withstanding god

Paul was the subject of this past Sunday School lesson, particularly his unfailing testimony of Christ in the face of persecution. We read these verses from Joseph Smith—History...

"It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitterpersecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.

"However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.

"So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation."

choice and abortion

"A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Not long ago I received a letter from [someone] who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most subject to persuasion on this basis:

"'Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.

"'What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.

"'The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.'

"The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our doctrine—life of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth" (Dallin H. Oaks).

it is there

A college professor of mine said, "for those who seek an argument against homosexual behavior in the Bible, they will not find it, because it is not there." He then addressed Leviticus 18:22 (see also 20:13) arguing that condemnation of homosexual behavior was part of the Law of Moses that was fulfilled in Christ, and no longer in force. I see three problems with that argument.

One problem is that the other commandment from the Law of Moses regarding chastity, a forbidding of adultery (Exodus 20:14), transcended the law, and was enhanced by Christ in the higher law (Matthew 5:27–28). Another problem is that homosexual behavior was condemned again in the New Testament, after the coming of Christ (Romans 1:24–27, see also 1 Corinthians 6:9). A third problem is that Christ taught the marriage relationship as being between a man and a woman in both the Old and New Testaments (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4–5).

Rather than being unable to find an argument against homosexual behavior in the Bible, we find them in abundance. It is one thing to say we do not believe in the teachings against homosexual behavior found in the Bible, it is another to say they do not exist. And of course we should also remember the biblical teaching of love, kindness and humanity toward all people (Ephesians 4:31–32, see also Luke 10:25–37).

negative view

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be a restoration of the early Christian Church. I have been asked if this were true, why is there a prevailing negative view of the church among the rest of Christianity?

A force exists that combines to destroy good, distort truth, and darken light. Many prophets of the Old Testament were rejected and persecuted, Christ was considered blasphemous, the church he organized false, and the Apostles he left to lead were slain. Most of this persecution came from those who should have been friends of the church. If the church of Jesus Christ (A continuation or restoration of the early Christian church, as established by Jesus Christ, possessing divine authority and a fullness of the gospel) was on the earth today, should we expect the prevailing view of it to be any different than before? While because a church is persecuted does not mean it is the church of Jesus Christ, if his church was upon the earth it would suffer persecution, and most heavily from those who should be friends (the rest of Christianity), just as before.

"…[P]eople can usually find whatever they are looking for[.] Look hard enough, and you can discover both good and bad in almost anyone and anything. People have done the same with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since its beginning. Those who look for the good will find a kind and compassionate people—a people who love the Lord and desire to serve Him and bless the lives of their fellowman. But it is also true that those who look for the bad will certainly find things that are not so ideal" (Dieter F. Uchtdorf).

believing

Many of us believe in Christ, who has taught us how to live our lives, and set bounds on our behavior. He has said he will provide a way for us to obey his teachings, all of them. But many of us feel a desire to behave in a way he has taught against. And we feel that desire so strongly that it is either an intrinsic biological feeling, or as strong as one. Now we must decide if we believe Christ. We believe in him, but to we believe him, do we believe the bounds he has set on our behavior are real? And do we believe he can really provide a way for us to live within those bounds? Or do we believe that because we feel that desire so strongly, it must be his will that we behave that way? Have we come to believe in him, but not believe him?

science and my faith

I have been asked before how I reconcile conflicts between science and my faith (especially as someone with a graduate degree in a science/engineering field). My response is usually something to the effect that all truth comes from God, and so there is no conflict between a truth revealed through a prophet or one discovered through the scientific method. Apparent conflicts can and do arise when either the religious teaching is incomplete or misunderstood, or the scientific teaching is incomplete or misunderstood, or both.

Apparent conflicts that I am aware of are the age of the earth and the origin of man. The Hebrew word used to describe the creative periods can mean literally a day or it can mean an indeterminate length of time (see The Creation). Abraham taught that the Gods merely called the creation periods days (Abraham 4:5,8). So each era or day of creation could have lasted for millions or billions of years. No revelation has been given detailing the age of the earth so what science tells us is all we know.

As to the origin of man we know from archeology/paleontology that there were men (about 200,000 BCE) well before our best guess of when Adam, who the scriptures teach was the first man (Moses 1:34), left the garden of Eden (about 4000 BCE). So my best guess is either Adam was not a descendent of those men, or our guess of when Adam left the garden of Eden is quite wrong.

The scriptures teach and modern prophets confirm that man was created in the image of God (Abraham 4:27) and did not evolve per neo-Darwinism (The Origin of Man). Evidence I have seen is not convincing that the naturalistic mechanisms we are aware of could produce macroevolution (speciation). Usually the arguments for macroevolution are centered around microevolution (variation within species) which is something quite different. Also, the fossil record indicates sudden appearance and stasis rather than decent with modification. If neo-Darwinism were true, there would be an innumerable amount of transitional or intermediate species along the lines of decent. The fossil record is obviously incomplete but it is unlikely selectively incomplete with regard to intermediate species. We rarely find a fossil that might be an intermediate species whereas they should be what we mostly find if neo-Darwinism were true (see Why Darwinism is False).

how could he

I once heard someone say they could not believe God would condemn any of his children to a hell. Whether hell refers to outer darkness or spirit prison, any of God's children who reside therein will do so because they chose it rather than because he condemned them to such a place.

"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

"Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

"And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

"And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom" (2 Nephi 2:26-29).

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened" (C.S. Lewis).

marriage

Both Paul and Moses taught that homosexual behavior was against God's law (Romans 1:24-32, Leviticus 20:13). And Christ taught the marriage relationship as being between a husband and wife (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5). Modern prophets teach that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God…"

We often cannot choose what we feel, but we can choose our behavior, we choose which feelings we embrace based on the foreseen consequences of the behavior. Feeling same-gender attraction may not be a choice, but homosexual behavior is. Being tempted is no sin. Christ himself suffered temptations of every kind (Alma 7:11). Sin begins when we allow a temptation to become a behavior. What this means is that feeling same-gender attraction by no fault of our own is not a sin. God has condemned homosexual behavior, not being tempted with such. We all feel temptations, they are integral to this life, but God wishes for us to live within the bounds of the gospel.

"…[A]ny sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel.  His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.

"Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.

"The Church’s doctrine is based on love. We believe that our purpose in life is to learn, grow and develop, and that God’s unreserved love enables each of us to reach our potential. None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves" (Newsroom Statement).

women and men

"…fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners" (The Family).

equality

"Our Father in Heaven loves all of His children equally, perfectly, and infinitely. His love is no different for His daughters than for His sons. Our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, also loves men and women equally. His atonement and His gospel are for all of God’s children. During His earthly ministry Jesus served men and women alike: He healed both men and women and He taught both men and women.

"The gospel of Jesus Christ can sanctify both men and women in the same way and by identical principles. For example, faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost are requirements for all of God’s children, regardless of gender. The same is true of temple covenants and blessings. Our Father’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children (see Moses 1:39). He loves us all equally, and His greatest gift, the gift of eternal life, is available to all.

"Even though men and women are equal before God in their eternal opportunities, they have different, but equally significant, duties in His eternal plan. We must understand that God views all of His children with infinite wisdom and perfect fairness. Consequently, He can acknowledge and even encourage our differences while providing equal opportunity for growth and development.

"Our Heavenly Father assigned different responsibilities in mortality to men and women when we lived with Him as His spirit sons and daughters. To His sons He would give the priesthood and the responsibilities of fatherhood, and to His daughters He gave the responsibilities of motherhood, each with its attendant functions. …

"Both men and women are to serve their families and others, but the specific ways in which they do so are sometimes different. For example, God has revealed through his prophets that men are to receive the priesthood, become fathers, and with gentleness and pure, unfeigned love they are to lead and nurture their families in righteousness as the Savior leads the Church (see Eph. 5:23). They have been given the primary responsibility for the temporal and physical needs of the family (see D&C 83:2). Women have the power to bring children into the world and have been given the primary duty and opportunity as mothers to lead, nurture, and teach them in a loving, spiritual environment. In this divine partnership, husbands and wives support one another in their God-given capacities. By appointing different accountabilities to men and women, Heavenly Father provides the greatest opportunity for growth, service, and progress. He did not give different tasks to men and women simply to perpetuate the idea of a family; rather, He did so to ensure that the family can continue forever, the ultimate goal of our Heavenly Father’s eternal plan.

"We need to recognize the hard mortal realities in all of this and must use common sense and guidance by personal revelation. Some will not marry in this life. Some marriages will fail. Some will not have children. Some children will choose not to respond to even the most devoted and careful nurturing by loving parents. In some cases, health and faith may falter. Some who would rather remain at home may have to work. Let us not judge others, because we do not know their situation nor do we know what common sense and personal revelation have led them to do. We do know that throughout mortality, women and men will face challenges and tests of their commitment to God’s plan for them. We need to remember that trials and temptations are an important part of our lives. We should not criticize others for the way they choose to exercise their moral agency when faced with adversity or affliction" (M. Russell Ballard).

partnership

"The concept of interdependent, equal partners is well-grounded in the doctrine of the restored gospel. Eve was Adam’s ‘help meet’ (Genesis 2:18). The original Hebrew for meet means that Eve was adequate for, or equal to, Adam. She wasn’t his servant or his subordinate. And the Hebrew for help in ‘help meet’ is ezer, a term meaning that Eve drew on heavenly powers when she supplied their marriage with the spiritual instincts uniquely available to women as a gender gift. …

"Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to ‘rule over’ Eve, but this doesn’t make Adam a dictator. A ruler can be a measuring tool that sets standards. Then Adam would live so that others may measure the rightness of their conduct by watching his. Being a ruler is not so much a privilege of power as an obligation to practice what a man preaches. Also, over in ‘rule over’ uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling with, not ruling over. If a man does exercise ‘dominion … in any degree of unrighteousness’ (D&C 121:37), God terminates that man’s authority. …

"In the little kingdom of a family, each spouse freely gives something the other does not have and without which neither can be complete and return to God’s presence. Spouses are not a soloist with an accompanist, nor are they two solos. They are the interdependent parts of a duet, singing together in harmony at a level where no solo can go. …

"…equal partnerships are not made in heaven—they are made on earth, one choice at a time, one conversation at a time, one threshold crossing at a time. And getting there is hard work—like patiently working through differing assumptions" (Bruce C. Hafen).

priesthood

"From the beginning the priesthood has been conferred only upon the men. It is always described in the scriptures as coming through the lineage of the fathers (see D&C 84:6, 14–16; D&C 107:40–41; Abr. 1:3–4).

"While fathers and sons bear the burden of the priesthood, it was declared in the very beginning that it was not good for man to be alone. A companion, or ‘helpmeet,’ was given him. The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together, were not to be alone. Together they constituted a fountain of life. While neither can generate life without the other, the mystery of life unfolds when these two become one. …

"The separate natures of man and woman were designed by the Father of us all to fulfill the purposes of the gospel plan. …

"Only a woman can bestow upon man that supernal title of father.

"She in turn becomes a mother. Can anyone dispute that her part is different from and more demanding than his? The mother must endure limitations while nature performs the miracle of creation.

“Through her sacrifice, once again another spirit clothed in a mortal body crosses that frail footpath of life to experience mortality and the testing required in the plan of salvation.

"The well-being of the mother, the child, the family, the Church, indeed of all humanity depends upon protecting that process. The obligations of motherhood are never-ending. The addition of such duties as those which attend ordination to the priesthood would constitute an intrusion into, an interruption to, perhaps the avoidance of, that crucial contribution which only a mother can provide.

"The limitation of priesthood responsibilities to men is a tribute to the incomparable place of women in the plan of salvation. …

"Men and women have complementary, not competing, responsibilities. There is difference but not inequity. Intelligence and talent favor both of them. But in the woman’s part, she is not just equal to man; she is superior! She can do that which he can never do; not in all eternity can he do it. There are complementing rewards which are hers and hers alone. …

"It was not meant that the woman alone accommodate herself to the priesthood duties of her husband or her sons. She is of course to sustain and support and encourage them.

"Holders of the priesthood, in turn, must accommodate themselves to the needs and responsibilities of the wife and mother. Her physical and emotional and intellectual and cultural well-being and her spiritual development must stand first among his priesthood duties.

"There is no task, however menial, connected with the care of babies, the nurturing of children, or with the maintenance of the home that is not his equal obligation. The tasks which come with parenthood, which many consider to be below other tasks, are simply above them" (Boyd K. Packer).

culture and gratitude

"The purpose of priesthood authority is to give, to serve, to lift, to inspire—not to exercise unrighteous control or force. In some cultures, tradition places a man in a role to dominate, control, and regulate all family affairs. That is not the way of the Lord. In some places the wife is almost owned by her husband, as if she were another of his personal possessions. That is a cruel, unproductive, mistaken vision of marriage encouraged by Lucifer that every priesthood holder must reject. It is founded on the false premise that a man is somehow superior to a woman. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The scriptures confirm that Father in Heaven saved His greatest, most splendid, supreme creation, woman, to the end. Only after all else was completed was woman created. Only then was the work pronounced complete and good. …

"By divine design a woman is fundamentally different from a man in many ways. She is compassionate and seeks the interests of others around her. However, that compassionate nature can become overwhelming for women who identify far more to accomplish than they can possibly do, even with the help of the Lord. Some become discouraged because they do not feel they are doing all they should do. I believe this is a feeling that many worthy, effective, devoted women of the Church experience.

"Therefore, as a husband or son, express gratitude for what your wife and mother do for you. Express your love and gratitude often. That will make life far richer, more pleasant and purposeful for many of the daughters of Father in Heaven who seldom hear a complimentary comment and are not thanked for the multitude of things they do. …

"God will hold us accountable for how we treat His precious daughters. Therefore, let us treat them as He would wish to have them treated" (Richard G. Scott).

academia

Academia treats neo-Darwinism and the Book of Mormon the same. Neo-Darwinism is beforehand assumed true and therefore all non-supporting evidence is ignored as inconclusive and only supporting evidence is considered. Anyone suggesting that the theory might be false is dismissed without argument.

Joseph Smith's explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is assumed false and therefore all supporting evidence (see also here and here) is ignored and only non-supporting evidence is considered. Anyone suggesting that the Book of Mormon came forth as Joseph Smith claimed is dismissed without argument.

No matter how much evidence is against neo-Darwinism or for Joseph Smith's explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon, academia affirms they must be true and false, respectively, because the alternatives are to them unacceptable.