A Hidden Threat to The True Church

Many people who think they are following the gospel of Jesus Christ are instead following Moral Therapeutic Deism, a watered-down creed that requires little by way of commitment or conversion. This counterfeit gospel makes personal happiness and "nice-ness" the only virtues that matter and imagines a God whose only job is to love and serve us and then to let us all into heaven without asking anything of us. Moral Therapeutic Deism is a danger to the true church because it can lead to stunted faith and spiritual starvation. This vacuous way of thinking is also causing young people to leave organized religion in droves all across America. What can you and I do to prevent this popular "self-made" religion of complacency and convenience from taking root in our own hearts and homes?

Recent national studies have suggested that more young adults are leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now than ever before.[i] This worrying development follows a larger trend across the country, in which particular groups or demographic cohorts (such as Millennials and Generation Z, or young men without a college degree, etc.) have been observed to be increasingly rejecting traditional religion, and moreover appear to be leaving these religions in droves. Seeing this, some have declared that “Religious commitment is in sharp decline, almost free fall.”[ii] Others have observed that “Almost every organized religion is experiencing losses in this new climate.”[iii] While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not experienced the dramatic losses which other American churches have faced, it is clear that we are not immune to this trend. Even the highest leaders of the Church have acknowledged the growing dissatisfaction among many people with organized religion.

Why the Church has the Right to Speak Out on Political Issues

Q:  Is it typical for the church to [speak out] for or against voting for something [specifically in letters regarding impending state votes on the questions of doctor-assisted suicide and the legalization of recreational marijuana]? Does the church feel like the congregations can't make informed decisions on their own without out an official statement? Do they believe that…we have to be spoon fed our opinions?

                                       

A:  The church does not endorse any particular candidate or political party, however:

“The Church does… Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church” (Official Statement on Political Neutrality, http://www.mormonnewsroom.org).

This has been the case throughout the church’s history.  For instance, the church expressed support for the so-called (and much praised) “Utah compromise” (Utah senate bill 296) which contained language designed to protect LGBT individuals from discrimination, while also protecting and preserving religious freedoms.  In the case of California Proposition 8, the church sent a letter to congregations in California encouraging members to get involved in efforts to pass the proposition, but the church was not directly involved, nor did it donate any money to those efforts.  Less recently, church leaders encouraged members to speak out against ratifying the proposed Equal Rights Amendment in the United States.  There are many other examples of the church urging members to speak up on one issue or another on “issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.”

Note the careful wording in the passage quoted at the top of this article.  The church reserves the right to “address” issues.  In the recent letter about marijuana, the strongest language used by the first presidency is that they “urge” the members to speak up in opposition to the legalization of marijuana.  (Note that nowhere in the letter is anyone specifically told to vote one way or another). That’s because such letters constitute counsel rather than commandment.  As such, they do not represent any kind of direct mandate to the members to vote one way or another.  That means that you are left to reason for yourself as to what the right course of action should be.  Even if they could force the members to vote a certain way, the brethren would not do it.

“Some may believe that reason is not free when religious leaders have spoken, but I doubt that any religious leader in twentieth-century America has such a grip on followers that they cannot make a reasoned choice in the privacy of the voting booth. In fact, I have a hard time believing that the teachings of religions or churches deprive their adherents of any more autonomy in exerting the rights of citizenship than the teachings and practices of labor unions, civil rights groups, environmental organizations, political parties, or any other membership group in our society.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Religious Values and Public Policy,” address given 29 February 1992, Brigham Young University Management Society, lds.org).

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)

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

Are We Saved by Grace, or by Works?

In the centuries that have passed between the death of the Apostles and our modern age there has been much debate and disputation over the precise nature and means of our individual and collective salvation. Since the Reformation, this debate has largely taken the form of a question of whether faith (or grace) alone will bring salvation, or if works are necessary as well (or instead), and if so, to what degree? Most often, this has been couched in a sort of Faith VERSUS Works argument in which opposing camps put forward one or the other as competing and opposing routes to salvation.

This argument often centers on the idea that we are saved by the grace of God regardless of our personal actions, and that any notion that we must complete a checklist of works in order to gain admittance to heaven is the worst kind of human arrogance, and a relic of the long-abandoned Law of Moses. This doctrine was a natural reaction by the Protestants of the Reformation to the Catholic assertion that one must receive certain rites, and complete certain performances under the exclusive auspices of the Church in order to gain salvation. The Protestants referred to Paul’s writings as they denounced the notion that salvation depends on empty performances (or as Paul puts it, dead works). Some even went so far as to say that it does not matter what we as individuals do, salvation through the grace of Christ is a free gift to all, saints and sinners alike, regardless of any action or lack thereof on our part. They claimed that, due to our mortal weakness, we are incapable of keeping the commandments, and that keeping them is no longer necessary in any case, because we are all saved through the atonement of Christ. In another view, John Calvin, in his doctrine of predestination and total election, claimed that God has already determined who is saved, and who is not, and that we have no choice in the matter.

As a missionary I talked to many people who tried to draw me into an argument over whether salvation is through faith or through our own works. These people often proceeded from the false assumption that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a “works church” (as opposed to a church that teaches that salvation comes only through the grace of Christ), and that it was their task to instruct me and my companion on the non-biblical fallacy of our doctrine.

The fact is that the LDS Church is not a “works church,” nor is it entirely a “grace church” in the sense that many evangelical Protestants define both terms today. My answer to the question of which of the competing doctrines of Salvation by Faith alone and Salvation by Works alone (as the world understands them) is the true one is a resounding “neither!"

Welcome!

I have established this blog in order to promote understanding and dialogue where religion is concerned. I also want to encourage people under 30 to stop being afraid of the scriptures and help them to start using them (and loving them) in a way that will help to make their lives better. I will draw from the standard works (canon) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which consists of The KJV Bible, The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price). I also make references to various books of history, doctrine, and commentary by authors from across the christian world, as well as addresses given by the General Authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The opinions expressed in this blog are wholly those of the author, and do not represent the official opinions or position of the Church on any matter. In expressing my opinions, I will strive to keep in line with the official doctrine of the Church as much as I can, however I am not perfect in my understanding, and that should not be allowed to reflect on the church in any way.