized when the angel Moroni appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith, and brought a message that led to the translation of the Book of Mormon, which contains a record that confirms the divinity of Jesus Christ and his everlasting gospel, and is actively being distributed to nations all over the world.

The concept of an angel bringing a message from God is not unique to the coming of the Book of Mormon.  The Bible names the angel Gabriel as the messenger who brought the news of Christ's birth to Mary.  There are numerous passages where angels have come to bring messages, warnings, or instruction from heaven.  Even going back to the garden of Eden, God placed Cherubim and a flaming sword to keep the way of the tree of life.

Over time, popular culture has influenced the impressions men have had of how angels appear and interact with people.  Small, plump, nude babies with feathered wings are popular in some depictions, perhaps portraying some sort of innocence.  Elegant figures with ornate dresses are common sights at the tops of Christmas trees.

Though I know they are not accurate representations, I confess to being impressed with fantasy portrayals of angels with majestic wings, bright armor, and shining swords.  Though I do not typically include images in my posts, I thought these might be enjoyable:

As entertaining as these fantasy characters are, the actual divine messengers do not appear like this.  In fact, because they are messengers it is rare that visibility is important at all in their work... The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi expounded a bit on this when he was trying to explain the concept of "speaking with the tongue of angels" (2 Nephi 32:2-3)

The idea is that angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.  The methods by which the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of God communicates are found in various places in the scriptures.

Consider the disciples on the road to Emmaus who spoke with the resurrected Christ.  After hearing his teachings, they confirmed with one another this spiritual influence by saying "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:32)

Consider the word of the Lord coming to the prophet Elijah on Horeb.  He recognized the messenger that prepared him for his journey as an angel, and he knew enough to realize that the wind and the fire and the earthquake were not the voice of the Lord... After these things came a still small voice, which he recognized, and answered.  (1 Kings 19)

Consider the teachings of the Apostle Paul in Galatians: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23)

The other important emphasis of Nephi is not just the method by which they speak, but the message they speak: "Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do." (2 Nephi 32:3)

The message of angels is the message of God.  When the voice of the Father has been heard, it is almost always to point us toward his son, Jesus Christ.  (Mark 1:11, 2 Nephi 31:11, 2 Peter 1:17, Matthew 17:5, JSH 1:17)

Because the teaching of Christ is to have faith, to repent, and to follow him... so is the message of an angel.  Of course there may be certain circumstances where more specific guidance is needed, but for the vast majority of people... they are probably already aware of things they ought to be doing better.  Anyone who has felt persuaded to change their life to become a better person has, most likely, been persuaded by the tongue of angels.

While it is fine for fantasy stories to portray angels as powerful divine warriors, for the vast majority of the time, they need not seem aloof or withdrawn... in truth, the tongue of angels can be heard by those who listen.

Hellfire and Damnation (no, seriously)

When I was growing up, I had a large number of friends that had different Christian beliefs.  Some of them were Catholic, and some held to protestant views.  Many of them agreed that the general plan for humanity after life was over involved a judgement before God and an eternal life in either heaven or hell.  Though we never had long discussions about these subjects... there was a general consensus that going to heaven meant living with God in peace and happiness, and going to hell meant perpetual torture at the hands of the devil.

As a latter day saint, my instruction in the plan of salvation was a bit more complicated than the view that humans were created here on earth, and that based on our faith or behavior (or a combination of faith and behaviors) we would be assigned our eternal destination of eternal peace or eternal pain.

The Mormon view of the plan of salvation involves life beginning before mortality... such that being called children of God was not some figurative statement representing divine affection for humanity.  Similar to other views, it included mortality, and at death, some form of judgement where people would be assigned a destination of peace and rest or pain and confinement... but that these places would only be temporary.  After the end of the earth, there will be another judgement wherein people will be assigned permanent destinations in one of three kingdoms of differing glories.

Some people found this interpretation confusing, and inconsistent with scripture.  Of course, few of them were aware of the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42:

"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption..."

In my young mind, I believed this settled the question, but as I grew older, and read from the scriptures more on my own, I became confused as to why so many prophets and scripture passages used the heaven and hell model if it was incomplete.

Consider in the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 9:34 - "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell."  What does that even mean?  A person who lies (and presumably does not repent of this sin) will be sent to a lake of fire for perpetual torture?  Or a person will be uncomfortable for a temporary amount of time until final judgement where they will inherit a lesser kingdom?  Why say "hell" if it is so ambiguous?

Consider also the imagery in 2 Nephi 9:15-16 - "And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.  And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end."

Why describe everlasting fire, and torment as a lake of fire and brimstone with unquenchable flames if these things do not exist?

Even Jesus himself said "...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22)

Ultimately, the idea is that sin is bad.  This is particularly important when discussing sinful behavior that does not seem to produce harmful consequences.  If two adults consent to extramarital intimacy, who is getting harmed?  If a person decides to indulge in some substance abuse in the privacy of their own home, who is getting harmed?  If a person decides to steal from someone who has an abundance of wealth and insurance to cover their losses, who is getting harmed?  If a person takes credit for things they did not do, what does it really hurt if they gain a small advantage?

It is a constant need for religion to convey the seriousness of actions that do not seem immediately harmful.  Unfortunately, the difficulty in doing so increases when faiths get into petty arguments regarding minutia and ignore elements that can truly erode the moral strength of society.  As time has passed, it has become increasingly popular for those who seek to establish secularism to mock those who try to maintain protections for time-honored social values.  Some of this mockery is even understandable as there have been some who have used religious and other persuasion to benefit themselves rather than their congregations or society in general.  Requesting evidence and clarity can help reduce the influence of falsehoods that inflate themselves with religious imagery such as ascending flames, lakes of fire, and perpetual damnation.

That having been said, the idea of hellfire and damnation is still important where the deeds of individuals cause unseen harm.  Whether the actions involve drinking contaminated water, avoiding potentially life-saving vaccinations, or transgressing the commandments of God... these deeds can result in actual harm.  Though the victims of bad water or a lack of vaccines can be observed to have been harmed in a relatively short period of time... the victims of some sinful behavior may not be revealed in a single lifetime, but that does not mean the crimes are imaginary.  The real victim of transgression actually experienced the torturous consequences of this behavior... and it is his prophets and apostles who through the ages have described the effects as being like unending flames, perpetual torment, and lakes of fire and brimstone.  In any sin, Jesus Christ is a victim.  The thoughtless idle words and deeds of men literally caused a person to endure such crippling pain that blood oozed out of his skin. (Luke 22:44)

These actual consequences of sin fall upon those that commit them unless they agree to accept the saving power of Jesus Christ... which literally saves men from having to endure these horrendous ordeals.  Understanding not only that God has tremendous rewards for those that heed his words, but that he literally seeks to prevent tremendous harm from coming upon us, should motivate us to better keep his laws.  No doubt, there are many reasons to choose the right... and even if avoiding hellfire and damnation are among them, then humanity is better off than it otherwise would be.

(Spoiler Alert) The good guys win in the end

As a young boy, I loved watching shows where there were good guys and bad guys.  What little boy who remembers the 80's didn't love Transformers, where the Autobots (good guys) would triumph over the Decepticons (even the name shows that they are bad)?  The same was true of Thundercats, GI Joe, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and a host of other programs.

As I grew older, I recall watching a number of programs that wanted to blur the lines between good guys and bad guys.  Sometimes, this is fine.  I enjoyed, for example, playing Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic.  In making virtuous decisions, the protagonist in the game becomes more noble and ultimately, saves the Republic from the Sith Empire.  Without trying to spoil too much, playing the game this way helps portray a story of redemption, a theme that resonates with many people, including Christians.

On the other hand, I remember watching a show called Dead Poet Society, in the which a bunch of rebellious students with the encouragement of an unconventional instructor protest the strict and misguided influences of their parents and the rest of the school.  Of course, everyone agreed that most of the faculty were not the good guys, but I was never really sympathetic towards the students who were also, not really good guys.

In a story where there a bunch of bad guys antagonizing a bunch of other bad guys, I find myself uninterested in the result.  It would be like watching a boxing match between Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler... I mean... I don't really want either one of them to win.

The idea of "complex" and "flawed" protagonists, or even "anti-heroes" is increasingly common.  Justification for these types of stories is that they are more realistic, because there are no real "good guys" or "bad guys."  I reject that conclusion.

In the world today, there are real bad guys.  There exist people that perform acts that are so depraved, society can never trust them again.  There are also real good guys.  This is not to say there are perfect people all over, but there are many people that put others before themselves, and that demonstrate loyalty, courage, and forgiveness.

The world can seem especially dark when considering all the corruption that exists in governments, corporations, unions, and almost all types of organizations.  There is no doubt that some crime goes unpunished.  The question, "why not be cruel?" may seem reasonable considering the apparent advantage that corruption brings.

Humanity is not randomly here on Earth though.  There is a story of which we are a part, and the ending has been spoiled.  In the end, the good guys will prevail against the bad guys.  Righteousness will overcome wickedness.  

I am not the first one to spoil the ending.  Those that have truly read the scriptures understand that the theme of salvation is fundamental to the story of humanity.  Though evil may seem to prevail, in the end, they will fall.

Consider the words of Nephi:

"And after our seed is scattered the Lord God will proceed to do a marvelous work among the Gentiles, which shall be of great worth unto our seed; wherefore, it is likened unto their being nourished by the Gentiles and being carried in their arms and upon their shoulders. And it shall also be of worth unto the Gentiles; and not only unto the Gentiles but unto all the house of Israel, unto the making known of the covenants of the Father of heaven unto Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
And I would, my brethren, that ye should know that all the kindreds of the earth cannot be blessed unless he shall make bare his arm in the eyes of the nations. Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to make bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations, in bringing about his covenants and his gospel unto those who are of the house of Israel.
Wherefore, he will bring them again out of captivity, and they shall be gathered together to the lands of their inheritance; and they shall be brought out of obscurity and out of darkness; and they shall know that the Lord is their Savior and their Redeemer, the Mighty One of Israel.
And the blood of that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall turn upon their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.
And every nation which shall war against thee, O house of Israel, shall be turned one against another, and they shall fall into the pit which they digged to ensnare the people of the Lord. And all that fight against Zion shall be destroyed, and that great whore, who hath perverted the right ways of the Lord, yea, that great and abominable church, shall tumble to the dust and great shall be the fall of it.
For behold, saith the prophet, the time cometh speedily that Satan shall have no more power over the hearts of the children of men; for the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned.
For the time soon cometh that the fulness of the wrath of God shall be poured out upon all the children of men; for he will not suffer that the wicked shall destroy the righteous.
Wherefore, he will preserve the righteous by his power, even if it so be that the fulness of his wrath must come, and the righteous be preserved, even unto the destruction of their enemies by fire. Wherefore, the righteous need not fear; for thus saith the prophet, they shall be saved, even if it so be as by fire." (1 Nephi 22:8-17)

Because of the promise of salvation, there is reason to be confident in righteousness.  While the bad guys may seem to have great power, influence, and advantage over those who strive for virtuous living, in the end, those that have made Christ their King will be saved by him.  In the end, those that have invested in corruption, vice, and selfishness will have justice administered upon them.

As simplistic as it seems for a story to have good guys prevailing over bad guys, in the end, it will be the most realistic element of all.

Don't throw it out because it's old...

Modern religion for many Christians is defined by the Bible, and most particularly, the New Testament.  Certainly the coming of Christ represented a revolutionary change to the religious tradition of the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel... and it is right that even fundamental practices should be altered at the arrival of the Messiah.

For some, this change means the contents of the Old Testament can be mostly ignored: the old law is done away, and life and salvation come through Christ.  There are numerous teachings of Apostles regarding new stances toward food restrictions, animal sacrifice, and the need for baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Even among Latter Day Saints, the Old Testament is perhaps the least popular portion of canonized scripture.  This is unfortunate, as Latter Day Saints have access to the Book of Mormon.  Unlike the lengthy chronological pause between the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon provides a seamless transition between the two times, and gives additional context to the changes that came with the coming of Christ.

From the very opening chapters in the Book of Mormon, the importance of Old Testament prophecy is established.  In the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah, Lehi sees a vision with a pillar of fire. (1 Nephi 1:6)  The parallel between this image and the pillar of fire that guided the Israelites at night is unmistakable. (Exodus 13:21)

Additionally, when Lehi had gone into hiding in the wilderness to avoid becoming a victim to the Godless people of Jerusalem, he sent his sons back at great peril to obtain the writings of the Old Testament.  (1 Nephi 3)

These events from the very opening pages of the Book of Mormon seem to indicate that just because something happened before Christ, does not mean it is unimportant.  In fact, a recurring theme in the Book of Mormon is that while God pleads with his people to repent and return to him frequently, that there are serious consequences for those that reject his saving power.  It is both ironic and tragic that the Nephite people escaped wickedness and destruction in Jerusalem only to return to these things in the promised land.

Ultimately, the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon represent testimonies of the blessings that come from turning to God, and the tragedies that come from rejecting him.  The New Testament may bring new practices, unique teachings, and fascinating perspectives... but in the end, there are still lessons to be learned from ancient prophets.