Sunday, August 31, 2014

Why on earth you'd want to be converted to Jesus Christ

This post is a transcript of a talk I gave in sacrament meeting.

My assigned topic today is "How do we know when we are truly converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?" This is a pertinent question to those who already have a desire to become more converted to Christ. However, today, and hopefully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I have chosen to speak about a question that I believe is more poignant (for myself and where I am in life, as well as) for people who are not in the Church, or not even Christian, or who don’t even believe in God; or, for those who are in the Church but are struggling with the question of whether following Christ is what they want to do with the rest of their lives.

It seems to me that in the Church we spend a lot of time talking about how we each have the huge responsibility of gaining a personal testimony and being converted to the Lord, and how this is really what we should do and is really important, but we don’t talk much about WHY. I for one took this question very much for granted at the beginning of my mission, and I think many of you can relate. There I was, a Utah Mormon boy thinking I’m off to conquer the world, and when an atheist asks me why in the world he would ever want to consider believing in God, I have no idea how to answer. I think it’s a hard question to address, especially when you’re on the spot. My goal today is to try to answer this question, at least, as much as I can in 10 minutes with my limited knowledge and experience.

The first reason that I can think of for WHY it is valuable to follow Jesus Christ and strive to be converted to His Gospel is that there are certain laws and principles found in the Gospel that if we follow them we’ll avoid pain and suffering. I’d like to illustrate this principle using a story:

Once upon a time, there was a village of people that lived happily in the middle of the mountains. (Let’s say, Hurricane, UT.) This village was near a very large cliff, and the children from the village loved to play outside near the edge of the cliff. Every once in a while, a kid would get too close to the cliff and fall down. Sometimes they died, sometimes they survived, but always with major injuries. After a while, the village council got together and decided they needed to do something about the situation. They decided to have a morgue car and an ambulance always stationed at the bottom of this cliff, so that whether the falling child was dead or injured, they would be ready with the correct response.
*The end*

The point of this story is to provoke in each of your minds the question, “Why on earth didn’t they just build a fence?!”

I like this story because at times we all view fences as restrictive of our freedom, but this story helps us see a situation when a fence is obviously beneficial. The Gospel of Jesus Christ puts up fences, or commandments, things we should and shouldn’t do, -- there’s the symbolism you were all waiting for -- and I, like any good missionary, would like to argue that these restrictions are for our benefit, in that they keep us from making short-sighted, destructive decisions. Here are a few examples of said decisions that I can think of off the top of my head:

  1. Premarital sexual relations, which undermine Stability of Marriage and Family Life. In the culture of the world today, or at least the United States and Europe, it is culturally acceptable to have sexual relations with … anyone, as long as you’re both okay with it. Essentially all of us have these strong sexual desires that at times admittedly can be hard to control. However, scientific research plainly shows that people who, fulfilling their sexual desires, have premarital sexual relations with people other than the one they end up marrying, are significantly more likely to break off their first marriage. I know my dad’s parents divorced when he was pretty young, and it’s not an easy thing. I think it’s probably safe to claim that any given person would rather have one happy marriage throughout their lives rather than multiple marriages that are good for a while, and then end in divorce. So in this way, the law of chastity is a safeguard.
  2. Addictions. One thing I learned, when discovering the “real world” on my mission, living outside of Happy Valley for essentially the first time, was that not everyone who drinks alcohol or smokes tobacco, is hopelessly addicted and a terrible person. [That was the impression I’d gotten while growing up from hearing over and over in Church the evils of substance abuse, and simultaneously living in Utah Valley and not actually having any close friends that smoked or drank or that weren’t, to my knowledge, active in the Church.] In fact, there are lots of people in the world that occasionally smoke or occasionally drink alcohol, and apparently suffer no long-term ill consequences. However there are also many people whose lives are significantly worse as a result. In the extreme, substance abuse can totally ruin a person’s life and split apart their family and possibly send them to jail, or the hospital, or death.

These are just 2 instances where the rules are obviously, scientifically beneficial. I’m sure there are many more, and in addition to that, the Lord has said “34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.” Therefore we know that in addition to these visible temporal benefits we also receive spiritual benefits, for example, having the Spirit with us, as a good, comforting feeling; guidance in our daily lives; confidence that God is guiding us; satisfaction and the feeling that God is pleased with the course of our lives; as well as power to resist further temptation.

So I think the first reason why it’s so valuable to strive to be converted to the Lord is that following His commandments, we reap great temporal and spiritual benefits.

Another reason why to be converted, or a second way we can benefit from it, is taken from an essay I recently read called “Confessions of an Ex-Mormon.” When I saw this title I braced myself for jeering about the church, but The “confessions” are actually basically the ex-mormon’s confessions of how he actually really likes the Church, and in fact misses it. This essay was written during Mitt Romney’s campaign for president when tons of people were bashing Mormons all the time – the author had all but forgotten his Mormon roots but when people started such intense mockery, he started getting a little worked up and realized that it was important to him after all. 

Anyways, he talks in his essay about how in the Mormon Church he felt a sense of belonging, which can be often elusive to children growing up, or teenagers, or college students, or, I suspect, anybody else. I personally remember that when I was a deacon first passing the sacrament, I felt like I was a part of something, something big and important. I felt much the same when I was a missionary, and even now when I serve in my calling, or participate in class, or give a talk in church. 

PMG explains it thus: “We are all brothers and sisters in the family of God. This knowledge gives us a sense of identity and belonging. It gives us reason to hope for eternal life in God’s presence,” And this eternal life will be kind of like a big family reunion if you think about it. That’s kind of the ultimate sense of belonging we can feel. So the second reason why we should strive to be converted to the Lord is that it helps us feel a deep sense of identity and belonging.

The last major blessing I can think of is that God gives us strength and inspiration to do things we otherwise couldn’t accomplish. I certainly wouldn’t have lasted 2 years following incredibly strict rules and learning a completely foreign language, Latvian, if I didn’t truly believe that’s what God wanted me to do, and if I didn’t believe that He believed that I could do it. I think whether we’re outside or inside the church, there’s a temptation to beat ourselves up for our mistakes and think we’re never going to change, but the Gospel teaches us that we can change, and faith in God and Christ gives us the power to do so. And as much as I dislike hearing about the pioneers and how they died horrible deaths on their impossibly long journey through snow without shoes, it does prove that people with great faith can surmount seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

I’d also like to note that if we want to really retain our faith, it’s important to act on it and to follow the commandments. When we let the commandments slide, we lose little by little our confidence and our conviction that we actually still believe in the entity that gave us those commandments. I believe that’s one reason why God seems more distant when we let more commandments slip. So I would urge all of you to remember that when you decide to trust God’s commandments, your mind will automatically trust Him more in general; His promptings will seem clearer, the scriptures will seem truer, and you’ll be more able to keep a hopeful, eternal perspective.

I’d like to end with my testimony that I believe that everything I’ve said to you is true. I know a lot of the time we who have grown up in the Church kind of take our lives in the Church for granted; especially when we’re surrounded by other members. Therefore I’d like to invite you to consider in your own lives what concrete differences the Gospel makes; what effect your trust in God has on your well-being; and why you live the Gospel. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

LDS Church's Official Statement on Evolution

The leaders of the Church very rarely make a statement on evolution: just four short documents ever, over the course of the past 100 years. Here's my favorite one:

"Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church....

"Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: 'Adam is the primal parent of our race' [First Presidency Minutes, April 7, 1931]."

That's from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on Evolution which is at the bottom of the page I've linked to. Wise words.


Sunday, August 17, 2014

Reasons why even scientists who believe in God can't admit His existence in their work

This post is extracted from an email I wrote to my brothers who are on missions:

On my mission I talked to lots and lots of people that seemed to think that evolution proved the Bible wrong. Some people even claimed that science itself foreclosed the possibility of the existence of a God, for example, one guy that said to me, "Look at these cars driving, it's proof that science works! What are you guys doing here?" At the time I did my best to explain to them how I thought that religion and science really didn't clash, but I felt I couldn't offer a very good explanation or even an understanding of their side of the problem with the time and research sources (i.e. missionary library) available at the time. However, since getting back, I've wanted to investigate this much more deeply and so that's what I've been doing. So far my main source for research is a book entitled Evolution vs. Creationism that, although it is written by an agnostic scientist type, does a great job at defining the boundaries of what the respective fields of science and religion actually encompass.

In this and subsequent essays I thought I'd share some of the main things that I wish I would've known how to express better on my mission.

A. Methodological vs. Philosophical Naturalism, or, why lots of scientists find it convenient not to believe in God

"Methodological Naturalism" is a way to describe how science works, in that science is an attempt to use only natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes to explain natural phenomena. "Philosophical Naturalism" is the worldview that the universe consists exclusively of matter and energy and that there is nothing supernatural anywhere. Scientists at their jobs are required to be methodological naturalists, but they aren't necessarily required to accept philosophical naturalism and thereby reject the existence of a supreme being. Translation: scientists can't reasonably accept or talk about God in their scientific work but that doesn't mean they can't believe in him. 

In other words, scientists just acting as normal people are completely allowed to believe in God. However, there are 3 main reasons that scientists, when acting as scientists, cannot possibly accept or admit the existence of God: 

1. In ancient cultures, for example, in ancient Greek and Roman mythology, people talked about acts of God as a way to explain seemingly unexplainable events such as the tides, lightning striking, or a sudden severe drought. This is the main thing that people brought up to me on my mission: they'd say "there's no reason to think that God caused a thunderstorm. We know that clouds are formed by evaporation of water, then condensation in the sky, then air currents and ions and electrical charge building up, which causes a giant spark and a loud noise, blah blah blah." 

It's true that if no one had ever questioned the notion that "God caused the thunderstorm, that's all!" then we'd have a much more primitive understanding of weather in general. Indeed, one of the greatest strengths of the scientific method is the chance to question and put to the test any and all previously held notions. Scientists are used to saying "I don't know yet" and then going and performing an experiment. 

However, if Dad published a paper about a question involving physics and lasers and plasmas and stuff and his answer to the question was "because God wanted it that way," his paper would be rejected and mocked; this is not because Dad doesn't believe in God but because it is scientists' job to explain natural phenomena through natural causes. 

However, even though Dad understands what causes rain to fall and clouds to ... encloud themselves, if the sky just happens to be overcast on the day he runs 40 miles for his 49th birthday, he is still allowed to believe that God worked through those natural laws to make it overcast as an answer to his prayers not to be miserable. Thus in his job he must be completely scientific (methodological naturalism) yet in his personal life he can still accept the existence of God (i.e. the opposite of philosophical naturalism).

2. Actually I think I explained #2 as part of #1. Not sure here. Maybe there was another one I forgot. Anyways this whole thing is already super long.

3. "You can't put God into a test tube." That's a quote from somebody who definitely is at least a little bit scientifically viable because they got quoted in this book I'm reading. Their point is that the methods of science require you to hold certain things constant and only let one thing vary; for instance, if you want to see if one washing machine cleans better than a different washing machine, in order for that to be a fair experiment, you would need to use the same type of shirts with the same stains on them for both washing machines, as well as the same temperature, same wash cycle, same detergent, same everything else conceivable that could reasonably affect the quality of wash the shirts get. That's the only way you could really empirically (i.e. based on the results of experiment) determine whether it really is the washing machine that made the shirts cleaner. However, since God is by definition omnipotent, you can't keep His acts constant. There's no way to tell if He decides that every time you use a certain washing machine, the shirts are cleaner (for lack of a better example) ... there's no way to reproduce acts of God and there's no way to make sure that none happen while you're performing your scientific experiment so therefore, science is not a way to know anything about God. Hopefully that kind makes sense. 

Lots of scientists who are really deeply committed to their professions try to convince themselves that since only energy and matter are observable in the galaxy, that's all there is in the galaxy (i.e. no God or supernatural forces). They may even try to convince others of the same. That's a noble belief, but not the findings of a scientific experiment. (That's a paraphrase of a quote from another guy that is probably an anthropologist which really sounds scientific to me. Sorry I don't have the book with me right now.) 

[Editor's note: turns out I was running out of time while writing this so I may revisit it sometime in the future and rewrite it so it's less confusing. But hopefully you get the idea.]

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Do evolution and creationism overlap?

On my mission I realized how big of a problem evolution is for the faith of so many people. I've started reading this book called "Evolution vs. Creationism" by Eugenie C. Scott and it's very interesting. The conclusion I'm coming to is that evolution and Christian faith (including faith in the Biblical story of the creation) are not incompatible because science and religion have fundamentally different spheres of authority. Here's a quote from the book:

"The question naturally arises, ... Is creationism testable?"

"As discussed, science operates by testing explanations of natural phenomena against the natural world. Explanations that are disproved are rejected; explanations that are corroborated are provisionally accepted. An important element of testing is being able to hold constant some of the conditions of the test, so that a causative effect can be correctly assigned.

"The ultimate statement of creationism--that the present universe came about as the result of the action or actions of a divine creator--is thus outside the abilities of science to test. If there is an omnipotent force in the universe, it would by definition be impossible to hold constant (to control) its effects. A scientist could control for the effects of temperature, light, humidity, or predators--but it would be impossible to control for the actions of God!

"The question of whether God created cannot be evaluated by science. Most believers conceive of God as omnipotent, so God could have created everything just as we see it today, a theological position known as Special Creationism, or God could have created through a natural process such as evolution, a theological position known as Theistic Evolution.

"An omnipotent being could create the universe to appear as if it had evolved but actually have created everything five minutes ago. The reason that the ultimate statement of creationism cannot be tested is simple: the actions of an omnipotent creator are compatible with any and all observations of the natural world. The methods of science cannot choose among the possible actions of an omnipotent creator because by definition God is unconstrained."