For a bit of background, Jana Riess was raised by an atheistic dad, and her mom wasn’t very religious either.  Yet, Jana felt pulled toward religious faith, joining with the Presbyterians before embracing Mormonism.  John questioned why it is hard for atheists to keep their children away from religion.  This corresponds immediately after their conversation that I transcribed previously.

John, “Yeah, right.  Ok in this last part of the segment I am just going to bring it back to your childhood for a second.  So right now, based on our data, you know, people are leaving the church at an exponentially increasing rate. Intellectual issues really are most prominent. There are spiritual reasons people leave, there are cultural or political reasons people leave, but by and large, it’s the types of things we have been talking about today.

I think it’s important to look ahead and see where that takes future generations, because (I’m sorry that this is a bit long of a statement) I say across the table from Sam Harris.  I had lunch with Sam Harris.  I sat across the table with Michael Shermer, I had lunch with Michael Shermer.  These are two of the worlds’ great atheist writers and thinkers.  I asked them point blank.  I said, ‘when my wife gets cancer, when is one of your people going to be showing up at our door, delivering a casserole In Logan?’

What I mean by that is—and I don’t mean it socially—if you believe in evolution at all, and most people who leave the church probably do, you would probably concede that if religion weren’t adaptive to the human species, it would have died out, right?  It would have gone by the wayside, but actually, my understanding over the past century is that mankind’s gotten more religious, not less overall. Even though right now there might be a little waxing and waning going on.  So, I think there’s a lot of people leaving religions, leaving Mormonism, envisioning this sort of post-religion world where religion is dead and as soon as we can shake off the chains of religious oppression, then rainbows will emerge and it will rain gumdrops and butterflies will fly around.”

Jana, “Oh unicorns!  Don’t forget the unicorns.”

John chuckling ,”Unicorns will come out and we’ll all be enlightened, and it’s just fascinating to ask what if Jana Reiss, what if Jana Reiss is one of the outcomes of this mass movement towards secularism.  In other words, what if we just ain’t escaping this religious thing as a species any time soon?  The minute that we think we are, as Greg Prince said, atheists are having a hard time keeping their kids in the fold.

[Jana chuckles, John continues.]  What if we’re going to boomerang whether we –what if society is going to boomerang back to religion whether we want it to or not?  And if it is, why not stay and make it as great of a place to stay if our grandchildren are going to end up back here anyway?  That was not even a question.  I’m embarrassed that I just said all that and didn’t even shape it into a question.  Feel free to comment on it.”

Jana, “You have nothing to be embarrassed about.  This is a conversation, it’s not an interrogation.  You have nothing to be embarrassed about.

Well, the things that occurred to me while you were talking, first of all, I can understand that people within Mormonism will be very concerned about disaffection, disaffiliation, people leaving the church.  It is a concern, and I sure hope that people at the church are taking notes on why this happens and that they are planning to make changes in the way we do things, particularly the way we set up these either/or dichotomies in which people are essentially forced out  if they have questions.  But I would also say, and I think you alluded to this, that this is not just the trend within Mormonism.  The trend towards disaffiliation is happening everywhere, and it’s a really fascinating moment in American culture.

I read a book a few Years ago by Christian Smith called Soul Searching, where he was doing research on teenagers and religions, an then he followed up on those same teenagers some years later when they became adults, so college age and in their early 20’s to find out specifically what happened to those kids, but more generally what happens to this whole generation, and I really recommend reading those books in tandem because it’s quite illuminating of how this is affecting.

In the first book, Mormonism comes of very well actually, because Mormon teens at least know what they’re supposed to believe and they report praying regularly, they report  devotional practices that would demonstrate some kind of personal commitment. But even those things are not really enough to hold people in the fold.  So Mormonism more recently, just last year, Oxford published another book by Kenda Creasy Dean who had been one of the researchers on the youth and religion project that Christian Smith started.  (I hope this isn’t boring people.)

The upshot is that she had a whole chapter on Mormons. Are they the success story in how their kids are learning the faith, being indoctrinated in the faith, and then staying in the faith?  I think the chapter was very good in terms of how it examined Mormon kids and how they are acculturated.  I don’t think it did such a great job in terms of looking at the darker side in the fact that a lot of these people then leave even returned missionaries will come home and sometimes leave for whatever reason.  People you would expect to have the highest levels of commitment to the faith.

But much of that is because we are living in a culture in which now 14% of young adults claim no affiliation, so that is a significant change even from a couple of decades ago when it was more like 6 or 7, so it has doubled, so it’s not just Latter-day Saints.

John, “Yeah, and that’s all true, and in Europe religion’s really struggling, and there’s some predictions that in nine countries across the world religion will become extinct, but that’s kind of what I’m wondering is—I wonder about the human condition there’s just no escaping God and belief overall.  I wonder if we’re destined as a species to boomerang back to faith or if science or social engineering is going to someday lead us to a better place?  Have you thought about that at all?”

Jana, “I have thought about it some, but not enough.  I think those are important questions for the future, but no I don’t have any grand sweeping wisdom to give you.”

John, “But as far as you’re concerned, well, what you represent to me is a testimonial that it’s not as simple as yank your kids out of church, you know, and teach them secular ways, because somehow at least for some that spirit just calls them right back, right?”

Jana, “Sometimes that happens.”

John, “Yeah.  I mean I remember speaking of a faith episode with Krista Tippett where there was a liberal loosey goosey Catholics who raised their kids outside of the faith and low and behold, by the time they were adults they were like fundamentalist Catholics.  Have you seen that dynamic happen in Judaism or other religions? “

Jana, “Yes, there is a whole kind of trend and it is very interesting to observe. I think the book that you are referring to from the Krista Tippets show was called the New Faithful.  Colleen someone, I can’t remember her last name, but she was looking at this phenomenon precisely of people who you would think are going to embrace largely secular values and then take a turn for conservative religions, in that case conservative Catholicism, why?  What is it that they are finding there?  I think that the reductionistic sociological answer is that people want to know what they’re supposed to believe, and never more so than a time of confusion more generally.

I don’t think that kind of explanation gives people very much credit.  It doesn’t hold true with people that I talk to.  They don’t say, ‘I wanted to know the truth so that my life would be simpler.’  Their lives are rarely simpler because of the changes that they’ve made.”

Why do you think atheists and religionists seem to have a hard time keeping their children “in the fold”?

Well, Reilly made out the check this week when Jimmer started a pre-season game for the Sacramento Kings.  Quoting from Reilly, “In the check’s memo line, I wrote: Crow.”

Reilly had quite a few complimentary things to say about Jimmer.

I said he wouldn’t be able to get off his shot off in the NBA. So far, in two preseason games, he’s averaged 16.5 points. He’s been pyrotechnic from the wider NBA 3-point arc (67 percent). His handle is tighter than a coffee pot’s. His rebounding and defense still have more holes than a Danielle Steele novel, but, all in all, he’s been jaw-droppingly good.

But here’s the best part:

And now it looks like he has a chance to become the Tim Tebow of the NBA.

Tim Tebow plays for the team I hate the most in the NFL: the Denver Broncos.  Yet I like Tim Tebow.  I can’t not root for the guy, even if I hate his team.  For a guy everybody said would be a bust in the NFL, and thought the Broncos were crazy to take him in the first round, Tebow has reeled off 6 consecutive wins in the closing minutes of games–all in miraculous fashion.   (Thankfully, my Patriots didn’t let Tim do any magic last week.)

Tebow expresses his religion more than anybody in recent memory.  (He’s a Southern Baptist.  Perhaps Reggie White came close.)  To top it off, Saturday Night Live did a funny bit on Tebow (and called Tom Brady “God’s nephew”.)  It’s good in it’s own right, but there was a very funny reference at the tail end of the skit, so watch it all the way to the end.

What’s your take on Jimmer or Tebow?

Tom Brokaw during a rehearsal, courtesy http://newsroom.lds.org/article/mormon-tabernacle-choir-tom-brokaw-remember-9-11

The past few days have brought a series of news stories remembering the terrible tragedy that happened 10 years ago.  I was curious to see if there would be any differences in our church services.  On the one hand, Music and the Spoken Word invited NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw to narrate a special tribute to the tragedy called Rising Above.  I watched the re-run of it Sunday night (since my church meetings were scheduled at the same time.)  I also note that President Monson wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post sharing thoughts about the tragedy.

My wife has tried to avoid watching the tributes because it brings back such terrible memories.  I’ve read elsewhere that Americans simply aren’t ready to watch movies about the tragedy (unlike things like Pearl Harbor) because it still seems too close the the tragedy.

Our ward did not do anything special to remember the day.  In sacrament meeting, we listened as a new family was invited to speak and introduce themselves to the ward.  The parents both gave excellent talks.  The wife spoke about service, and how we can all do better to serve.  Her husband followed along with the service theme, but did make a few remarks about the 9/11 tragedy.

Our stake has made a big push to start indexing records to help with genealogy.  I helped the YM/YW learn how to index records, and then did the same for priesthood meeting.  Unlike the news programs and KBYU, there was very little reminder about the tragedy.  So I”m trying to figure out if my bishop is like my wife–not wanting to remember bad memories, or if local leaders didn’t get any direction to try to remember this day.  I wonder why there isn’t more flexibility to remember special events at church, such as departing from the normal lesson schedule for 1 week.  What was your ward like?  Is this an important day to remember?

This is our “Pearl Harbor”.  While Dec 7 is known as Pearl Harbor Day, it isn’t a holiday.  I’ve wondered if 9/11 should be a holiday.  What do you think?

We often think that the Bible has a set number of books.  However, this is not true.  The King James Version (that many Protestants and Mormons use) has 39 Old Testament Books, but the Catholic Bible has 46 books, and the Eastern Orthodox Bible has 51 books.  The extra 7 books in the Catholic Bible are:  Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Baruch, and Wisdom.  In addition to these books, the Orthodox Bible also contains 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, and Letter of Jeremiah.  A few other books are considered part of the Apocrypha:  Bel and the Dragon, Song of the Three Young Men and Prayer of Azariah, Prayer of Manasseh, Story of Susannah.  The Book of Esther has 6 additional chapters in Greek, not found in the KJV.

Recently, I purchased the New American Bible.  It is the standard Bible for American Catholics.  One of the things that I was surprised to see in the NAB was scholarly information integrated within the Bible.  For example, there is a brief introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis right before the Book of Genesis.  The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest available versions of many Biblical books (in some cases by 1000 years), and this version of the Bible includes corrections from the Dead Sea Scrolls.  I found that pretty cool.

As part of my introduction to “the Apocrypha”, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the book of Judith.  (Here is a post on some other apocryphal books I have discussed previously.)  As I was looking through the table of contents, I was immediately struck by the female name of Judith.  After all, except for Ruth and Esther, I can’t think of any books of scripture with a female name.  So, I decided to pick this one first.

Judith was the widow of a man named Manasseh.  The Assyrians were attacking Israel, and cut off the water supply.  Concerned for her people, Judith dressed up in “her festive garments and all her feminine adornments” (Judith 12:15) , and approached the Assyrians.  She gains the trust of Assyrian General Holofernes, and promises to deliver Israel to them with no loss of life for the Assyrians.  At this point, the story gets really interesting, starting in chapter 13.

2  Judith was left alone in the tent with Holofernes, who lay prostrate on his bed, for he was sodden with wine.  3 She had ordered her maid to stand outside the bedroom and wait, as on the other days, for her to come out; she said she would be going out for her prayer.  To Bagoas she had said this also.

4  When all had departed, and no one, small or great, was left in the bedroom, Judith stood by Holofernes’ bed and said within herself: “O Lord, God of all might, in this hour look graciously on my undertaking for the exaltation of Jerusalem: 5 now is the time for aiding your heritage and for carrying out my design to shatter the enemies who have risen against us.”  6 She went to the bedpost near the head of Holofernes, and taking his sword from it, 7 drew close to the bed, grasped the hair of his head, and said, “Strengthen me this day, O God of Israel!”

8 Then with all her might she struck him twice in the neck and cut off his head.  9 She rolled his body off the bed and took the canopy from its supports.  Soon afterward, she came out and handed over the head of Holofernes to her maid, 10 who put it into her food pouch; and the two went off together as they were accustomed to do for prayer.”

Judith and her maid return to Israel and show them the head of Holofernes.  Encouraged, the Israelites then rout the scared Assyrians.

So why is this story considered apocryphal?  The NAB Bible cautions, “Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail.”  The Jewish Encyclopedia says,

with the very first words of the tale, “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh,” the narrator gives his hearers a solemn wink. They are to understand that this is fiction, not history. It did not take place in this or that definite period of Jewish history, but simply “once upon a time,” the real vagueness of the date being transparently disguised in the manner which has become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts of the world.

Many believe this book to be historical fiction.  Martin Luther noted that books of questionable authenticity are found only in Greek, not Hebrew.  Jews also do not consider the book canonical.  Catholics consider the book written “by godly men”, but not quite on par with other scriptures.  However, they do consider the book canonical.  What do you think of this story?  Is it nice to have a feminine hero?

The rabbi was aging, and spent some time in the hospital.  Pages 97-99 detail an interesting insight into one of these visits.

As we sat in the room, a commercial for an antidepressant drug flashed across the TV screen.  It showed people looking forlorn, alone on a bench or staring out a window.

“I keep feeling something bad is going to happen….,” the TV voice said.

Then, after showing the pill and some graphics, those same people appeared again, looking happier.

The Reb and I watched in silence.  After it ended, he asked, “Do you think those pills work?”

Not like that, I said.

“No,” he agreed.  “Not like that.”

——

Happiness in a tablet.  This is our world.  Prozac. Paxil. Xanax.  Billions are spent to advertise such drugs.  And billions more are spent purchasing them.  You don’t even need a specific trauma; just “general depression” or “anxiety,” as if sadness were as treatable as the common cold.

I knew depression was real, and in many cases required medical attention.  I also knew we overused the word.  Much of what we call “depression” was really dissatisfaction, a result of setting a bar impossibly high or expecting treasures that we weren’t willing to work for.  I knew people whose unbearable source of misery was their weight, their baldness, their lack of advancement in the workplace, or their inability to find the perfect mate, even if they themselves did not behave like one.  To these people, unhappiness was a condition, an intolerable state of affairs.  If pills could help, pills were taken.

But pills were not going to change the fundamental problem in the construction.  Wanting what you can’t have.

I want to jump to the end of this particular story.  From page 102,

So have we solved the secret of happiness?

“I believe so,” he said.

Are you going to tell me?

“Yes.  Ready?”

Ready.

“Be satisfied.”

That’s it?

“Be grateful”

That’s it?

“For what you have.  For the love you receive.  And for what God has given you.”

That’s it?

He looked at me in the eye.  Then he sighed deeply.

“That’s it.”

I hope we can remember this lesson as we celebrate Thanksgiving Day.

“Will you do my eulogy?”

I don’t understand, I said.

“My eulogy?” the old man asked again.  “When I’m gone.”  His eyes blinked from behind his glasses.  His nearly trimmed beard was gray, and he stood slightly stooped.

Are you dying? I asked.

“Not yet,” he said, grinning.

Then why—

“Because I think you would be a good choice.  And I think, when the time comes, you will know what to say.”

Picture the most pious man you know.  Your priest.  Your pastor.  Your rabbi.  Your imam.  Now picture him tapping you on the shoulder and asking you to say good-bye to the world on his behalf.

Picture the man who sends people off to heaven, asking you for his send-off to heaven.

“So?” he said.  “Would you be comfortable with that?

The book is a great read.  Mitch tells the true stories of the interactions with his rabbi, as well as a pastor of a homeless church in Detroit.  I wanted to share a few stories that I found especially touching.  In preparation for the eulogy, Mitch met with his rabbi regularly for 8 years.  The rabbi is a remarkable man.  One of their conversations is detailed on page 158,

Soon we had tumbled into a most fundamental debate.  How can different religions coexist?  If one faith believes one thing, and another believes something else, how can they both be correct?  And does one religion have the right—or even the obligation—to try to convert the other?

…[jump to page 159]

Is there any winning a religious argument?  Whose God is better than whose?  Who got the Bible right or wrong?  I preferred figures like Rajchandra, the Indian poet who influenced Gandhi by teaching that no religion was superior because they all brought people closer to God; or Gandhi himself, who would break a fast with Hindu prayers, Muslim quotations, or a Christian hymn.

…[jumping to pages 160-162]

“Ask yourself, ‘Why did God create but one man?’” the Reb said, wagging a finger.  “Why, if he meant for there to be faiths bickering with each other, didn’t he create that from the start?  He created trees, right?  Not one tree, countless trees.  Why not the same with man?

“Because we are all from that one man—and all from that one God.  That’s the message.”

Then why, I asked, is the world so fractured?

“Well, you can look at it this way?  Would you want the world to all look alike?  No.  The genius of life is its variety.

“Even our own faith, we have questions and answers, interpretations, debates.  In Christianity, in Catholicism, in other faiths, the same thing—debates, interpretations.  That is the beauty.  It’s like being a musician.  If you found the note, and you kept hitting that note all the time, you would go nuts.  It’s the blending of the different notes that makes the music.”

The music of what?

“Of believing in something bigger than yourself.”

But what if someone from another faith won’t recognize yours?  Or wants you dead for it?

“That is not faith.  That is hate.”  He sighed.  “And if you ask me, God sits up there and cries when it happens.”

He coughed, then as if to reassure me, he smiled.  He had full time help in the house now; his home care workers had included a tall woman from Ghana and a burly Russian man.  Now, on weekdays, there was a lovely Hindu woman from Trinidad named Teela.  She helped get him dressed and do some light exercises in the morning, fixed his meals, and drove him to the supermarket and synagogue.  Sometimes she would play Hindi religious music over her car stereo.  The Reb enjoyed it and asked for a translation.  When she talked about reincarnation, per her faith, he quizzed her and apologized for not knowing more about Hinduism over the years.

How can you—a cleric—be so open-minded? I asked.

“Look, I know what I believe.  It’s in my soul.  But I constantly tell our people: you should be convinced of the authenticity of what you have, but you must also be humble enough to say that we don’t know everything, we must accept that another person may believe in something else?”

He sighed.

“I’m not being original here, Mitch.  Most religions teach us to love our neighbor.”

I thought about how much I admired him at that moment.  How he never, even in private, even in old age, tried to bully another belief, or bad-mouth someone else’s devotion.  And I realized I had been a bit of a coward on this whole faith thing.  I should have been more proud, less intimidated.  I shouldn’t have bitten my tongue.  If the only thing wrong with Moses is that he’s not yours; if the only thing wrong with Jesus is he’s not yours; if the only thing wrong with mosques, Lent, chanting, Mecca, Buddha, confession, or reincarnation is that they’re not yours—well, maybe the problem is you.

One more question? I asked the Reb.

He nodded.

When someone from another faith says, “God bless you,” what do you say?

“I say, ‘Thank you, and God bless you, too.’”

Really?

“Why shouldn’t I?”

I went to answer and realized I had no answer.  No answer at all.

I wanted to share one more story, where I take the title of my post.  From pages 70-71,

“What’s wrong?” the Reb asked.

Apparently minutes earlier, Gunther had been outside, overseeing the parking, when the Catholic priest came stomping out and began to yell about all the cars parking by his church, because it was Sunday and he wanted the spaces for his members.

“Get them out of here,” he hollered, according to Gunther.  “You Jews move your cars now!”

“But it’s High Holiday,” Gunther said.

“Why must you have it on Sunday?” the priest yelled.

“The date was set three thousand years ago,” Gunther replied.  Being an immigrant, he still spoke with a German accent.  The priest glared at him, then uttered something almost beyond belief.

“They didn’t exterminate enough of you.”

Gunther was enraged.  His wife had spent three and a half years in a concentration camp.  He wanted to slug the priest.  Someone intervened, thankfully, and a shaken Gunther returned to the sanctuary.

The next day, the Reb phoned the Catholic archbishop who oversaw the area’s churches and told him what had happened.  The following day, the phone rang.  It was the priest, asking if he could come over and talk.

The Reb met him at the office door.  They sat down.

“I want to apologize,” he said.

“Yes,” the Reb said.

“I should not have said what I did.”

“No, you should not have,” the Reb said.

“My archbishop had a suggestion,” the priest said.

“What is that?”

“Well, as you know, our Catholic school is in session now.  And they will have their recess soon…”

The Reb listened.

Then he nodded and stood up.

And when the school doors opened and the kids burst out for recess, they saw the priest of St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church and the rabbi of Temple Beth Shalom walking arm in arm, around the schoolyard.

Some kids blinked.

Some kids stared.

But all of them took notice.

You might think that an uneasy truce; two men forced to walk around a schoolyard, arm in arm.  You might think a certain bitterness would haunt the relationship.  But somehow, in time, they became friends.  And years later, the Reb would be inside the Catholic church.

At the priest’s funeral.

“I was asked to help officiate,” the Reb recalled.  “I recited a prayer for him.”  And I think, by that time, he might have thought it wasn’t so bad.”

I loved the book, and HIGHLY recommend it to everyone.  I’ve only discussed the rabbi here, but there’s a fascinating story of a Christian preacher of the “I Am My Brother’s Keeper” church as well.  Your heart will be touched, as mine was.

I welcome debate here.  Sometimes tempers flare.  I hope we can follow the example of the priest and the rabbi, walking arm in arm despite our different beliefs, and I hope we can maintain these friendships, even if we don’t convert anyone to our way of thinking.

I’ve been listening to a podcast from Yale University discussing the Bible.  There are definite similarities between the Babylonian story of  Gilgamesh and the stories of Adam and Noah.  Some people, such as Bishop Rick, have said

I think it is accurate to state that the flood story in the bible is both myth and a forgery. It is obviously a myth for reasons too numerous to mention here, but it is also copied from other cultures/religions, thus making it a forgery.

It could very well be a myth.  While some scholars believe the story is a myth, National Geographic put together a documentary called “In Search for Noah’s Flood”.  They discuss various flood stories, and make the case that a large, localized flood must have influenced these various cultures to write of this flood.  While there is no proof of a flood, it seems like a plausible explanation.

Recently I discussed a couple of sites in the Dead Sea region that some people believe are the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah.  While some people love to claim the Bible is actually a collection of myths, Dr. Carole Fontaine of the Andover Newton Theological School said, “Archeologists often find themselves hooted and hollered out of town, when they first suggest things like, ‘I’ve found Troy, or look, we’ve found Sodom and Gomorrah.’  But history has shown that in fact, the more you dig, the more you find.  It’s amazing how accurate the Bible sometimes turns out to be.”

Speaking of hooting and hollering, John Hamer recently recorded a famous comment regarding Book of Mormon archaeology.  He said,

The scholarly consensus on the alleged antiquity of the Book of Mormon was expressed way back in 1973 in Dialogue by Michael D. Coe, among the foremost Mayanist scholars, who wrote: “As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the historicity of The Book of Mormon, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group”

The best Book of mormon archaeological site seems to be Nahom.  I’ve previously blogged about Nahom, and Daniel C. Peterson called it a “bulls eye”.  In the video called Journey of Faith (distributed by FAIR), a few BYU scholars state,

Daniel C. Peterson, Professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic, BYU, “The finding of Nahom strikes me as just a tremendously significant discovery.”

Noel B Reynolds, director of FARMS, BYU, “The gazetteers of Joseph Smith’s day listed no such place.”

Peterson, “What it really is, is a kind of prediction by the Book of Mormon, or something that we ought to find.”

William J Hamblin, Professor of Middle Eastern History, BYU, “Now the chances of finding that exact name from the exact time, in that exact place, by random chance, are just astronomical.”

Peterson, “And to find it in the right location, at the right time, is a really striking bulls eye for the book and there are those who say the book has no archeological substantiation. That’s a spectacular substantiation right there, it seems to me.  Something that would have been unexpected. It’s so unlikely that Joseph Smith could have woven into his story on his own.”

Hamblin, “The Book of Mormon has text, has made a complex prediction and modern archeology actually confirms that prediction.”

Peterson, “It’s a direct bulls-eye, as precise as you could wish it to be.”

I don’t think non-Mormon scholars are as impressed with the site as Peterson, but non-Bible believing scholars aren’t impressed with Sodom and Gomorrah either.  So, must we always believe that lack of evidence argues against historicity of the Bible or Book or Mormon, or is there reason to believe that some of these stories that scholars call myths, forgeries, or pious frauds really might have some historical use?  Is it true that “the more you dig, the more you find?”

I did learn that it’s not just the LDS that are picked on, so at least they have that going for them.  When I complained that another person by the handle of Pheobe Ann posted a distorted view of LDS theology, another person there by the handle Skylark said,

Originally Posted by skylark1

If you think that this title is sensational, you should check out some of the headlines in General Theology. There is one titled “I can have sex with the pastor’s wife and still go to heaven.” (The original poster was not actually claiming this!) So far, it has 935 posts, and 7946 views!

I responded

Skylark,

I find that title heinous. I agree with you that Phoebe’s title is relatively benign compared to your example. If such sensationalism is considered normal here, perhaps I am in the wrong place. I thought this was supposed to be a place of discussion, not a place where Tabloid headlines dominate.

I hear you, and sympathize. However, I would much rather have a more scholarly discussion, than waste times with tabloid discussions.

So, Phoebe Ann’s post quoted D&C  84:74-95, along with Pheobe’s commentary that “Those who reject the LDS message here on earth seem to be in a lot of trouble.”  Phoebe believes that the LDS believe that only LDS will obtain salvation (or in Mormon parlance, Celestial glory.)  Phoebe is a former Mormon, but apparently her grasp of Mormon theology is quote distorted.  Currently, she is not a member of any denomination.  She believes that faith in Christ is all that is needed to get into Heaven; she believes all works are unnecessary, and she believes that true Christians are in and outside of many denominations.  I thought you might enjoy a few of our exchanges.  She asked me,

Faith in Christ is very important, but it is not the “end-all” that New Dawn made it sound at first. New Dawn made a clarification, and I understand the position better now. I am glad that New Dawn doesn’t think that someone can profess in Christ and then commit murder in a Crusade and be saved. I agree with that position. I am still trying to understand New Dawn and your position on Hindus, and I still haven’t received an answer saying “Hindus are all damned”, or “some Hindus will get into heaven.” I am sure you understand that Mormons don’t simply believe in only heaven and hell; we believe that honorable men (Hindu or not) will receive some sort of glory, perhaps more than a “faithful” Crusader who engaged in war crimes. I’d like to get a clearer understanding of New Dawn and Phoebe’s position, but it seems like neither of you answer the question directly and make your position clear. I hope I have made my position clear.

I’m surprised by the question, because I think you know the answer: to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Christ, and help them obtain salvation and eternal life.

As a former member, I am surprised that you are asking this question. Christ’s resurrection is freely given to all men–Christian, Non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. All receive this gift that Christ gave us by dying on the Cross and being resurrected the 3rd day.

The gift of Eternal life is another matter. Christ’s blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god.

This seems to be the point of your very first post here. I can’t find it now, but I remember you said something to the effect that God does not care about denominations. I agree. Certainly Jesus, Peter, Paul, Moses, Adam, Noah, and Abraham were not LDS, so NO, God does not welcome only LDS into the Celestial Kingdom. I feel assured that all of these men will be in the Celestial Kingdom, and I believe that Esther, Ruth, Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Abish will be in the Celestial Kingdom as well.

I like this, and agree with it whole-heartedly.

Well, the LDS believe that accepting Christ is a requirement for salvation, so there’s your problem. You believe something incorrect. Hopefully I have corrected your incorrect belief.

Yes, but he doesn’t always do it in this life.

Absolutely.

None. Romans 3:23″for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Jesus died for both.

I’m not sure I understand the point of the question. I think you are referring to Romans 14:23 “But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” If this is what you are referring to, then all sinners are condemned.

However, those that partake of Jesus atonement are not condemned. As Jesus told the woman caught in adultery in John 8:10-11,

“When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Maybe they thought you looked nice and wanted to talk to you! I think you know the answer to that question, but I’ll oblige. They would like to help you become a better Christian. (It appears you think your version of Christianity is superior to the Missionaries version–am I wrong? “yes” or “no” please.)

I have no qualms with what you just said. This whole grace/works argument is much ado about nothing. It seems to be a heated argument of which came first–the chicken or the egg, and I think the whole argument is silly and pointless. A person with true faith naturally wants to do the works of God. Too many Mormons argue this point and it is silly.

Yes, I remember the above question and answer, and I hope I have answered clearly. I hope you will answer “yes” or “no” as well to my questions.

I agree.

Gosh, I feel like you’ve almost made it clear here, and I think I agree with everything you just said. Am I correct that you believe Hindus are damned?

As you know, Mormons believe that there are 3 degrees of Glory. Those who accept Christ fully will inherit the highest glory, but a good Hindu who does not fully accept Christ will not obtain the highest glory. This means the person who fully accepts Christ is in the Celestial Kingdom. To be in the Celestial Kingdom means salvation. See D&C 76:50-70 for more information. The Hindu will be in either the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom. Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms do not equal salvation. See D&C 76:71-119–it is much too long to quote here.

Now you may be wondering about what I said when I said “Hindu who does not fully accept Christ“.

Following Jesus death on the cross, many have wondered where he went, because he did not ascend to the Father. For example, we know that Jesus appeared to Mary after she discovered the empty tomb. Apparently Mary tried to embrace Jesus. (Who wouldn’t?) The Gospel of John chapter 20 verse 17 records, Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.

So if Jesus didn’t go to the Father after he died, many have wondered where he went during this 3 day period? Paul in his Epistle to Peter tells us that Jesus visited those who were disobedient in the days of Noah. 1 Peter 3:18-20 says,

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,)
Furthermore, 1 Peter 4:6 expands on this topic further:

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

Paul discusses this topic again in 1 Cor 15:22-31. I find verses 22 and 29 most interesting.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

31 I die every day–I mean that, brothers–just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

Christ taught the dead who were disobedient in the days of Noah. Since Christianity didn’t exist in Noah’s day, these people were certainly non-Christians. More than likely, they were polytheistic. There is a good chance that they had some beliefs in common with our hypothetical Hindu. If a Hindu never hears of Christ in this life, would a loving god damn the Hindu who never heard of Christ? Mormon theology says no. If I understand your theology correctly, the Hindu is damned to Hell, because only true, faithful Christians will be saved.

Your quiz says all men are sinners, including Hindus. God condemns all sinners. Only those who accept Christ will not be condemned. If a Hindu does not accept Christ, the Hindu is condemned to damnation. Therefore, all Hindus are damned, because by definition they worship a different god, and have no faith in Christ. Does this accurately represent your beliefs? (“yes” or “no” would be very helpful here.)

Mormons, on the other hand, believe that Christ will teach to the Hindu as it says in 1 Peter chapter 3 and 4. If this Hindu accepts Christ, he will be baptized as it says in 1 Cor 15. Therefore, Mormons do not believe all Hindus will be damned to Hell.

So, the Celestial Kingdom will be full of people of MANY denominations, and it is not limited to LDS only. This belief fully refutes your erroneous point in your opening post that makes the assumption that non-LDS will obtain “wo” and damnation. It also answers your question,

Originally Posted by Phoebe Ann

Would God welcome only LDS into the Celestial Kingdom and relegate all non-LDS to other kingdoms?

I remind you that even if a Hindu chooses not to accept Christ, then the Hindu will not obtain the Celestial Kingdom. We believe that the same sociality exists in the next life as it does here. If people rejected Christ in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, they have the opportunity to reject him in the spirit prison as well. It is not a slam dunk that someone will accept Christ in spirit prison.

Even if the Hindu rejects Christ in spirit prison, the good Hindu does have an opportunity to receive a higher glory than a Christian that murders in God’s name. This means that a good Hindu could potentially be in the Terrestrial Kingdom, while the Christian guilty of war crimes enters the lower glory Telestial Kingdom.

If I understand your position correctly, you don’t have this “gradient” scale. Either man goes to Heaven or Hell. Hindus have no shot at Heaven, because they do not believe in Christ. Plundering Christian Crusaders probably will go to Hell because they are not “true believers.” If my understanding of your position is correct, then all Hindus are damned. Is this correct?

As a former member, I am surprised that you are asking this question. (Perhaps you do not understand LDS theology as good as you think you do.) Christ’s resurrection is freely given to all men–Christian, Non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. All receive this gift that Christ gave us by dying on the Cross and being resurrected the 3rd day. (This gift of resurrection is given to all, but is not considered salvation. Hindus will be resurrected, along with Christians.)

The gift of Eternal life is another matter. Christ’s blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god. (Eternal life means salvation in the Celestial Kingdom.)

I hope that answers your question. Apostle Russell M Nelson gave an address on salvation and exaltation in April 2008 if you would like more information. See his talk titled Salvation and Exaltation.

Phoebe asked,

“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Romans 8:9

If a person does not have the Spirit of Christ/has not been born again of the Spirit, he is not a Christian. If a person belongs to Christ, he/she is being led by the Holy Spirit. Churches don’t save. Christ saves.

I agree. Churches don’t save. Christ saves.

So, what about the rest of you.  Did I preach false doctrine?  Can non-LDS enter the Celestial Kingdom?  Do churches save?

I have no idea how they came up with this list, but all three of us are on it!  (and I like the descriptions of the blogs, which means someone actually has read them closely enough to describe them)

Ray

Known as the “Bloggernacle,” members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have banded together to discuss every imaginable element of their faith. Whether addressing one another, curious potential converts, nonbelievers, or individuals and institutions interested in comparative religion, they bring their belief system to a worldwide audience and shed light on their theology, culture, and customs. Mormon lifestyles – as with all others on the planet, of course – encompass everything from family connections to spirituality to business and everything in between. The following list tries to offer up a little bit of everything when it comes to Mormon living, hopefully allowing for the practitioners and non-practitioners alike to learn a little something along the way.

15. Things of My Soul : Blog entries at Things of My Soul may read as brief, but their messages of inspiration and motivation assist their readers in boosting their spiritual lives.

36. Clean Cut : Follow the life and philosophies of a Mormon history teacher as he reflects upon faith, family, and other victories and trials that crop up along the way.

50. Mormon Heretic : An incredibly challenging read suitable for any LDS members who stick with their faith, but still crave alternate perspectives and overlooked nuances.

28. Mormon Matters : As the title suggests, this blog concerns itself with a wonderfully eclectic range of Mormon topics that appeal to a wide range of visitors.

Well, you don’t exactly write short, concise, fluffy posts!  “Challenging read” is a pretty good description of your blog quite often.  lol

So, in the interest of a short, fluffy post, I’ll stop here.    Comments?

I’ve had a few exchanges with people over there.  Since I spent so much time, I thought I would highlight some of these exchanges here and show a Biblical basis for Exaltation.

While there are distinct differences in belief between the Trinity and the Godhead among Evangelicals and Mormons, I must say that this idea of theosis seems to have some amazing parallels with the Mormon concept of Exaltation. “As Athanasius put it, ‘God became man, that man might become God.’ That’s theosis, or deification.”

Skylark points out the differences between the Mormon concept of God, and the Evangelical nature of God. Yes, Trinity and Godhead are different concepts, and I readily admit that Athanasius didn’t believe in the Godhead. However, this idea of theosis–[Jesus], indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God bears remarkable similarities with Mormon theology. I don’t believe that most western Christians are comfortable quoting Athanasius. Please correct me if I am wrong, but are any other Christians routinely quoting Athanasius and teaching “that we might become God” during church services?

If I may be so bold, I will point to some Bible verses that support this idea of Athanasius idea that ‘we might become God.’

What is the reason Jews were so angry with Jesus? John 5:18 says “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

Paul tells us in Phillipians 2:5-6, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: “

Psalm 82:6 says, “I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.”

Jesus quotes this scripture from Psalms in John 10:34-39, “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?

If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken–

what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?  Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.

But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.”

Here’s one last scripture and I’ll stop for now because this is too long. In Luke 17:20 we are told, ‘The kingdom of God is within you.’”

Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34 “Ye are gods”

Psalm 82:6 says, “you [are] children of the most High.”

God created us as his children. Jesus said, John 10:36, “Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.”

John 5:19, ‘Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.’

If God created us as his children (an interesting choice of words), then Paul says in Romans 8:16-17 “that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,”

Therefore, if God can create children, Jesus can create children. If we can be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, we have that capability too, because Luke 17:20 “The kingdom of God is within you.”

1 Corinthians 11:11 “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

Luke 3:22 “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”

(1) Jesus is being baptized in the river Jordan (2) Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, (3) A voice from heaven (God the Father) said, “Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”

You want to interpret this as a trinity. Mormons feel this represents (using your words) “three separate Gods who are the supreme presidency of the universe.” We’re not going to agree Phoebe, and I am fine with that.

Frankly, I think the Mormon Godhead is not as far off from the Trinity as many people think. Please show me a single verse in the Bible that has the word “trinity”, yet the term “godhead” does actually appear in the Bible in Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. We can get into the trinity if you want–there are some interesting posts over at Mormon Matters and I think Evangelicals and Mormons split hairs too much on this issue. We have more in common that you think, but due to differences in terminology we argue way too much on this issue.

I remind you that ancient Christians were accused of being polytheists by Jews. This gave way to the great debate over whether Jesus and God were homo-uzious (the same substance), or homoi-uzious (of similar substance). The trinity is a direct result of trying to maintain a foundation of monotheism against attacks of polytheism by Jews. I find it ironic that modern western Christians use the same tactic against Mormons (calling us polytheistic), that was once used against ancient Christians.

I know we disagree here, but let me address this again. I already posted the D&C scripture, which is the primary source of Mormon knowledge on this issue. The First Vision account also confirms this. As for the Bible, Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

What image is that exactly? Let’s look at Gen 5:3, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:” What image was Seth? I think the obvious image of Adam. Therefore, what image was Adam? Using similar logic, Adam looked like God. Adam had a body as tangible as me. Adam is in God’s image. Adam looks like God with a body of flesh and bone.

Needless to say, I didn’t convince anyone over there (at least that I know of), but I thought you might enjoy some of these exchanges.  Comments?