He saved others; himself he could not save...

Easter 2013 video by yours truly:

 

 

Transcript:
“He saved others; himself he could not save…” (Matthew 27:42)
I cannot help but wonder if this phrase did not stick in the minds of those early disciples after Jesus died on the cross.
Some of his disciples had been with him for nearly his entire ministry, and believed almost as soon as they saw him.  Many went to their friends declaring that they had “found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write…” (John 1:45)
They were there when he boldly instructed multitudes, and quietly taught those that sought him by night.  These people were among those that were “…astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Matthew 7:28-29)
They had seen him feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes.  They had seen him make lame men walk, deaf men hear, and blind men see.  They had followed him when others accused him of blasphemy, tried to kill him, or simply asked him to leave them alone.
Some of them had experienced the terror of being caught in a storm at sea and appealed to him saying “carest thou not that we perish?” (Mark 4:38)  In amazement they had watched as he commanded the winds and the waves to be at peace, and saved them.
They had listened to his thunderous condemnation of the scribes and hypocrites, and seen him overthrow the tables of money changers in the temple.  They had heard him compassionately stop to help those who desperately sought healing, and to mercifully promise peace and forgiveness even to those who had made poor decisions in their pasts.
They heard him command Lazarus to come out of his tomb, and had watched in shock and awe when he that had died came out alive and whole.
After he had been betrayed by Judas, some of them had seen as Pontius Pilate washed his hands and let his enemies torture him.  It had been too late to do anything when they watched the soldiers drive nails into his hands and feet.  Even as he died, his enemies declared those hurtful words, “…he saved others; himself he could not save…”
For some of his disciples, there was nothing left to do but pay respects.  The man they had believed to be the redeemer of the world had been killed.
After he died, several of the women who had believed in him went to the tomb in which he had been sealed, only to find the stone had been rolled away.  To their surprise, they saw two men in shining raiment near the entrance.  The men asked them “why seek ye the living among the dead?  He is not here, but is risen…” (Luke 24:5-6)
They might as well have asked “did you actually believe what those men said?  Did you think he could not save himself?” 
Most of the women went to tell the apostles, but Mary Magdalene wept near the tomb, perhaps thinking that an enemy had taken his body to further disgrace him.  In her grief, she perceived a man that asked her why she was weeping.  Thinking that he was the gardener, she asked to know where the body of Jesus had been taken.  As he called her by name, she turned and realized the truth.  Standing before her was Jesus Christ himself, alive and well.
Over time, many disciples saw him and came to the same understanding as Mary did on that first Easter morning.  The words of the enemies of Christ might have seemed convincing… “he saved others; himself he could not save…”  But the truth was that he did save himself.  Even death was not sufficiently strong to stop the Son of God.
Though centuries have come and gone, the man that beat death itself is as alive today as he was then.  His power has not waned with the passing of time.  Though skeptics and enemies of Christ would have Christians despair, especially on Easter, we would do well to remember that the champion of right has not yet completed his plan.  Jesus Christ lives… and he is coming to save us all.

Credits:
Narration and recording on a mediocre microphone, done by me.
Artwork:
Various
Video Music:
Epic moving hearfelt beautiful dramatic trailer score by Audiomachine - Helios! 'Like' their official page on facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/audiomachine Title: Apollo's Triumph Artist: Audiomachine Composer: Paul Dinletir (ASCAP) Album: Helios Genre: Epic Beautiful Intense Dramatic Orchestral Trailer Score Image: http://dinesiac.deviantart.com/galler... Website: http://www.audiomachine.com/ Buy Audiomachine's public music here: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/audiomachine http://itunes.apple.com/de/artist/aud... http://www.amazon.de/s?ie=UTF8&se...

Let your hypocrisy so shine before men

In Jesus Christ's most famous sermon, he declared "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:14-16)

In the following chapter, Christ seems to completely withdraw this concept in favor of being secretive in doing good to avoid hypocrisy:
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matthew 6:1-8)

These two concepts seem mutually exclusive.  On the one hand, God wants people to openly stand for what is right by doing good publicly... on the other hand, God wants us to hide our good deeds to be rewarded for them, and to avoid being as the hypocrites are.  How can Christians reconcile these two points?

These points seem especially important in the field of missionary work.  Every Christian has a responsibility to witness for Christ.  Consider the words in the New Testament: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Peter 3:15-16)  Also, these words from the Book of Mormon that expound on the commitment made in baptism: "...and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God..." (Mosiah 18:9)  Also, contemporarily, consider the words in the Doctrine and Covenants: "Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." (D&C 88:81)

If Christians follow the advice of Paul to Timothy when he said "be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Timothy 4:12), how can we simultaneously heed the words of Christ to do good in secret?

More to the point, how can a Christian ask someone else to follow Christ when they themselves are guilty of not following him as well as they should?  Did Christ not repeatedly and vehemently condemn such hypocrisy?

The answer is that he did condemn such hypocrisy.  The Pharisees were frequently subjects of such condemnation.  They openly prayed, gave alms, and fasted... which were all things that God had commanded.  Christ pointed out that they paid tithes, but devoured widows' houses and tolerated swearing by altar, as long as they did not swear by the gifts on it. (Matthew 23)

Of course every person that encourages someone else to make correct choices except for Christ himself takes on a degree of the same hypocrisy that Christ condemned, because every other person is guilty of sin.

Fortunately, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, even hypocrites can be saved.  Avoiding hypocrisy is not a valid excuse to put one's light under a bushel.  

Consider the parable of the talents.  (Matthew 25)  The servant that had received one talent hid it in the ground for fear of losing it.  When the Lord returned, he was displeased with the servant.  He had not given that servant a talent to be buried away... but to be used.  I suggest that the talent is symbolic of many things, and that one of them is knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The word gospel means good news... and news is meant to be spread, not to be buried or hoarded away.

Additionally, Christ declared that the greatest commandments were to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. (Matthew 22:37-40)  When we arrive at the judgment bar of Jesus Christ, can anyone imagine that he would be pleased with those who refuse to share the message that cost his life and the lives of his Apostles?  Can anyone suppose that a valid excuse for withholding knowledge that could bring peace, hope, and joy from others would be "I wanted to avoid being hypocritical"?

I do not believe that God wants people to wait until they have eliminated every flaw before they share the basics of the gospel of Jesus Christ with others.  Of course, in connection with sharing the message that Jesus has power to save everyone, Christians are obligated to do all they can to eliminate those aspects of their thoughts, words, and deeds that are unchristian, but fulfilling the obligation is not prerequisite to sharing the message.

Furthermore, sharing the message of Christ does not require a Christian to loudly pray in restaurants or malls, or to announce their charitable contributions, or to babble in tongues before large audiences, or even divulging every personal spiritual experience.  There are some experiences that are intended to emphasize the personal connection between an individual and God.  Christ's power is not extended to the children of men to make them look good... it is extended to save them all.

The thing of which a Christian can be sure though, is that every person that they will ever meet has need of faith, penitence, and ordinances as prescribed by God.  The thing of which a Christian cannot be sure is whether others already know this, or whether they may need some encouragement.  Whether offered by men or God, it is a divine effort to make bad men good, and good men better.

With all the love in my heart, you're going to go to hell...

"Judge not that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1)

The passage about judgement is often quoted.  Some use the passage to persuade others to express Christian love and fellowship toward others.  Some use the passage ironically to condemn those that they believe are guilty of judgement.

Regardless of the purpose, the use of the passage has increased in society over the past several decades.  People are in generally more concerned with how people view one another than ever before.

I have had several individuals express particular concern over a certain demographic is treated.  Many people are worried about the feelings of individuals that struggle with a particular problem, and are worried that they are frequently and wrongfully judged.  Of course the group to which I am referring are those that struggle with smoking.

I know of people that are very kind, generous, God fearing, and virtuous, but that struggle with the terrible habit of smoking.  Many of these people go out of their way to try to keep the odor of tobacco away from those of us who find it distasteful.  These individuals can be sensitive to the disapproving looks of others.  There are some of these who feel ostracized even when they are honestly putting forth effort to stop this expensive and unhealthy habit.

For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, there is on top of the negative odor, a spiritual aspect to the the practice, as it is prohibited by divine commandments called the word of wisdom.  For people in the LDS church, the smell of cigarettes is the smell of sinful behavior.  There are some who find the look of disgust on the faces of others to be a sign of judgment.  Of course, every person who gives such looks of disgust are themselves guilty of sins, even if they are not detectable by scent.  A good Christian should not assume that more obvious sins are the same as more obvious condemnation.

On the other side of the coin is the person who is accused of being judgemental when in fact, they may be making no spiritual assessment at all.  I have had close friendships with individuals who used cigarettes, but not even my friendship can remove the foul odor that lingers on the breath and clothing of those that smoke.  My belief that smokers are good people can't remove the expression of repulsion from my face.

There are those that do not find the odor of cigarettes to be distasteful.  In such a case, imagine an individual that has explosive diarrhea leaking out of their clothing...   how should a Christian express love and a spirit of inclusion to such a person who is extremely repulsive?  Even if the Christian is able to purge their thoughts of any judgmental thoughts such as that person should control them self better or that person is not appropriately caring for their bodies, what if they are unable to force a smile and give the sensation that the person who smells like an outhouse is truly welcome? 

Back to the cigarettes, is a person being judgmental if they avoid coming into a home that is filled with smoke?  Are they being judgmental if they avoid letting their children go to such a home because of concerns about second-hand smoke?

What is the right approach to tell someone that their behavior or status makes you uncomfortable without giving the impression that you are saying "with all the love in my heart, you're going to go to hell" ?

Christ spent his time among publicans and sinners, much to the disapproval of the Pharisees.  Of course, when asked about his company, he responded as follows:
"And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Matthew 9:11-13)

From this passage we get the implication that he was not simply "hanging out" with people, but he was asking them to change their behavior, or to call sinners to repentance.

Additionally, Christ did not seem ashamed to tell people that they were wrong, or even worse off than others.  Consider the following:
"... Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him."  (Matthew 21:31-32)

Deriving appropriate behavior exclusively from Christ may be more challenging than it initially appears.  Jesus Christ will actually be the judge of all people, and he will have all the appropriate knowledge and authority to accurately threaten people with hellfire and damnation.  The rest of us are not always entitled to the same degree of perception.  Perhaps this is the purpose that Christ emphasized loving neighbor as self, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, and demonstrating discipleship through love.

That having been said, disciples are not to tolerate sin.  Joshua's armies in the Old Testament were not successful against the people of Ai until Achan and all his household were killed and their remains burned because they had kept some of the spoils of Jericho. (Joshua 7)  The spirit of forgiveness seemed lessened in the New Testament case of Ananias and Sapphira when they misrepresented their income and did not give as much of their substance to the apostles as they should have. (Acts 5)

Ultimately, the concept of judgment is complicated.  Christians have an obligation to be benevolent and welcoming, but also an obligation to stand for truth and righteousness.  I suggest that the exact way to act in every case cannot be boiled down to a formula.  To one person or group it may be appropriate to say repent or be destroyed.  To another it is appropriate to say God is merciful and he will forgive.  An individual effort must be made to stand against wrongdoing, just as individual effort must be made to welcome, forgive, and express love to those that may be guilty of wrongdoing.  In such efforts, following the conscience is the best way to determine the approach that expresses love toward fellow children of God and encourages repentance of unacceptable behavior.

In the end, God wants all people to love one another and to repent of wrongdoing.  It is possible to hate the sin and love the sinner, because it is what he does.  The message for the person who is quick to judgement is to be more loving.  The message for the person who accepts any behavior to be inclusive is to stand up for what is right.  The message for the person who feels upset because other people are judging them is to try not to take all reactions personally, and to try to follow their conscience in efforts to improve themselves.  God does not judge so that he can condemn mankind to hell... he's trying to save us all. 

Wait, I thought you believed in separation of church and state...

Zack Kopplin has received attention in the past year for his efforts against creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools.  This is not all that uncommon an effort among atheist activists.  The thing that sets him apart is his attack of private schools that teach such concepts.

He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana.  For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student.  The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs.  The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.

Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design.  Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.

Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.

Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding.  To a degree, they have.  The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes.  People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding.  If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.

To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding.  Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church.  What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.

Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion.  While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it. 

Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment.  Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state.  (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)

Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities.  Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property.  Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.

Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches.  The more obvious roles include welfare and charity.  A less obvious role is education.

While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent.  This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.

In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.

Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis. 

A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to.  A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to.  Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to.  The government has no business telling people what they need to learn.  Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.

Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references.  These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.

Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives.  While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?

If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.

Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?

The format of this post will be in the form of a conversation between a hypothetical individual that is a proponent of homosexual marriage and believes that homosexuality is natural and harmless.  This post may make some people angry, so I issue the following warning to proponents of homosexuality before proceeding:

Yes, it is judgmental to say that homosexuality is wrong.  It would also be judgmental for you to rush to the comments section to tell me my belief that certain behaviors are sinful is wrong.  This post was written in a hypothetical conversation to avoid a heated conversation with you.  This article is meant to be thought provoking... not argument provoking.  Before giving in to the impulse to tell me everything I may have forgotten to consider, or how you know that I am going to hell... please just consider the points that I have made.  If you are unable to control yourself, there are plenty of other blogs, articles, memes, and clever sayings that promote your point of view which are less likely to upset your delicate balance.  Please consider these sources instead of continuing on.

That having been said, the hypothetical proponent of homosexuality will present their points in italics.

Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?

Jesus is the son of God.  He created the heavens and the earth.  He also suffered unspeakable pain to provide a way for every human being to escape sin and death.  I would not say that Jesus has a vendetta against homosexuals.  He asks all people to cease committing sinful acts as a means of accepting his power to save us.  Homosexuality is one of an innumerable list of sinful acts.

You just think that being gay is wrong because of a less than 2000 year old book called the Bible... but even Christians that all claim to believe in the Bible can't agree on how to interpret it.

That is not the only reason we believe homosexuality is sinful, but scripture should certainly contribute to our stance.  It may be true that not all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible, but the fundamental concepts that Jesus is the son of God and that through him all people can be saved are not disputed.

So you all believe in Jesus, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Bible.

You claim to read the Bible even though you discredit its contents?  I find that unlikely... but I suppose that's not important.  Of course you are meaning that the words of Christ as represented in the four Gospels do not explicitly define homosexuality as sinful.  Of course, prophets existed before Christ's mortal ministry that declared "thus saith the Lord" and spoke on behalf of Christ.  After his mortal ministry ended, he directed his Apostles to speak on his behalf.  In other words, prophets and apostles spoke in the name of Jesus when they condemned homosexuality.  (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27)

But the law of Moses also condemned eating pork, and you do that...  Do you really think everything in the Old Testament still applies?

Of course not.  Christians do not practice animal sacrifice, even though it was explicitly commanded.  Also... pork is delicious.

And what about the New Testament?  Paul said that women should wear only modest clothes and be silent in 1 Timothy 2:9-15...  Do you believe that?

Is it so wrong to ask women not to dress like prostitutes?  Also, Paul was not singling out women only is his preaching, was he?  Have you read the rest of 1 Timothy?  Have you read the strict conditions he gave the men in the church?  To answer your question though, Christians do not typically believe that women must be silent.  I have no problem with women speaking.

So you're just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to follow...  Why can't homosexuals ignore the verses that condemn what they naturally want to do?

So Christians are limited only to the Bible?  Is that what you think?  As you pointed out, it's less than 2000 years old, and people have been serving the Lord a lot longer than that.  As much as Christians love the Bible, it was possible for Peter and the early Apostles to be Christians without it.  It was also possible for Moses to follow Christ without it, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Before, during, and after the Bible, God spoke through prophets and apostles.  That hasn't gone away because we've "already had a bunch of them"...

So is that the Pope?  Is that someone else?  How do you know which prophet is right?

You ask that as if this is a new problem... as if true prophets were always easy to spot...  Jeremiah 23 is worth reading.  Also, there is a reason that Jesus told people to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15).  The existence of inconsistent sources does not mean there are no sources of God's word.

But you didn't answer my question... How do you know which prophet is right?

Following a prophet is always a matter of faith... but God can help.  (James 1:5-6)  Prayer should always be a part of the process.  Think also of how Peter became convinced that Jesus was the actual son of God... (Matthew 16:17-18)  Or how the disciples on the road to Emmaus perceived that they had spoken to the resurrected Lord by saying that their hearts "burned within them"? (Luke 24:32)

If I am supposed to follow my feelings, then I don't feel like there's anything wrong with being gay.  What harm does it do?

That is exactly the reason that God still uses prophets instead of explicitly telling every person everything.  By choosing a small number of individuals as prophets and communicating a lot to them, and only communicating to you who is a prophet, God creates an environment that rewards those that seek him.  The point of revelation was never to learn every detail about every behavior, thought, or deed...  It is to help identify a source that represents divine knowledge.  The requirement for faith or need to work together is maintained in this environment.

You didn't answer my question again.  What, specifically, is harmful about homosexuality?

Well, what if I told you that homosexual acts cause tremendous suffering, but it is not immediately detectable?

That's not specific.

We'll get to the specifics in a moment, first, how do you know something is harmful?

Visible negative effects prove something is harmful.

That's the real issue then, isn't it?  Whether or not something can be perceived doesn't necessarily mean it is or isn't harmful.  Being unable to see a sniper does not make him less lethal.

That's a bad example.  You can immediately see the negative effects of a sniper after he shoots someone.  You can't see any immediate negative effects from homosexuals.

How about radiation?  How about other diseases?  Handling objects that are contaminated with these things may not cause immediate harm, but over time, they do.

Yes, but we know through scientific methods about how these things are harmful...

So before scientific methods were discovered, were these things still harmful?

Yes.

So you're saying that we have discovered every method for perceiving things that are harmful?  If I can't immediately show you the harm of something, it is not harmful?

Well...

Or what about things that can appear subjectively harmful.  Take smoking and drinking.  Science tells us that these habits increase the risk of organ failure or cancer, however, I have met elderly individuals that have smoked and drank for their lives and appear to live in relative comfort.  Does that mean smoking and drinking is not harmful to some individuals?

Well...

Also, how harmful does something have to be in order to be bad?  A person that undergoes a surgical procedure accepts a degree of risk, and accepts that instruments will be used to damage their bodies.  Of course, they are hoping that the end result will help more than it will harm... but is accepting the harm wrong?

That's a different kind of harm...  It's more like potential harm or risk...  Humanity doesn't stay in plastic bubbles because things *might* be harmful.

But when you asked me to prove specifically that something is visibly harmful, you didn't communicate any of these details that might affect that.  Also, do you look both ways before crossing the street?  Do you reduce your speed when driving on icy roads?  Do you fasten your safety belt?  You probably already do things to protect yourself against potential harm.

I don't see a potential harm in letting homosexuals marry...

I don't see a harm in leaving the marriage laws alone...  How can you be certain you are seeing the greater harm?

Don't shift the burden of proof to me... You said you had a specific example...

True enough.  Jesus Christ is the example.

What?  What does that even mean?

Jesus Christ suffered because of the sins of all individuals.  In other words, every thought, word, and deed that was wrong that ever was or ever will be done exacted a physical harmful toll on Jesus Christ.  The pressure was so intense that blood squeezed through his skin.  (Luke 22:44)  I would say that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be able to tell us what is and isn't sinful because he suffered for all sins.

Yes, well, I don't believe in Jesus...  Prove to me in some other way that homosexuality is bad.

You believe that mankind is the result of evolutionary processes?

Yes.  I don't believe in creationism; We evolved.

Fine then.  So you're saying that the processes whereby mankind has become the dominant species on the planet are mutations and natural selection?

That's right.

So is homosexuality a natural mutation?

I believe it's natural.  I think that Christians only call it bad because they are clinging to their traditions about Jesus, when there is no evidence that Jesus was divine.

The divinity of Christ is a separate conversation, so for the sake of our conversation, let's pretend that you're right about the origins of humanity.  Let's pretend that humans are an advanced animal that is more fit to survive than other animals.  How can homosexuality be a natural positive force if it drives individuals toward behavior that will prevent them from passing on their genetic code to future generations?

I... well...

So if it doesn't contribute to the fitness of an organism, the mutation must be called a disorder.

I never thought of it like that...

And if it is a disorder, than it would be in the best interest of our species to call it and treat it as such... right?

But what if it's nature's way of controlling the human population because we are abusing the earth?

So you're saying that homosexuals have been selected by nature to be removed from the gene pool?  You're saying that nature has declared them unfit to pass on their genetics?

When you say it like that it sounds kinda bad...

Ultimately, homosexuality is either wrong on religious grounds, or it is a disorder on evolutionary grounds.  Am I missing any options?

Yes, you're a bully and Jesus said not to judge others.

You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I am saying other people are sinful?  I will concede that point.  Only Jesus Christ was sinless.  That doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to accept sinful behavior for the sake of consistency.  It does mean that I should try and be less hypocritical myself by repenting of my sins.

Yeah, so take that bully!  You're a judgmental person because you think homosexuality is bad!  Also, judgmental people will go to hell!

You don't see any irony or hypocrisy in what you're saying?

I see your point.  I will now rethink how I approach Christians who object to homosexuality.



Ok, so I've never heard anyone change their position, and I doubt a blog post by an obscure and abrasive guy is going to actually make anyone rethink their position or approach.  One way or the other, it is becoming more important for Christians to understand their own beliefs.  Anyone that truthfully wishes to follow Jesus should be a bit more comprehensive in their quest than a few bible references from memes or clever sayings from protest banners.  Religion is not something to throw out when it challenges your views... religion should be the defining belief system that guides and governs all aspects of one's life.  Find out for yourself using all of your resources what God thinks... because God is never wrong.

Let homosexuals into scouting!

I have seen and heard a lot of conversation regarding the Boy Scouts voting to accept homosexuals as leaders and members.  I have made no secret of my opposition to almost everything associated with homosexuality, or my stance that homosexual behavior is wrong. 

With respect to the decision of the Boy Scouts, I feel to withhold my opposition.  After careful consideration, I have found I have a difficult time opposing the inclusion of homosexuals within the ranks of the Boy Scouts of America.  That's right, I think I am in favor of this.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not changing my stance on the fact that homosexuality is wrong, nor am I renouncing the fact that those who encourage its practice or approve of altering marriage laws to include other groups are misguided.  I view homosexuality as a corrupt practice.  Its corrupt nature is precisely why it fits well with Boy Scouts.

I recall being involved in the Scouting program.  I was the beneficiary of dedicated leaders who honestly worked to help young men develop skills and understand principles that are potentially important.  At one point in the past, I had the ambition of becoming an Eagle Scout.  Thanks to the support of parents and leaders, I was able to advance to the rank of First Class. 

At this point, the nature of advancement changed.  The requirements involved waiting for periods of time and earning numbers of merit badges, which was not the emphasis of prior ranks.  At first, this concept was appealing.  It seemed as though advancement had opened up, and there was choice involved in learning skills and principles tailored to personal interests.  At this point, there was also an increased involvement in Scout Camps.

In these new environments that were less structured, I had the opportunity to meet a much larger group of scouts and leaders.  Gone were the times of being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, or friendly.  The scout motto "Be Prepared" seemed to have a universally understood and unspoken addendum of "to lie, cheat, and steal your way to merit badges."  Merit badge "councilors" signed cards as though they were liberally handing out autographs.  I would be remiss if I did not confess that some of the merit badges that I "earned" were obtained using the indulgence of such individuals rather than acquisition of skills and knowledge.

I had been shielded from the details of the costs associated with uniforms, badges, and participation, but as I became older, the existence of the "Friends of Scouting" movements that went around begging for additional money to fund camps that perpetuated everything corrupt in the scouting organization.  A scout, I had been told, was supposed to be thrifty, but I discovered that the upper echelons of the organization had more greed than thrift.

As freely as camp councilors pardoned themselves from actually instructing young scouts in the skills and principles required for awards, they seemed compulsively obsessed with practicing strange ceremonies and rituals as though they had Native American heritage.  Perhaps there were some that did have such heritage, but the majority of them did not.

I obtained the rank of "Star" scout before I determined that my time was better spent away from those that loved tight green scouting shorts.  I was also gifted in that I did not have parents who were determined to measure their success by my scouting rank, or who were so determined that I obtain the Eagle Scout award that they performed the work on my behalf.

Though the LDS church has been a longtime ally of the scouting program, I confess that I have secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) wished that they would sever this relationship.  Certainly the stance of Mormons, Catholics, and other Protestants on homosexuality has been a contributing factor in the Boy Scout organizations longtime policy of rejecting homosexual leadership.  There have been several cases where this policy has been challenged in the past, and it seems to have been close enough that the LDS church's young men program (Duty to God) was revised to provide a scout-like path.  Of course, the leadership was quick to say that this was not a replacement program for boy scouts, and that work towards an Eagle Scout award would fill much of the requirement for the Duty to God award, but the fact that the award represented a framework that could easily replace scouting was impossible to ignore.

As noble as the Scouting program's origins may have been, I am in favor of severing the connection to what has become a parasitic and corrupt group.  Homosexuality may be the catalyst that allows religious organizations to treat BSA for the cancer it is.

Anatomy of a High Council Talk

High Council Sunday...  perhaps the most yawn-inducing event in all of Mormonism.  Of course there are some individuals with this calling that do have some speaking ability, but it seems that the vast majority of gentlemen that address LDS congregations monthly are not chosen for their speaking abilities.

 I frequently wonder if some of them know how terrible their talks are.  When the 12-year-old youth speaker outshines them with a monotone reading of a random New Era article, it makes the audience wonder if they intend to give a horrible talk as some sort of punishment.  Perhaps our ward's contributions to the Boy Scouts were low...  perhaps we had poor attendance at the Stake fireside, or Stake Priesthood meeting...  Perhaps the Stake Presidency just hates our ward...  Wonder no longer; today we will analyze the anatomy of a High Council talk!

The format for this lighthearted analysis will consist of the high council speaker's words in bold and their thoughts in italics.

Wow, that youth speaker had way better material than me...  maybe if I just take two minutes to arrange my papers, I can avoid an awkward transition.  Hey!  I remember this paper, it was something I doodled instead of preparing a talk!  Best decision ever!  Oh crap!  A lot of people are staring at me...  They don't look happy either...  what can I say so that they never find out I was assigned to this ward because the Stake presidency can't stand them?  Oh I know!

Brothers and Sisters, I bring you the love of the Stake Presidency...

Whew!  That was close.  Now I can just babble about them for a couple minutes...  I just have to remember not to bring up the fact that this ward didn't contribute enough to Boy Scouts so I don't offend anyone.  Although if they haven't already been offended by how tight an green my Scout shorts are, maybe it won't hurt...  I'm getting sidetracked though...  the number of screaming children has doubled since I started...  I know!  I can just tell them I worked hard on preparing my talk!

So anyway...  I have been given an important topic today...  it is the topic of prayer!

Heh!  That did it!  They know they will feel guilty if they don't listen to a talk about prayer!  Crap... what do I say now?

When I got this topic, I was really excited...

Why are everyone's eyes glazing over?  Do they know that I was lying about being excited about prayer?  Heck, last night I fell asleep after 2 minutes of praying and woke up in a pool of my own drool 2 hours later...

I remember when I was a boy, my parents taught me to pray...

Or more accurately, they would spank me when I prayed for the Lions to win more football games instead of grandma to get better...

It's a lesson I've never forgotten...

 Unless it's football season...

It reminds me of the scripture story about ...

Come on brain, don't fail me now...

Enoch..  who prayed all day and all night...

What are those primary kids whispering?  Did I say something wrong?  Enos...that's what they're saying?  Ah crap...

Oh right...  Enos...  your kids are smarter than I am...

Condescending brats!

Anyway, Enos prayed all day and all night, and...

It looks like everyone is calming down now.  I can just keep spouting random details about Enos and I will have like five minutes left.  I wonder how much time I've used.  Probably at least seven minutes out of my fifteen...  I'll just look at the clock...  oh crap, only two minutes!?!?!?  But it felt like forever...  I wonder if that's how the congregation feels...  nah...  they love me!

And so my Uncle Frank's cancer got worse, and we didn't know what to do...

What am I even saying?  How did I get to Uncle Frank's cancer?  Oh well, it has a lot of details, so that's sure to keep people occupied...

 And he was coughing out blood and he had difficulty using the toilet...  his vision wasn't great either, which made it difficult for him to enjoy his favorite game show, the Price is Right...

Heh!  That was a great show...  "Come on down!!!!"


And anyway, the cows would kick over the milk bucket and spill it all over...  I would get so mad at them...

Is that the sound of applause?  I know they must love me, but we probably shouldn't applaud in Sacrament meeting...  oh wait...  that's snoring...

And so that's why shopping on Sunday is bad...  Sure, I enjoy a doughnut as much as the next guy...  in fact, my wife tells me I enjoy them a bit more than the next guy...   but I have a testimony that the word of wisdom helps us in our lives....

I'm on a roll now! Everything is coming together now!

...and that's when my son told me that he appreciated my example...  and I'm not saying that to boast, I'm saying that the Savior has blessed me...

...probably more than you...  Yeah, I'm both awesome AND humble!

...and I loved my mother...  she was the best...  even with her dementia and when she started fires in the care center that we sent her to...

Man I hated that care center...  I hope my kids send me someplace nicer when I lose it...

...and that's what happens when you try to go fishing without bait...  I mean what did you expect when...

What's that on my shoulder?  Oh...  it's the Bishop tapping his watch...  well he doesn't have to glare at me...

Well brothers and sisters...  Bishop is tapping his watch so I guess I should wrap it up...  I just want to bear my testimony of prayer.  I love prayer...  and that reminds me of when my daughter was sick and she was just puking all over the place...  it was the really gross...

Oh and that's just like when my sister ate that chicken that we had left out too long...  that was awful...

...so it's a good thing I had health insurance...  it's also a good thing to...

What now?!?!  Oh it's the Bishop tapping his watch again...  no wonder the Stake President doesn't like this ward...  they don't even let you finish your train of thought...

 Well... anyway...  that's my testimony of prayer...

I think that talk went pretty well!  I'm sure the reason all the people in the congregation are sleeping is because of the early meeting schedule...

Obviously this account is a bit tongue in cheek... but the kernel of truth at its core is that everyone could benefit from a little preparation, or with a greater understanding of oration.  Obviously no one is going to be as good as Jesus, who astonished people with his power and authority, (Matthew 7:28-29) but it should be the practice of Christians to try to connect with their audience when expressing the importance of his gospel.

It is also understood that there are some people who will not accept or appreciate the truth regardless of the presentation method, but for those that are sitting in a church congregation, this is likely a very small number.

If you are assigned to give a talk, consider the negative feelings that come on high council Sunday, and try and avoid pointless details and incoherent ramblings.  No one cares about how you prepare a talk unless it is really really good, and if they think it is, they will ask you.  Don't waste time on that subject during the talk.  Be mindful of the time.  Even great orators that can hold an audience's attention for long stretches know the value of being concise.  It is better to have a short talk with value and substance than a long talk that will be forgotten before the benediction.

 Ultimately, know one is perfect, but it doesn't hurt to try to be better....