Confessions of a Creationist

The Winter Olympic games are nearing.  I look forward with anticipation to seeing talented athletes perform amazing feats, and with the hope that my country, the United States, will win many competitions.  There is, however, an aspect of the winter games that I do not enjoy: the artistic competitions.

Events such as speed skating have measurable results.  Though at times, special cameras and equipment is necessary to determine what racer finished first, the method for winning is always crossing the finish line first.  Similarly, ice hockey rewards the team with the most goals at the end with victory.

Events such as figure skating or "ice dancing" are distasteful to me because they have arbitrary elements.  The objective is not to skate faster, farther, or higher, but to skate "better" than the other competitors.  Of course, this does not mean that the competitors are not impressive, or that they are not athletic... they can be both.  It means that their events should not be considered competitive sports.  They are artistic performances.

While it is possible for some performances to be better than others, the criteria for "better" always has an arbitrary element.  Whether the competition is "American Idol" or figure skating, these types of competitions have always seemed a bit distasteful to me.  To some degree, I have an affinity for the definitive, objective, and the measurable.  In other words... I like science!

I was always fascinated with learning about biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy... and while repetitive practice became tedious, the concepts of mathematics have always interested me.  The names of planets, elements, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, theorems, and rules were valued acquisitions even from before I started attending school.

The first time I recall learning something scientific that I disliked was in my sixth grade class when the curriculum turned to evolution.  Every image of the ape-like homo habilis or homo australopithecus filled me with a distaste that was practically instinctive.  I recall one of my fellow students suggesting that the pictures "looked like monkeys."  The teacher expressed that they were ancestors of modern humans.  Something inside me snapped, and I recall angrily saying that "my dad is not a monkey, and his dad was not a monkey."  The next hour was filled with attempts to calm everyone down.

In hindsight, my outburst was not based on evidence, science, or anything measurable or definitive.  It was raw and emotional.  I just knew that there was something wrong about it, but I had no idea how to articulate my thoughts.

Of course, part of the reason that I found the curriculum so distasteful was my firm belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)  From my youth, I was taught that humanity represent the children of God, and that people are not animals.

As I have gotten older, I have learned much more about the theories that support evolution.  I have learned about the processes of natural selection, and how they impact changes in allele frequency.  I have learned that speciation is not as simple as some make it out to be (for example, donkeys and horses may be considered different species because they produce sterile offspring, mules... but organisms that reproduce asexually cannot be separated into species using this method).

Though my belief that God created heaven and earth has not diminished, if I am honest, I am forced to confess that I have grown to like the science behind evolution.

That having been said, I have also grown to understand more of the reason the concept was so distasteful in my youth.  And although I could state that evolution is not based on observable evidence, or how it assumes that the basic characteristics of life have not changed since life began (such as reproduction and death), if I am honest, I am forced to confess that my skepticism toward evolution has little to do with science.

My beef with evolution is Godlessness.  Of course I know that not all evolutionists are atheists, and I suppose it is possible that not all atheists are evolutionists, but I have known many atheists to use scientific evidence that supports evolution not as a tool of enlightenment or to express interest in fossils, genetics, or taxonomy... but rather as a weapon to mock and belittle those that believe in God.

In other words, many Christians are made to feel the argument being made is this: people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because evolution.

There is no other scientific principle or theory that I have seen used the way evolution is.  No one says:
people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because fundamental theorem of calculus.

The implications of Godlessness are not scientific either.  They are ethical and philosophical.  If humans are animals, and other animals kill one another (whether for food, for mating, or for other competition), how can we say that it is wrong to kill someone?  Without some higher purpose, what exactly is immoral about human cruelty?

Of course, most secularists are not interested in intellectual honesty when it comes to questioning the instability of their moral foundation... but those that are reveal the awful truth about Godlessness.  For example, rabid atheist activist Richard Dawkins said this:
"I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today" (http://twitchy.com/2013/09/10/mild-pedophilia-cockroach-richard-dawkins-brazenly-defends-sexual-abuse-of-children/)  He later went on to say that a former teacher that abused him and his classmates did not do any "lasting harm."

When the standards of right and wrong can shift toward what is convenient for society, there is no evil that is off limits.  When life has no purpose, then there is no good reason to avoid exploiting or abusing others for personal gain.  Arguments about the "good of society" being a motivating factor for moral behavior justify wrongs perpetrated against those that society dislikes and/or devalues.

Ultimately, if right and wrong are relative concepts, then crimes such as genocide or child abuse are given equal moral strength to children being forced to eat their vegetables... as they are both only "called bad".

Having said this, I certainly understand the legitimate feelings of those that do not want creation taught because it is not scientific.  I would prefer that figure skating not exist in the winter Olympic Games for similar reasons.  I do not however think it is appropriate to belittle those that enjoy figure skating, or who participate in the events... and if I am honest... I have to confess that sometimes the music and the skill can even be good, and that American gold medals make me smile regardless of the event.

I would suggest that persons who find creationism distasteful might similarly find value in an ethical foundation that believers aspire to build where honesty, kindness, and virtue are inseparably connected to the purpose of life.  Just because it is not based on observation or hard evidence does not mean it is worthy of universal condemnation...  In fact... if everyone is honest... they must confess that there is beauty and goodness that comes from faith in God.

Agency and the freedom to choose

An important concept in Mormon theology is that we lived with God before we were born.  The implications of this idea include:

1. We are literal children of God

2. Men and women are brothers and sisters to one another

Loving God and our neighbors as ourselves as Christ taught (Matthew 22:37-39) is the natural extension of this idea, as is the importance of family.

It is also understood that during our pre-earth life, there was a great war between the followers of our Heavenly Father, and the followers of Lucifer.  (Revelation 12:7-9)  The source of this conflict involved the destiny of humanity.  Scripture from the Pearl of Great Price presents additional detail:

" And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice." (Moses 4:1-4)

The concept of agency is something frequently taught in LDS lessons and talks.  The idea that people are "agents unto themselves" and that they are free to "act and not be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day" is fundamental to understanding the purpose of life on earth.  (Moses 6:56, 2 Nephi 2:26)

As important as the concept of free will is as identified in these passages, it is not the same as agency, even though they are frequently used synonymously.

I have at times heard people talk about using their agency to make choices about what kind of food they want to eat or what destination they prefer for vacation.  Certainly it is possible that some of these choices involve agency, but these choices do not really portray agency in the most important sense.

Before discussing the truth behind this concept, it is important to highlight the three great powers that influence the world:

* Humanity.  It is not difficult to see the amazing accomplishments of mankind in the age of information.  Powerful computer processors are available in devices as small as phones and watches that harness numerous technologies for tasks as simple as "liking" a cheeseburger.  Humanity has harnessed power from various sources and constructed great buildings, composed beautiful music, written moving books, and launched probes beyond our atmosphere to study the universe. Mankind has demonstrated great power...but in spite of our power, humanity is the weakest of the three.

* Satan.  Having accumulated experience from mankind's beginnings, the power of evil is adept at manipulating men.  Great societies have crumbled due to the persistent and patient efforts of those that love to see humanity fail.  In the shadows, he persuades people to secretly steal and murder sometimes without even knowing they are being persuaded.  Occasionally, he does risk using his full power.  Joseph Smith saw it when he prayed to God.  He noted "I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being" (Joseph Smith History 1:16)  Only the power of God himself could free him from the powers of evil.  Humanity, by itself, is powerless against Satan.

* God.  The great achievements of humanity and the subtle machinations of evil are nothing compared to the power of the Most High.  He that forged the earth and became mortal only to conquer death represents the ultimate strength in existence.  He is omniscient, omnipotent, and his power is omnipresent.

By understanding these forces, it becomes clear that being an agent of oneself is extremely limited.  The real power of agency comes not from making trivial choices... but from becoming an agent of a higher power.

Becoming an agent of evil is actually quite easy.  People can do this without even realizing it.  The person that encourages dishonesty, turns a blind eye to cruelty, and practices selfishness can gain power.  Marriages and families can be destroyed when seemingly innocent indulgences and poor decisions win over selflessness and integrity.  Greed, lust, wrath, pride, envy, gluttony, and sloth do not encompass every ill...  Jesus taught "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat" (Matthew 7:13)  Constant effort may be necessary to avoid becoming a destructive influence.  

Becoming an agent of God is simple, but not nearly as easy.  In the Book of Mormon, prophets counseled men to "come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness" and " if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not." (Moroni 10:32, Mosiah 4:30)  Many prophets have indicated that it is a strait and narrow path that leads to God.  Christ was clear in declaring that the only way to our Heavenly Father was through him. (John 14:6)

Although the path is substantially more difficult, and the rewards are not always immediately visible, the true power that God intended for his sons and daughters comes from becoming the kind of person that Christ was.  If we are the children of God, then it is as the Apostle Paul noted: "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:17)

Agency in the sense of becoming an agent of God himself, is the very purpose for which humanity is on the earth.  Agency is the slow process by which bad men can become good men, and good men can become better men.  Agency is the purpose of the conflict between good and evil.  Agency is the promise that Christ gives to the faithful... for "he came unto his own, but his own received him not.  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12)

The Condescension of God

The Christmas season is time of gift giving, a tradition that stems from the magi who traveled from the east and gave the Christ child gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  Contemporarily, children look under trees with anticipation of receiving games, toys, and sweets.  The true root of gift giving is a much older story however.  Before men were born; before the world was forged, there was another gift for which every child of God yearned, and our Heavenly Father wanted very much to give it to us. The gift is immortality and eternal life, but it is not a gift that is easily received.  In fact, almost no one was eligible to receive the greatest of all the gifts of God.  Our Heavenly Father called for the sacrifice of one that would be able to not only save himself, but to condescend below all things, that he might lift the sons of men above all things.  Jesus Christ stood and declared “Here am I… send me.”  As our Father accepted him as worthy and able, he became to us a God, the only hope of salvation, and the joy of mans’ desiring.

Even children have the benefit of Christmas traditions that teach at an early age the characters of the Nativity story.  We have known from our youth of Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, the wise men, and the Christ child… but what if we had not known?  What if we had to be taught these things without the benefit of Christmas symbols?  Nephi was a prophet that lived 600 years before the birth of Christ.  He did not have any holiday traditions when he was taught the Christmas story.  An angel of God showed him a vision and asked what he beheld.  He replied, “A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.”  The angel asked a profound question… “Knowest thou the condescension of God?”  Nephi replied, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.”  The angel then showed him the virgin bearing a child in her arms.  With a single concise phrase, Nephi learned the true meaning of Christmas: “Behold, the condescension of God!”

Most people eagerly anticipate Christmas day, perhaps because of proximity to friends and loved ones, perhaps because of the hope of a chocolate-filled stocking, or something special underneath the tree.  The first Christmas was also anticipated greatly, but for other reasons.  The people in the promised land that believed in Jesus had been given that day as a deadline to justify their faith, and if the prophesied signs of Christ’s birth did not appear, they would be killed.  How anxious they must have been to see that their faith was not in vain.  But even as the wicked prepared to spill the blood of the righteous, the prayers of Christians reached the heavens.  When the sun set that night, the light did not wane away into the darkness of night.  In the very act of condescending, the light of the world saved those that had faith in him.

Christmas does not always bring tidings of comfort and joy.  Every year, people brave crowds at local retailers, and amid the pushing, shoving, and dirty looks, they seek meaningful gifts for loved ones.  Husbands scratch their heads and ask themselves "If I buy these shoes for her, do I also have to buy those earrings?"  Wives seek the assistance of unmotivated seasonal sales associates to ask "Do I need a nunchuck controller with the Legend of Zelda?"  It is not difficult to become so preoccupied with the hustle and bustle that Christ becomes disassociated with the majority of our Christmas season.  Perhaps it was the same hustle and bustle that caused innkeepers of Bethlehem to experience difficulty in finding room for a young expectant mother and her husband.  Perhaps they thought they were doing the best they could when they sent Mary to a pen of animals, it was tax season after all.  Whatever the reasons, when Mary gave birth to her son, she had only swaddling clothes in a stable to warm him.  When she laid him down, the trough where animals chewed hay was his bed.  While men of wealth and prestige sat in the company of peers, the King of Kings moved from a throne in the high heavens in the presence of our Heavenly Father, to a stable in the company of livestock.  Somehow, when everyone else was busy, the most High God descended down to the most humble place on Earth.

Even to the adults that understand the principles of electricity, and know the effort of stringing them up, there is a feeling of happiness that Christmas lights bring.  To children who do not understand these things, it is even more so.  It is not so much because understanding ruins things, but perhaps because innocence is so frequently accompanied by humility, which magnifies appreciation.  Even in ancient times it was so.  SPQR are the letters that every soldier's banner bore in the land to which Christ came.  Senatus Populusque Romanus... The senate and the people of Rome.  The empire was arguably the most powerful and prestigious that was ever on the earth, and it was filled with wise, powerful, strong, and wealthy people; and none more so than its emperor, Caesar Augustus.  However, it was not Caesar, or any of his appointed, or any philosophers or warriors to whom God sent word of his condescension.  Luke tells us that there were in the same country shepherds, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them.  And they were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them, fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David, a savior, which is Christ, the Lord.  And this shall be a sign unto you: ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

As commercial and cold as the retail experience of Christmas can be, the season also brings a renewed desire to help those in need.  Few experiences are as memorable as seeing the gratitude of someone receiving the very thing they require.  Perhaps there are those among us who have played the roles both of giver, and of recipient.  Called by some the true meaning of Christmas, it is in a truer sense the true meaning of Christianity.  Because he condescended below all men, he knows what it means to be hungry, to be hurt, to be fatigued.  He knows what it means to be lonely, and hated, and betrayed.  Is it any wonder he declared that "by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples: if ye have love one to another"?

There is a Christmas hymn in which a man sorrows that "Hate is strong, and mocks the song of peace on Earth, good will to men..."  He is answered by Christmas bells, that seem to say with faith and power "God is not dead, nor doth he sleep."  Two of the characters most forgotten in the old Christmas story are the two that knew that best.  Anna and Simeon saw no angel, they did not follow a new star in the east; instead they stayed at the temple.  They did not need the persuasion of fictional spirits of Christmas Past, Present, or Future; they followed the Spirit of God, and because of their faith, Christ came to them.  Two thousand years later, the same spirit that guided them pleads with us not to despair... for God is not dead, nor doth he sleep.  The Holy Spirit of God guides us, just as it did Anna and Simeon; and it brings the power of Jesus Christ across time to our hearts here and now: not just a story of a child in a manger, or a choir of angels in the fields near Bethlehem, but the power of his atoning sacrifice.  And it is the faith, penitence, and humility of men that give purpose to his sacrifice... for it is only with our consent that we can be redeemed.  My brothers and sisters... especially during this time when we celebrate the coming of Christ... let us be as Anna and Simeon and follow the guidance of his Holy Spirit.  Let our penitence give cause to his sacrifice.  Let us do all things that we might have the gift for which we sought in that grand council before the world was: the gift of eternal life!  Oh come all ye faithful... joyful and triumphant...  Oh come let us adore him!  Come and behold him: born the King of Angels!  Come and celebrate the condescension of God!

Mormons believe God sends prophets... but not always...

Frequently when the topic of lessons in Mormon Sunday School classes turns to revelation or to prophets, a part of President Hugh B. Brown's general conference talk in October 1967.  Sunday School manuals present the material as follows:


Before President Brown was called as a General Authority, he spent some time in England working as a barrister, or attorney. He befriended a prominent Englishman who was a member of the House of Commons and a former justice of the supreme court of Britain. The two men often discussed various subjects, including religion.

In 1939, when it appeared that World War II would soon break out, the English gentleman called Brother Brown into his office. He asked Brother Brown to defend his religious beliefs in the same way he would discuss a legal problem. In a general conference address, President Brown recalled part of their conversation:

“I began by asking, ‘May I proceed, sir, on the assumption that you are a Christian?’

“‘I am.’

“‘I assume that you believe in the Bible—the Old and New Testaments?’

“‘I do!’”

The English gentleman said that he believed the biblical accounts of the Lord speaking to prophets. However, he maintained that such communication had stopped soon after the Resurrection of Christ. The conversation continued with another question from Brother Brown: “Why do you think it stopped?”

“‘I can’t say.’

“‘You think that God hasn’t spoken since then?’

“‘Not to my knowledge.’

“‘May I suggest some possible reasons why he has not spoken. Perhaps it is because he cannot. He has lost the power.’

“He said, ‘Of course that would be blasphemous.’

“‘Well, then, if you don’t accept that, perhaps he doesn’t speak to men because he doesn’t love us anymore. He is no longer interested in the affairs of men.’

“‘No,’ he said, ‘God loves all men, and he is no respecter of persons.’

“‘Well, then, … the only other possible answer as I see it is that we don’t need him. We have made such rapid strides in education and science that we don’t need God any more.’

“And then he said, and his voice trembled as he thought of impending war, ‘Mr. Brown, there never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why he doesn’t speak.’

“My answer was, ‘He does speak, he has spoken; but men need faith to hear him’” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1967, 117–18; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1967, 36–37)


This experience articulates the beliefs of members of the LDS church effectively.  Mormons believe the need for continuing revelation is obvious, and that it is consistent with the patterns and practices that God has always used.

As a member of the LDS church, I have always been surprised that the previously mentioned argument and associated train of thought has seemed to go unchallenged.  Not that there are flaws in the argument, but that the position of the Mormon church is not so very different from the judge with whom President Brown spoke.

A fundamental aspect of Mormon faith is that the line of authority and organization that existed in the days of Christ was taken from the earth.  Arguments that there is an unbroken line of authority mainly reside in the claims of Catholicism who maintain Papal authority was established with the Apostle Peter, however, the organization of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers (see Ephesians 4:11-14) was obviously not maintained.

Protestants must accept that there was a falling away (see 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) because every one of their churches was established in protest of Papal authority.

Restorationists, such as Mormons, believe that the power of God was taken from the earth in the early centuries after Christ.  Apostles, prophets, and priests did not exist, or if they did, they did not act as they had in ages past under the authority of God.

The question then becomes this for Protestants and Mormons:

Why did God stop speaking to men?

Is it because God lost the power to do so in the dark ages?
Of course not; that would be blasphemous.

Is it because God did not love the people that lived in those times?  Is it possible that their lives had no purpose, and that he was unconcerned with the plagues, wars, and famines that afflicted them?
No.  God loves all men and he is no respecter of persons.

Is it because in the dark ages that humanity had made such rapid strides in education, science, technology, and life that they did not need God?  Is it possible that only as ages went on that God realized mankind again needed guidance, or that we have fallen from the superior state that we had in medieval times?
Certainly not.  Perhaps more so in the middle ages than in any other age, mankind needed the voice of God.

Then why did God stop speaking to men?  If continuing revelation is so critical to humanity, why did he withhold it for more than a thousand years?

Of course, the answer to the question emphasizes another fundamental belief in Mormonism: just because someone died without learning the truth, does not mean they are forever damned.

Jesus himself taught this:
"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32)

Martha thought that Jesus was too late to heal her brother Lazarus because he had died:
"Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die..." (John 11:21-26)

The conclusion is powerful.  Not even death can separate God from blessing his beloved sons and daughters.  Simply because people lived a thousand years ago (or even many thousands of years ago) does not mean that they are out of God's reach.  The answer to the question why did God stop speaking to men? is that he didn't.

The Apostle Peter gave insight as to what Jesus did in the short time between his death and resurrection:
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison... For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18-19, 4:6)

Modern revelation adds to this truth.  President Joseph F. Smith taught the following:
"But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel. Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (D&C 138:30-34)

As indicated above, vital ordinances that require a body can be performed vicariously for those who have died, that they too might have hope to take part in the resurrection of the saints:
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29)

Jesus will not let little things like thousands of years or death stand in his way of his work.  Though there was a lack organization and priesthood power on the earth during the great apostasy, the Lord continued to speak to people via missionaries in the spirit world, and offers to them today opportunity to show the signs of baptism, confirmation, priesthood, and other ordinances through the efforts of his followers today.

Christ has the power and the love to ensure that all people have access to his message.  God does send prophets, but not always: those that call themselves Christians also have the responsibility to help ourselves, our neighbors, and those that have gone before us.  Modern Christians can help the living and the dead so that when Christ returns, it will truly be to save us all.

Government shutdowns and doing the church's job

Social media has been talking about the government shutdown for several days.  More conservative posts will vilify Senate Majority Leader Reid and President Obama.  More liberal posts will vilify Senator Cruz, Senator Paul, and Senator Lee.  The majority of posts in the middle will blame all of congress, and blame their apparent lack of ability to compromise.

Of course, the truth is that congress actually represents the views of the people in the United States.  The liberals were specifically elected to enact social government programs and expand the role of government in providing goods and services to individuals in lower income brackets.  Conservatives in congress were specifically elected to stop the expansion of government that has happened under both Republicans and Democrats since the 1930s.  If either side of the aisle agrees to a compromise, they will essentially be breaking the promises made to their constituents.

It is easy to say that congress is filled with people that will not compromise, but the harder truth is that the United States of America is filled with people that are polarized beyond the point of compromise.  Ideals of more government and less government are mutually exclusive.  Blaming a government of representatives returns the blame to the people who are being represented.

The real question is how did the United States get to the point where we could not agree on government?  I suggest that the root of the issue is that the government has progressively taken on more tasks that have been in the domain of religion.  Well-meaning liberals want the government to aid the poor using income from the rich.  Certainly there are tremendous gaps in the income between the wealthiest 1% and the 99% of the population below as the "occupy" movements point out.  It is not difficult to see why people feel that this is unfair, and that those who are struggling might benefit from the resources of those who are not struggling.  In the past, it was the role of churches to persuade the population that compassion for their fellow men was as critical to their well-being as it was to the well-being of those in need.  In modern times, the government passes laws to try to take more and more of the money of those in high income brackets to fund programs intended to benefit those in lower income brackets.  In other words, the state has become like a mandatory church.

Liberals have argued that if the government did not compel the wealthy to contribute to the poor, then they would not do it.  Certainly, that is possible.  A person granted freedom does not always use their freedom to make responsible decisions.  In spite of this, there exist a large number of foundations, charities, and churches that rely exclusively on the donations of generous individuals that seem to be doing fairly well.  Certainly many of the liberals who campaign enjoy fundraisers with Hollywood celebrities and benefit from voluntary donations from wealthy individuals in amounts that could help millions of struggling families.  Perhaps liberals are too quick to judge the motives of those in a position to help.

If additional motivation is an issue, government ought to ensure that religions are as free as possible to persuade people to make positive moral choices.  Throwing religion out of every aspect of government has given atheist activists great pleasure, but there are few calls from these activists to throw the government out of religion.

I suggest that not only can a more religious society better unite and provide for its citizens, it already has.

The prophet Mormon wrote of the time after Christ came to the people of ancient America and united them with religion using the following words:

"And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift... And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God."  (4 Nephi 1:2-3,16-17)

In other words, almost every problem that is currently expected to be solved by the government was solved by people leading religious lives.  Poverty was eliminated because people were generous and compassionate toward one another voluntarily.  Crime was eliminated because people were religious enough that no one desired to commit crime.

The problems that eventually made their way into this society occurred when people began to leave religion.  In the absence of motivation to make moral choices from recognizing religious authority, the people stopped making moral choices, and every vice enumerated in the passage above returned.

In the end, the solution to stalemates and arguments in government or in other aspects of life is the same as it has always been: Christianity.  If each individual could themselves be more generous, more kind, more honest, more humble, more chaste, more virtuous, and more religious... the disagreements that divide us would be less important than the moral strength that binds us.

I believe that this Utopian society is not only achievable, but inevitable.  Jesus Christ will personally reign on the earth and usher in a glorious age of peace and happiness throughout the entire world.  Of course, it is not necessary to wait for his coming before adopting the principles that make bad men good and good men better...  I invite all who come here not to postpone heeding the call of Jesus Christ:

"Yea, verily I say unto you, if ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life. Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me." (3 Nephi 9:14)

Don't get your shorts in a knot... Understanding and modesty

Recently, I have seen a lot of heated discussion regarding a blog post called FYI (if you're a teenage girl).

On one hand, there are many individuals that are grateful for encouraging girls to cover themselves, and express understanding for the mother who wrote the post, who desires to help her sons avoid lustful thoughts and urges.

On the other hand, I have read comments from people who are upset with calls for modesty because it blames girls for the impure thoughts of boys, and teaches boys that they just can't help themselves.

The term modesty has become a item of debate as well.  Among religious people of many faiths, modesty has represented a method for dressing, particularly for women, such that they minimize any provocative aspects of their appearance.  There have been many individuals that have pointed out that this understanding of modesty is a stretch from the root of the word, which implies restraint and humility.  The concept in this case is that modesty represents how an individual views himself or herself rather than how others view them.

One side of this debate emphasizes the effect of provocative styles on men.  There can be little doubt that seeing women in skimpy outfits affects men... otherwise there would not be a pornography "industry".  Lingerie makers, fragrance producers, and other clothing designers also seem to depend on women noticing the effects their products have on men, and implying that the results are tied to ownership of these goods.  Anyone who has attended high school knows that men are willing to part with money, invest time, and provide service for girls that catch their attention.

The opposing side points out that women are being held guilty for an effect they may not intend or of which they may not even be aware.  It is also plain that men who are guilty of sexual predation cannot be held guiltless if their victims were wearing revealing or otherwise provocative clothing.  Men must control their own impulses.  Additionally, the concept of being provocative is relative.  One person may be aroused by seeing bare shoulders while another remains completely unaffected.  If the line is to be drawn such that no one is remotely aroused ever, then should all people be required to wear large burlap cloaks or dress as Benedictine monks?

Of course, on the other hand, sexual harassment lines are already defined by the perception of the victim as opposed to the intent of the perpetrator.  An innocent pat on the back or a shoulder rub can be forms of sexual harassment if they are unwelcome.  The same can be said of lewd discussions, displaying racy images in the workplace, or the wearing of tight, revealing, and/or otherwise provocative clothing.  Individuals that create a hostile and/or uncomfortable work environment for coworkers are directed to alter their appearance, behavior, and/or speech to accommodate the well-being of others, and people generally understand that such laws and policies are appropriate.

The question then becomes this: at what point do these standards become inappropriate?  If a behavior is unwelcome or a lack of consent exists, does that make it wrong?

If consent is not important to defining what is acceptable, then by what standard are crimes such as rape condemned?

Certainly, the issue of modesty is difficult, if not impossible, to define explicitly.  At the ends of the spectrum, most people agree that exotic dancers may be dressing to be seductive, and nuns are dressing to cover themselves, but middle ground seems shifting.  What one believes is modest, another finds provocative.  One person can be distracted by something they find revealing while most others find it tasteful and appropriate.

To add to the confusion, individuals on both sides of the argument seem quick to use argumentative language.  In response to modesty, one side will use the term shaming.  This term calls into question the motives of those that are asking for sensitivity, which ironically, is a form of shaming.  On the other side, calling someone a slut for the way they dress is attempting to shame or guilt trip them for failing to conform to standards they may not understand or share.  Name calling and questioning the motives assumes the worst about others, and generates most of the unnecessary heat in these debates.

It should not be hard to understand that a person who did not intend to do anything wrong does not want to be made to feel as though they did.  It is absolutely hypocritical to be insensitive while trying to get someone else to be more sensitive.  It is also hypocritical to try to get someone to feel guilty for requesting sensitivity by accusing them of trying to make others feel guilty.

Ultimately, men, women, and children are better protected from complicated, expensive, and dangerous situations when sexual relations are kept between husband and wife.  All people have responsibilities with respect to this.  For women, it means being aware of how their appearance affects others.  For men, it means getting out of situations that might impair judgment or integrity.  For parents, it means protecting their children as possible from influences that might steer them toward irresponsibility. (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

Ideally, no one would become defensive or take these discussions personally, and the benefit of the doubt would be given.

If someone tells you that your cleavage is showing, is it possible that they are not intending to make you feel bad, but they are genuinely worried about the effect it has on others, or how it might affect you?  What is the right way to tell someone that their appearance is making you feel uncomfortable?

On the other hand, is it possible that a person wearing a tight outfit is unaware of how much of their body shape is visible?  Is it possible that a person is not wearing something to try and seduce all the men in the room?

In other words, be sensitive in how you dress and how you treat others.

Better Questions, Great Discussions

In the August 2013 issue of the Ensign, the LDS magazine, there was an article titled "Great Questions, Great Discussions" by Jack Lyon.

Normally, I do not get really excited about how-to sorts of articles, but the quality of teaching is a subject for which I have passion.  While some of the items that were discussed hit the nail on the head, others were disappointing or even incorrect.

From the article:
"“Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to.

“What is the most important principle of the gospel?” is also an ineffective question. No one knows the answer the teacher is looking for except the teacher, who is essentially saying, “Guess what I’m thinking.”"

While the first question is an excellent example of an ineffective question, I immediately had to take issue with the second example.  "What is the most important principle of the gospel?" is not an ineffective question... the way that the teacher handled the question, or the intent behind it was ineffective.

It would be completely appropriate for a teacher to ask students what they feel is the most important principle of the gospel, as long as they understood that a case can be made for many different principles.  It also becomes the responsibility of a teacher that uses these questions to ensure that discussion and the expression of opinion does not devolve into contention, and that student contributions should be valued as much as possible.  A student that answers with "faith" can probably present a strong case for so answering.  A good discussion on how vital faith is could ensue.  On the other hand, a student that answers "repentance" can present a very strong case for how important repentance is.  Neither one of the students needs to be wrong.

On the other hand, if a teacher is attempting to present a lesson of faith, they may want to restrict open ended questions to that subject.  A question can be effective in some cases and ineffective in others.

The article uses faith as the assigned topic as it suggests the following:
"If you want the class to have a discussion about something specific like faith, consider saying something like this: “Today we’ll be talking about faith, the first principle of the gospel.” Then ask a question about faith that doesn’t have a specific answer:

1. “What part has faith played in your life?”
2. “Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?”
3. “What are some ways we can increase our faith?”"

Unfortunately, only one out of the three suggestions is actually a good question.  Below is an analysis of each one.

1. "What part has faith played in your life?"

Asking what part faith has played in the lives of students is asking for one of the following:
    - the student that loves to pontificate going on about their lives
    - the student that begins weeping to the point that anything they say is unintelligible
    - the student that gives a valid example, followed by three other students that give similar examples
    - the student that uses redundant statements to make a thirty-second comment become a fifteen-minute ordeal

Personal experiences may be appropriate for a class... but if people making unprepared statements is superior to the material that the teacher is presenting after having prepared, the teacher needs to improve.  When personal stories become the backbone of the lesson, there is little gospel teaching that occurs.

2. "Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?"

This is actually an excellent question.  Encouraging thoughtful pondering about gospel topics is a fundamental responsibility of a gospel instructor.  Naturally, if the instructor has a preconceived "right" answer in mind, then the question becomes ineffective.

3. "What are some ways we can increase our faith?"

This is a terrible question.  Any question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" is a bad idea.  What are the odds that a student will hear an answer to this like "prayer can increase faith" and then think to themselves "Wow!  I had not previously considered that prayer might increase my faith.  This answer has completely changed my outlook on life, and I will always ensure that I pray every day from now till the end of time..."?  Not good.

Everyone attending a Gospel Doctrine class should have enough of an understanding of Gospel principles to know that reading scriptures, prayer, church attendance, and other "Sunday School" answers apply.  This type of question is just like the first "bad" example the author gave at the beginning: “Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to."


The article goes on to talk about the importance of using the scriptures.  This is spot-on:
"Although the manual should be used to prepare the lesson and is a great source of open-ended questions, the scriptures should remain the primary focus of our teaching and learning."

I would suggest this implies that the backbone of the lesson should never be personal experiences.  They can be present, but they are not a substitute for canon.

The article then discusses staying focused:
"There is a challenge in having a lot of classroom discussion: it’s easy for the discussion to get off track. It’s important that you prepare your lesson well so that you know where you want it to go and so that you’re ready, if necessary, to bring the class back to the main topic of discussion. Usually all you need to provide is a little guidance: “That’s interesting, but I think we’re a little off track. Let’s get back to our discussion of faith now.”"

While getting focus back is important, the statement that is suggested seems like it could be offensive... (and I am not one to shy away from abrasive statements).  Essentially it comes of as "what you said was irrelevant..."

Perhaps more effective would be to (as politely as possible) interrupt the student that is trailing off with a question that asks "so are you saying that..." and then say something that ties into your lesson.  If they confirm it, you can immediately move on having regained control.  If they indicate that was not their intention, ask them to explain (as politely as possible) how their comment relates to the subject.  It is possible that the student was saying something relevant, and that they may not have realized that others were missing a connection that they saw.

Additionally... always remember to thank students for contributions.

Finally, the article went back to discussing personal stories.  As I previously mentioned, there is a place for this, but it ought not be the core of any gospel doctrine lesson...  The heart of every lesson ought to be the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

After teaching the Nephites about faith, penitence, humility, baptism, and the Holy Ghost, he declared the following:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth." (3 Nephi 11:39-41, emphasis added)

Ultimately, the goal of a teacher is not to talk about their mission, their family, or the missions and families of their students... it is to reiterate the importance of Christian principles that have the power to make bad men good, and good men better.  Discussion about triviality or mediocre questions ought to give way to meaningful discussion about the power of Christ himself.  Though there are many topics that can occupy time for 45 minutes, discussions that bring classes closer to Jesus will continue to be important to those involved when the 45 minutes have expired.