5 Christian Classics Every Latter-day Saint Should Read

I have personally amassed an extensive library which consists of books on many subjects.  In particular, I have collected many books on religion, both by LDS authors, and also by non-LDS authors.  I am not a millionaire, and thus I can’t afford to buy every book I come across (as my wife occasionally has to remind me).  I therefore do my best to buy only those books which I consider to be classics on their subject.  However, even among my (admittedly) large collection of excellent books, there are certain books that stand out above the rest. Many of the best books in my library are written by LDS authors, but some of them are not. 

I have noticed in the past that some members of the LDS church tend to view books on religion written by non-Mormon authors as being somewhat suspect, or of being of less value than a book written by an LDS author. However, it is worth noting that many of my most beloved books by non-LDS authors are widely recognized as classics by people of all faiths.  In fact, you may recognize some of the authors mentioned on this list, as their writings are often quoted over the pulpit at General Conference.

It is true that books which come from outside our tradition may contain ideas that do not wholly jibe with our particular teachings, but that doesn’t mean that there is no benefit to be derived from reading such books.

In scripture, we are instructed by the Lord to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (see D&C 88:118).  In one of the articles of our faith we hold that “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things” (see A of F 1:13).

Here is a list of some of those “best books,” which I can personally attest are filled with things that are “virtuous, lovely, or of good report [and] praiseworthy.”  This list does not constitute a blanket endorsement of all of the doctrines or ideas contained within them (especially over and above the doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).  However, there is much that is good and true in these books, which can be used to help us to better understand our own faith, and which can uplift and instruct us, as we read them under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. 

How Gospel Legalism is Holding Latter-day Saints Back

WARNING:  This post contains several mentions of a word and subject which is probably unsuitable for children.

I spend a great deal of time writing, speaking, and answering questions about religion, so I tend to encounter the whole spectrum of doubts and problems (as well as the best that we have to offer) as I get to know people across the world and the church.  As I have interacted with other Latter-day Saints on questions of religion, I have noticed a certain tendency that I find especially disturbing.  Specifically, I have noticed that some Latter-day Saints like to ask some variation of the “Is [blank] a sin?” question, which is usually accompanied by phrases like “It isn’t expressly forbidden by the general authorities,” or, “it isn’t spelled out in the scriptures (or the policy or manuals of the Church),” with the implication that unless it is spelled out explicitly as a sin, then it must be OK to do.  I have also noticed that the same people often also ask about what the minimum requirements are for any given commandment in order to get into heaven, or avoid hell. These individuals tend to be preoccupied with what exactly constitutes a sin in the eyes of God and the church. This attitude can only be called legalism, and it can be very dangerous.

“Legalism:  Noun.  usage: strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit.”  (http://thesaurus.infoplease.com/legalism, n. d.)

Case in point, the following question was posted in a Facebook discussion group for Latter-day Saints in order to solicit responses for a podcast:

“I got into a downright weird conversation with someone on whether or not the LDS Church teaches masturbation as breaking the Law of Chastity.

His defense was that there isn't a section in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual or some such work (you know - the Fifth Standard Work) about masturbation and so it isn't a sin” (Joe Rawlins, Facebook post, April 9, 2015).

In response, one person stated that she has never viewed a proscription against masturbation to be part of the law growing up, and that she still doesn’t, and then she posted a link to the Wikipedia definition of the Law of Chastity (as taught by the LDS church).

Another person posted a talk from President Spencer W. Kimball which specifically stated that the law of chastity forbids “all sexual relations outside marriage,” including masturbation, to which the first person replied that she did not see anything expressly forbidding the practice in the youth booklet.

Several individuals argued back and forth about whether or not pornography addiction is an actual or fictional condition, and others made statements criticizing the church’s stance on the subject as being a relic of Victorian era hang-ups about sex, and/or misconceptions about the sin of Onan (as it is often referred to) in the Bible, even going so far as to post a link to an article from Wiktionary defining onanism (see Genesis chapter 38 if you really care to know more).  There was also a protracted argument among several individuals concerning the severity of the sin, and its ranking in comparison to the severity of certain other sins.  Of course the crux of the entire argument had to do with the fact that teachings forbidding the practice of masturbation are not clearly spelled out in scripture.

This whole argument is an example of the irritating legalism that has crept into the attitude of many church members:  "If it isn't specifically spelled out, then I don't have to do it, and if it isn't expressly forbidden then I can do as I please."  Or, more subtly, ranking or defining sins so that some seem less severe than others, or finding ways to fulfill the bare letter of the law without concern for the spirit of the law.  Legalism is a problem for members of the church because it can cause us to miss the whole point of the gospel (and commandment keeping) and the atonement of Jesus Christ, and cause us to become lost in a maze of petty bickering over tiny points of the law. Worse, "by looking beyond the mark" (see Jacob 4:14) we may cause ourselves (and others) to "stumble" and "fall" because of confusion over what is and isn't sin.

"If There Is No God Why Be Good?" Secular Morality Vs. Christian Morality and The Dangers of Moral Relativism

In this post I examine some of the faults and flaws inherent to atheism and moral relativism, and I also examine the real reasons why Christians elect to do what they do.  I wrote this post as a general response to many things that I have heard and seen concerning morality, moral relativism, and the respective immorality of atheism and Christianity as viewed by either side of the morality debate.  More particularly, I wrote my post in direct response to a selection from Richard Dawkin's book The God Delusion.  While I do attempt to refute some of his conclusions, I find that he raises several valid points which are worth considering by religious people, agnostics, and atheists alike.

I have deliberately avoided addressing the arguments of atheists in the past, as I do not consider it to be a productive use of my time, especially since I think that atheists and religious people should agree to disagree and get on with making the world a better place.  I chose to address this quote from Mr. Dawkins in this post in part because I think that he promotes some false assumptions that even some Christians may think that they believe, but I wrote it mainly because I believe his argument opens the door for the discussion of an important Christian principle.

"If there is no God why be good?  Posed like that, the question sounds positively ignoble.  When a religious person puts it to me this way (and many of them do), my immediate temptation is to issue the following challenge: "Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment?  that's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap in your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base thought. As Einstein said, "if people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.'  Michael Shermer, in The Science of Good and Evil, calls it a debate stopper.  If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would 'commit robbery, rape, and murder', you reveal yourself as an immoral person, 'and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you'.  If, on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.  I suspect that quite a lot of religious people do think religion is what motivates them to be good, especially if they belong to one of those faiths that systematically exploits personal guilt.

It seems to me to require quite a low self-regard to think that, should belief in God suddenly vanish from the world, we would all become callous and selfish hedonists, with no kindness, no charity, no generosity, nothing that would deserve the name of goodness."  (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 259)

Are You A Christian If You Don't Believe In The Trinity?

A friend of mine asked me to explain the doctrine of the trinity and its origins, and the nature of the Godhead, esp. according to the Bible. She asked me verbally at Bible study last week, so I will have to paraphrase her question.

Q: I have a friend that has several issues with the doctrines of the LDS church. One of them centers around your belief that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are each separate beings. This does not conform to the doctrine of the trinity, which he holds to be one of the basic criteria for true Christianity. Where did the doctrine of the trinity (that says that God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost are the same being) come from? What does the Bible say about it?

The Great Apostasy - Part 1

Introduction/Prophets and Apostles

This is the first in a planned series on the Great Apostasy. For ideal viewing, click the fullscreen button on the bottom left hand side of the player, or hit Ctrl+Shift+F to view the presentation at its full size. Let me know what you think of this format in general, and my presentation in particular.  Also, here are links to Part 2 and Part 3