PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 128

Has the Old Testament Been Faithfully Transmitted?

In this podcast, Jim begins a new series examining the reliability of the Bible. Can we trust that the Old Testament we have today is the same Old Testament that Jesus referred to? How was the Old Testament scripture transmitted over time? Does it contain error? Can it be trusted? How do we know that the ancient Jews were studying the same text we study today? Jim examines the transmission and canonization of the Old Testament in this first podcast in our new series.

Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Continue to Full Post...

An Author in Waiting

Brietbart posted a article yesterday that describes the plight of 46 year old Rom Houben who suffered a car accident in 1983 and spent 23 years in a coma. His doctors eventually told his family that he was in a vegetative state. Rom's family never accepted that diagnosis and after five trips to doctors in America (our system still appears to offer more than what is offered in Europe), one doctor finally determined that Rom was actually conscious after examining his PET Scan. Doctors eventually connected computers to Rom's feet to establish communication with him ('yes' or 'no' responses) and then found a way to restore more robust communicative skills. He is presently preparing to write a book; it turns out that he was conscious and listening to every word being said throughout all those years that people thought he was unconscious!

Now, while this story gives us pause and reason to reconsider the consciousness and value of people we often write off as vegetative, that's not my point in bringing the story to your attention. I think it has powerful parallels to the debate about life in the womb. Many pro-choice supporters argue that we ought to be able to terminate a fetus prior to the point in which that fetus attains consciousness (i.e. brainwave activity), but let's consider this argument in light of Rom's story.

There was clearly a point at which Rom was diagnosed as hopelessly vegetative. If we were to poll Americans about what we should do with Rom at this point, many would say that we should disconnect him from life support and let him die. They would argue that he's already dead from a consciousness perspective. But would that same group be so quick to disconnect Rom once the PET Scan revealed that he actually WAS conscious? I bet far fewer would be willing to give up on Rom. Why would they change their minds? Because they would now have hope that Rom might someday return to 'functionality'. Let's go a step further. How would we feel about terminating Rom once we've discovered that he could communicate simply using movement in his feet and could answer 'yes' or 'no' questions? Far fewer would be willing to terminate him. How about when we discover that Rom is completely articulate and has the ability to write a book about everything he experienced in the years since the accident? Now I think we would unanimously agree that terminating Rom would be an act of murder. Why? Because we know that, while he may have been unconscious for a season, Rom is capable of articulate consciousness.

The unborn, pre-conscious baby is no different. Unconscious for a season, this baby will eventually have the capacity to write a book of his or her own. Just as we would never have terminated Rom as he was coming back to us, we ought never terminate a life of someone who has yet to come to us. The baby, like Rom, is an author in waiting...

Continue to Full Post...

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 127

The Truth About the Origin of Thanksgiving

In this podcast, Jim examines the American holiday of Thanksgiving. While Thanksgiving has become a secular holiday for most Americans, its origins are distinctly Christian. Thanksgiving Day was not established to give us an opportunity to thank our government, our forefathers or even our good fortune. It was, and always has been, a day set aside to thank the God of the Bible. Jim also answers listener email related to Oneness Pentecostals and the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's free will.

Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Continue to Full Post...

I Can't Believe in a God Like That

The missionary below is K. P. Yohannan, founder and president of "Gospel for Asia" - for more information about his ministry, visit www.gfa.org.



After I posted "Deut's Other Gods", a friend of mine who is coming out of Mormonism confronted me about one of the Bible verses I'd quoted, in which God instructs Israel to stone-to-death persons who worship the sun, moon, and stars. She said passages like this one are among her reasons to reject the Bible. In her words, "I can't believe in a God like that".

I have to admit that unless you consider it carefully, it sounds very ornery of God to command such a thing. Seriously! Why such extreme measures? Why is God so "jealous"? Why shouldn't people be able to worship whatever (god) they want to?

The first story told by the missionary in the above video clip quickly provides some insight on this topic. The Hindu woman in the story was trying to get something that she badly needed from the 'god' she believed could provide it. She was trying to earn forgiveness, and made her trek to the Ganges River with the best sacrifice she could think of - her own baby boy. This sounds much like the peoples in Deuteronomy who appeased their 'gods' by throwing their children into the fire.

Worship of "other gods", as God has advised all along, does NOT lead to true peace, happiness, and forgiveness, but ofttimes to rash and destructive acts against ourselves and others. A command like the one given in Deuteronomy 17:2-5 would have threatened many people out of considering worship of gods-that-are-not-gods. Others, who were determined to worship these 'gods' and bound to attract followers and/or pass their new religion on to future generations, would have been stopped short. Even in judgment, God demonstrates His compassion! The religions of the world that take so much from (and offer so little to) their people... what if they'd never gotten off the ground?

The God of the Bible, Himself, bore the punishment we deserve. He offered up Himself and suffered as only He could so that we can have forgiveness from the mistakes that haunt us. Among all the 'gods' of all the religions on earth, only He is a loving, compassionate Savior.

Can I not believe in a God like that? No, with all my heart, I must. Continue to Full Post...

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 126

What Does the Evidence Reveal About Mormonism (Part 2)?

In this podcast, Jim finishes his short, two part series examining the evidence related to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Is the Book of Mormon truly what it claims to be? Is there any internal evidence that can help us determine the truth of the matter? What does the cumulative circumstantial and direct physical evidence conclude about the Book of Mormon and Mormonism in general? Does Christianity suffer in a similar way when examined critically?

Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Continue to Full Post...

A Movie Review

I’m a warm weather, green yard and garden fan, but when the season finishes up and cold weather begins, I tend to take a “switch-gears” break and rest in mind and body for a couple of weeks. This year being no different, I have lately watched too much TV. The good news is that two of the movies provided fodder for an article, and so I’m going to do a little movie review. Beware! This post contains “spoilers”.


The first film in my comparison is “Nights in Rodanthe”. The movie followed what I’d describe as a Hollywood storyline: woman leaves adulterous-but-penitent husband she just can’t forgive, for handsome man in emotional crisis, with whom she survives a hangover and a hurricane, and who ‘truly’ appreciates her after their weeklong time together (during which they share physical intimacy).

The other movie, “The Women”, begins the same way, with a woman and her cheating husband. But instead of getting herself a ‘better’ man, this wife: 1) consults her mother, 2) separates from but does not divorce her husband, 3) acknowledges, confronts, and works to correct her half of the marital problems, and finally, 4) forgives him and begins the reconciliation/healing process.

While I would not characterize the “The Women” as a Christian movie, it did follow the Biblical prescription for a marriage undergoing the crisis of infidelity !

The wife's mother, in the movie, encouraged her to 'hang in there', wait it out, and not divorce. She told her the man's fling was probably not as important to her as his marriage and family, and offered some advice on how to make her husband reconsider what he was doing. She was right! Did you know that the fifth commandment has a built-in blessing? Exodus 20:12 -- “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee”. Parents (in general) are not only more experienced with life and its various trials, but they come equipped with knowledge of and love for us, and a sincere desire to help. Ideally, they would give us godly guidance. If they cannot, it’s best to also seek godly counsel in the Bible, and from people who are familiar with God’s Word and know to trust Him. (Psalms 1, Proverbs 11:14 are just a few verses on this subject).

The Bible also shares specific wisdom for married people in this situation. In 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul writes: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away (divorce) his wife.” Jesus said that Moses was allowed to issue a bill of divorcement in the case adultery because of the “hardness” of people’s hearts, but that a marriage is the joining of two single units into a single unit of two. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”, He said. (Matthew 15:31, 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12, etc). The woman in the movie did separate for a time, from her husband. But she did not date or look for better options.

One thing the wife in the movie did do during her separation was begin to look for what bad decisions she had made. While it may be easier to let a cheating spouse take the blame, chances are good that the ‘innocent’ spouse was behaving in ways that drove the relationship apart. Nagging, blaming, withholding, neglecting, disrespecting… can all seem like lesser sins, but still sabotage a marriage. Understanding that we are ALL guilty (Romans 3:10-20) is especially helpful when it comes to trying to take responsibility for our shortcomings. A believer in Christ has the benefit of God’s forgiveness and the indwelling Holy Spirit to help shed bad personality traits, and acquire the lacking good ones.

In the end, the wife was able to forgive the husband. Jesus offers forgiveness in order that we can forgive, and He expects us to (Matt 18:21-22, Luke 6:37, 17:4, etc). Obviously, in an infidelity situation, it’s possible to forgive and still not be able to keep the marriage together, like in cases where the cheating spouse will not abandon the extramarital relationship. But forgiveness here remains just as important because it frees the non-cheating spouse from the ill-effects of being overly angry, ignoring his/her own faults, and holding a grudge.

The Bible goes further, to make recommendations for behavior that helps a couple avoid adultery all together. Proverbs 2, 5, 6, 12, 14, 23, 27,31; Romans 7; 1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5; Colossians 3; 1 Peter 3, etc. Probably my favorite passage is from 1 Corinthians 13:

“Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails…”(NASB)

My conclusion: “Nights in Rodanthe” is a pretty shallow treatment of love and marriage. Though there were some things I found objectionable about “The Women”, I still enjoyed it because of the deeper-than-expected journey through adultery.
Continue to Full Post...

Salvation Math

True Christianity is not a religion of works, but a working relationship with God. It begins with knowing that you are a sinner and incapable of being good enough for Him, and accepting His free payment for your sin debt... Continue to Full Post...

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 125

What Does the Evidence Reveal About Mormonism?

In this podcast, Jim begins a short, two part series that examines the evidence related to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Mormonism hinges on the truth about Smith and the text he claimed to be a second testament of Jesus Christ. What does the evidence tell us about Smith and the text? Does Christianity stand up to the same sort of evidential scrutiny?

Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Continue to Full Post...

A New Bible for a New Generation

B & H Publishing is closer and closer to releasing the Apologetics Study Bible for Students. It's available for pre-order now and will be released in February of 2010. The Bible has been specifically designed for students to "anchor younger Christians in the truths of Scripture by equipping them with thoughtful and practical responses for whenever the core issues of their faith and life are challenged." It contains contributions from a number of well known apologists, including John Mark Reynolds, Hank Hanegraaff, Greg Koukl, Frank Turek, Casey Luskin and Sean McDowell (who is also the editor). We were fortunate enough to be included in this list and contributed three articles for the publication. B & H Publishing is now promoting the book with a VIDEO that help people understand the need for such a commentary! Continue to Full Post...

Dawkins on Jesus

Recently Richard Dawkins was interviewed on the Hugh Hewitt show and near the end of the interview, Hewitt asks...

HH: On the person of Jesus Christ, did He exist?

RD: I suspect He probably did. I suspect there are lots of itinerant preachers, and one of them was probably called Yehoshua, or various other versions of Jesus’ name, but I don’t think that a miracle worker existed.

HH: How do you rate the evidence for Christ’s existence, manuscript evidence, eyewitness evidence, things like that?

RD: As I said, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if a man called Jesus or Yehoshua existed. I would say the evidence that He worked miracles, He rose from the dead, He was born of a virgin, is zero.

HH: Well, you repeatedly use the analogy of a detective at a crime scene throughout The Greatest Show On Earth. But detectives simply can’t dismiss evidence they don’t want to see. There’s a lot of evidence for the miracles, in terms of eyewitness…

RD: No, there isn’t. What there is, is written stories which were written decades after the alleged events were supposed to happen. No historian would take that seriously.

HH: Well, that’s why I’m conflicted, because in your book, you talk about the Latin teacher who is stymied at every turn, and yet Latin teachers routinely rely on things like Tacitus and Pliny, and histories that were written centuries after the events in which they are recording occur.

RD: There’s massive archaeological evidence, there’s massive evidence of all kinds. It’s just not comparable. No…if you talk to any ancient historian of the period, they will agree that it is not good historical evidence.

HH: Oh, that’s simply not true. Dr. Mark Roberts, double PhD in undergraduate at Harvard has written a very persuasive book upon this. I mean, that’s an astounding statement. Are you unfamiliar with him?

RD: All right, then there may be some, but a very large number of ancient historians would say…

HH: Well, you just said there were none. So there are some that you are choosing not to confront.

RD: You sound like a lawyer.

HH: I am a lawyer.

RD: Oh, for God’s sake. Are you? Okay. I didn’t know that. All right. I will accept that there are some ancient historians who take the Gospels seriously. But they were written decades after the events that happened, and they were written by people with an axe to grind, written by disciples. There are no eyewitness written accounts. The earliest New Testament…

HH: I understand you believe that, Professor. I do. But what I don’t understand is how you can use the analogy of the Latin teacher or the detective, when it breaks down given your dismissal of evidence you don’t see fit to deal with squarely?

RD: I think that’s a very, very specious comparison, because the Latin teacher is dealing with enormous numbers of documents. Remember, my Latin teacher is supposed to be confronted with skeptics who don’t even think the Latin language was ever spoken. And there’s huge amounts of documentary evidence of the Roman Empire. We’re talking about the entire Roman Empire here. There’s enormous amounts of eyewitness accounts written down at the time. It just is no comparison.

HH: Actually, it is. It’s actually a very persuasive…in fact, the arguments for the manuscript evidence of Christ and His doings is much stronger than anything, for example, Tacitus or Pliny wrote. It’s just much stronger. Now you might counter with Cesar’s Gallic war commentaries, and you do mention those, and those are contemporary accounts by an eyewitness, but so are the Gospel evidences, say, of Luke accompanying Paul about. And yet you’re dismissive of the miracles that occurred in there. So I’m just wondering…

RD: They may be. The accounts of Luke accompanying Paul may be real, but Luke never met Jesus.

HH: But again, I’m not arguing that point with you. It’s just that you dismiss that all without dealing with it serially, which would not be, I think, consistent with your detective argument, or your Latin teacher argument, because…

RD: I cannot believe that you’re doing more than just trying to score points. You cannot seriously be saying that the case for the existence of the Roman Empire is as weak as for Jesus.

HH: That’s not what I’m saying at all. I didn’t say that. I said that your argument, by analogy, to a Latin teacher being harried by people who deny certain things, but especially your idea of a detective using evidence at a crime scene, that it doesn’t comport with your dismissal of the evidence for Christianity and the historical Jesus.

Hewitt holds Dawkins feet to the fire for using his detective analogy in his new book and then refusing to follow the evidence where it leads because of his obedience to naturalism (Dawkins ridicules Hewitt for believing in miracles soon after). Dawkins points to the manuscript and archaeological evidence when it suits his point, but seems unaware of the overwhelming amount of evidence for the Bible and Resurrection when compared to other ancient manuscripts. It reminds me that we need to both be familiar with the case that atheists are making and then in fairness ask them how extensively they have looked into the evidence from Christian apologists if they are truly open minded.

It is interesting that Dawkins dismisses the accounts because they were "written decades after the events that happened, and they were written by people with an axe to grind, written by disciples." We would agree that the accounts were written decades later if he means two or three (20-30 years) which is not enough time for legend to creep in and there would still be people living that would have objected had the written accounts been different than what actually occurred. Also, if being a disciple discounts their testimony, then so would any modern testimony of someone who changes their mind about something because it happened in front of their eyes. I wonder what Dawkins thinks the "axe to grind" is for the disciples. Would it be worth being persecuted, tortured and dying for if made up?

Continue to Full Post...

Deut's Other Gods

An LDS man who wanted to convince me that the Bible speaks of more than one real god used Deuteronomy 32:8 to try to prove his point. In the Revised Standard Version (RSV), this verse reads:

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God."

The man's claim was that these "sons of God" are gods themselves, and part of a "heavenly council of gods" to the "Most High God".

To get a better idea the context of this particular verse, I went back to the Book of Deuteronomy and looked at what it had to say about "other gods". The following is a presentation of what I found. To be consistent, these verses have been taken from the RSV. They have also been shortened for brevity.

The "Other Gods of Deuteronomy"

Deut 5:6-8 I am the LORD your God…You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image…”
Deut 6:14 “You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are round about you”
Deut 7:3-5 “You shall not make marriages with them…for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods…”
Deut 8:19 “…if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you this day…”
Deut 11:16-17 “Take heed lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them, and the anger of the LORD be kindled against you…”
Deut 11:28 “and the curse, if you… turn aside… to go after other gods which you have not known”
Deut 12:2-3 “You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods…you shall hew down the graven images of their gods…”
Deut 12:30-31 “…do not inquire about their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods?--that I also may do likewise.' You shall not do so to the LORD your God; for every abominable thing which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.”
Deut 20:18 “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God.”
Deut 28:14 “… do not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.”
Deut 29:16-18 "…you have seen their detestable things, their idols of wood and stone, of silver and gold, which were among them. Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or family or tribe, whose heart turns away this day from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations…”
Deut 29:25-26 “…they forsook the covenant of the LORD… and went and served other gods…” Deut 30:16 “… the LORD your God will bless you … But if…you… are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you this day, that you shall perish…”
Deut 31:16-18 “And the LORD said unto Moses… this people will rise and play the harlot after the strange gods of the land… And I will surely hide my face in that day on account of all the evil which they have done, because they have turned to other gods”
Deut 32:12 “the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no foreign god with him.”
Deut 3:24 “'O Lord GOD, thou hast only begun to show thy servant thy greatness and thy mighty hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as thine?”
Deut 10:17 “For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords…”

I'm going to pause here and draw some preliminary conclusions. From the verses above, it seems that:

1 - The “LORD God” is the god of the nation of Israel, but the other peoples/nations have/worship other gods.
2 - The LORD God is adamant that His people not have anything to do with the other gods, nor try to worship Him in the same way as the other peoples their gods.
3 - The god-worship done by the other nations includes “every abomination to the LORD” (one given example is the burning of their children).
4 - The LORD God is superior to the other gods.

Are these conclusions sufficient? Not yet. There are more verses to consider:

Deut 28:15, 36 “But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God… these curses shall come upon you… The LORD will bring you… to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known; and there you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone.”
Deut 28:64 “And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other; and there you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.”
Deut 4:23-28 “Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the LORD your God … And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples … And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of men's hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.”
Deut 17:2-5 "If there is found among you … man or woman who … has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven …then… you shall you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones”
Deut 32:16-17 “They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominable practices they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons which were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come in of late, whom your fathers had never dreaded.”

Above, we see that the non-Israelite nations were worshiping
1- wood and stone (the work of men’s hands),
2- the sun, moon, and ‘host of heaven’, and
3- demons!

Ok, so some of the 'other gods' are graven images, etc, but are they all? Are there any real and/or ‘good' other gods?

Deuteronomy never mentions any. In fact:

Deut 32:37-39 “Then [the LORD] will say, 'Where are their gods... let them rise up and help you, let them be your protection! "'See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me... there is none that can deliver out of my hand.”
Deut 4:35 “To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.”
Deut 4:39 “Know therefore this day, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.”

Here are the revamped conclusions, then:

1- The nation of Israel’s god is the LORD God. He is the only real god in heaven or on earth.The other so-called ‘gods’ are graven images, demons, sun, moon, etc.
2- The LORD God is adamant that His people not worship/serve these gods-that-are-not-gods. One reason is that this worship leads to “every abomination”. Another reason is that these ‘gods’ can/do not help.

Ok, so, there is only one God for our heaven and earth, but are there other real gods for other 'heaven and earth's? Does Deuteronomy leave room for any?

Only if you argue 'from silence'. In all of Deuteronomy, and in fact, in all of the Bible, though “other gods” are referred to many, many times, NOT ONE TIME is there ever mentioned any other real god.

More than that, there are several passages in which the LORD God clearly states that He is the only God that there has ever been or ever will be, and the only one He knows of (i.e. Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,24).

So, given what is revealed about the LORD God in the Bible, to say that there are other real gods in other universes, one must believe that 1- the LORD is lying, 2- the LORD is ignorant, or 3- the Bible is not true (or mistranslated).

Since we are consulting the Bible, let’s rule out the Bible not being true. (If it is not true, we may as well not consult it at all). Next, we can rule out that the LORD God is lying, because not only does He say He is the only God, but nowhere in the Bible is any other real god ever mentioned. In other words, there is a consistent lack of any real God besides the LORD God throughout the Bible.

We are left with the LORD God just not knowing whether or not there are any other gods. This puts us in a new bind. Dare we assume that the LORD God is not great enough to know of His peers? Only if we think we are greater than He is. “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).

So, going by the Bible, we must conclude that the ONLY GOD, EVER, ANYWHERE, is the LORD God.

My challenge to anyone who believes that there is more than one god (though you may worship only one - monolatrism) is to reread Deuteronomy to make sure that I have not edited the material in such a way as to change the overall conclusion about the “other gods”. Next, scour the Bible to try to find any other gods that are real/non-idols. If you find some, please note the book, chapter and verse that where they can be found, and let me know.

Deut 4:15-19 “Therefore take good heed to yourselves. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. And beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them…”

Deut 4:39 "Know therefore this day, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other" Continue to Full Post...

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 124

What Is the Difference Between A Natural Talent and A Spiritual Gift?

In this podcast, Jim tackles the issue of “Spiritual Gifts” and distinguishes the difference between such gifts and the natural talents that all of us possess. Why do Christians sometimes describe what appear to be natural talents as “Spiritual Gifts”? Are they just attributing to God what is actually simply a matter of genetics and environment? Jim also answers listener email related to the Trinity and to the power of circumstantial evidence.

Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Continue to Full Post...

Should Christians Participate in Halloween?

I have very fond memories of Halloween as a kid. We always made our own costumes which meant learning how to build and sew, usually with the help of a parent or grandparent.

I love the Halloween scene from E. T. the Extra-Terrestrial where the streets are filled with kids and families roaming the neighborhood. Halloween was a night when the entire neighborhood came outside to play. Adults would talk and mingle while kids ran from house to house. As an adult, even though it takes more effort, I am always glad when I dress-up. It's the one day of the year when it's OK to dress goofy or as your favorite hero and act like a kid with my children. There are a lot of families in our neighborhood out walking around and it's a great time to meet and say hi to people I don't always get to talk with.

I don't approve of the grotesque and violent or sexually explicit costumes that seem to be more and more prevalent and I'm not naive enough to think that there aren't sinister things afoot on Halloween, but I'm not sure that by sequestering our kids to "Fall Festivals" at churches we are being light to our world.

Lenny Esposito from Come Let Us Reason Together does a great job of looking at Halloween, it's history and meaning.

A Christian Perspective of Halloween (Part 1) 14:30
A Christian Perspective of Halloween (Part 2) 14:30
A Christian Perspective of Halloween (Part 3) 14:30
A Christian Perspective of Halloween (Part 4) 14:30

How should we as Responsive Christians engage others with regard to Halloween? Continue to Full Post...

"Ida" Not Such An Ideal Fit

It wasn't long ago that evolutionists were touting "Ida" (Darwinius masillae) as the fossil that “changes everything”. They claimed that Ida was perhaps the most ancient of "missing links"; yet another critical piece of evidence in the human evolutionary lineage. I purposely refrained from making a statement about Ida here at PleaseConvinceMe.com because I suspected that Ida would eventually fall into the category of most such pieces of "evidence". I suspected that Ida would eventually be exposed as media-driven dribble. Well, this week, I saw this become the case. Nature published an article that announced:

“(a) 37-million-year-old fossil primate from Egypt, described today in Nature, moves a controversial German fossil known as Ida out of the human lineage.”

In addition, Wired also published a story that notes:

"(f)ar from spawning the ancestors of humans, the 47 million-year-old Darwinius seems merely to have gone extinct, leaving no descendants...”

According to this second article, a paleontologist called Ida “a third cousin twice removed … only very distantly related to living and fossil anthropoids.” Once again we see that our culture is quick to embrace the work of scientists who seem far more committed to a philosophically natural worldview than to the evidence at hand. Within just a few months, Ida fell from evidence for human evolution to just another monkey fossil.

Continue to Full Post...

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 123

How Does the Gospel Change Our World?

In this podcast, Jim continues answering listener email and addresses the nature of the Gospel Message. Is the purpose of the Gospel to transform and restore the planet, or is the purpose of the Gospel to rescues fallen individuals? Are these two goals and consequences of the Gospel Message mutually exclusive? Jim also discusses the importance of rationality in the Christian life, the monetization of apologetics efforts, moral grounding and ethics training, and the distinct and unique nature of the Christian Worldview.

Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Continue to Full Post...

Santa Claus & Mormonism

It's October, so the Christmas movies are starting up on TV. I sat through part of one the other day-- just long enough to have an interesting thought.

As a (Mormon) youngster, I was taught, like many of you, that Santa had his eye on me all year. How? Elves. Elves were little, inconspicuous things, hiding behind trees, sneaking around the attic, spying on me in order to keep track of all my goodness and badness. If I was good, Santa would bring me presents at the end of each year. If I was bad, it would be so sad for me, come Christmas Day.

Although I was a pretty good kid, I knew for sure that I wasn't always good. I said 'repentance' prayers when I felt guilty (many times), and tried my best to stop doing the bad things I was prone to do (stealing penny candy from the local drug store, for instance). I don't how you handled the Santa issue, but I remember deliberating on the questions: did Santa's helpers see EVERY time I was naughty? Were there some wrong things I did that weren't that bad? And did the elves 'forgive and forget' when I 'repented'?

Although I spent many childhood years trying harder to be good as the Christmas season approached, I eventually figured out that even if I wasn't, I would still get presents. This was reasonable to me, and I figured the explanation went something like this:
1) there weren't that many available elves and/or they were too busy making presents or doing more important things (polishing reindeer, maybe?) to spy,
2) the elves saw all my sins, but in the end, Santa was too nice to have any kid feel bad, or
3) the whole 'be good/get presents' thing was just to encourage kids to be as good as possible, while not really demanding that we be completely guiltless. After all, no kid has ever been perfect, right? No kid has even said 'please forgive me' enough to make up for ALL their mistakes, right?

So here's my thought.

The god of Mormonism is a lot like Santa Claus.

The god of Mormonism is a glorified man in a resurrected body; he's NOT omnipresent. In order to see every bad thing we do, there must be angels lurking in our closets. (I remember learning in seminary that I shouldn't worry about angels spying on me in the shower, because they have more decency than that.) Of course, there may be some other spying system in place, like a universal video-taping system, so that god has the incriminating film on us, to play back in front of everyone at our judgment (yeah, I was taught that too).

Or, the god of Mormonism is perhaps 'just kidding'. I was baptized clean of all my previous sins at age 8; but, I knew that from then on, every sin had to be repented from. I started out praying for forgiveness several times a day. As it was tedious, and appeared to be overkill, my repenting quickly became a once-daily, more generalized prayer like 'please forgive me of anything bad I may have done today'. Pretty soon I only remembered once in a while, and just asked to have my slate wiped clean, as I couldn't remember it all anyway.
That was kid-stuff, though, especially when compared to temple covenants (and I'm not going to reveal them here). Anyone who has listened carefully in the endowment ceremony knows that what you promise to do in there is beyond do-ability. But like in Sacrament Meeting, where you take the sacrament because if you didn't, you'd stand out, all the other temple patrons are making the covenants, so you do too, and you then look for the rationale. Maybe god is just 'threatening' me so that I will try my hardest to do 'the best I can do'. Surely he must know (like we do) that no one can perfectly keep the covenants we make in the temple!

Or, lastly, maybe god's list of requirements IS that extreme, but when we die and go to be judged, he will be sympathetic. He won't want to send us someplace awful, so he'll just assign those of us who aren't so great to a lesser heaven. After all, even the worst heaven of Mormonism is so terrific that we'd kill ourselves to get there, as I, and maybe you, were taught. So though I'm not perfect, I will end up somewhere good, because God is so nice.

Do you think I have a valid comparison here?

I'm not Mormon anymore; I'm a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, and in God's truth as found in the Holy Bible.

So I'm going to do a little comparison 'on the other hand':

The God of the Bible doesn't employ angel spies. He is omni-present, that is, He is everywhere and He can see you at all times. What's more, He is omniscient; meaning that He knows EVERYTHING (including everything about you, your thoughts, your motivations and reasons, etc). And on top of that, Jesus taught that God doesn't judge you by what you do, but by who you are in your heart. There's just no way to 'sneak one by' Him!

Additionally, the God of the Bible is perfectly just. He is not going to 'let some (sins) slide' on account of some nice things you did, or because your sins weren't 'that bad'. However, as His attributes include Perfect Grace and Love, He surely provided the One Way, the 'strait gate' for you. He nailed your sins to the cross, so that, if you truly believe on Jesus the Messiah, you are totally forgiven, though you fell far short of the mark of His perfect righteous standard.

The God of the Bible also doesn't make covenants with us that we can't keep. He prefers to be the covenant-keeper, because only He is able to perfectly keep a covenant, as He certainly well knows.

Is the Bible God like Santa Claus?

Well, He does know that you've been naughty -- the breadth, depth and height of it. And He does have abundant blessings with which to shower you - blessings that you don't deserve.

But that, I think, is where that similarity ends. Continue to Full Post...

New Blogger

Please join me in welcoming our newest blogger to the PleaseConvinceMe blog. Staci Lee is a mother and former Mormon. I look forward to reading Staci's unique perspective and am excited about adding new voices to the PleaseConvinceMe blog. Continue to Full Post...

Sometimes, Even Non-Believers See the Truth

Today's article in the Washington Times may provide some hope for those of you who are concerned that the trend toward secularism in America might reflect a similar trend globally. Julia Dunn interviewed atheist Adrian Wooldridge who recently researched and co-authored "God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World". Wooldridge observed that "that religious observance is increasing worldwide and that irreligious Europe, not America, is the exception":

"Religion now goes hand in hand with modernity," he said. "Something happened from the 1970s onward that put that [into action] and now the world is going in the American direction."

Wooldridge also noted that the global rise of Pentecostalism may be the driving force in this revival of faith:

"The sort of religion that is on the rise is the emotive, assertive charismatic religion... It's compelling Catholicism in Latin America to change. There's a physical surprise when you go to Guatemala and see how vibrant the charismatic and Pentecostal movements are. Same thing for Lagos and Nairobi. I went into that book underestimating the power and vitality of religion."

More interesting for me was the impact that the research for this book had on Wooldridge, who is an atheist:

"I must say I have more respect, I felt more warmth for religion after doing research for the book," he said, "partly because of the people I came across, such as the Pentecostal pastor in Philadelphia who has done the most amazing work dealing with crack cocaine. It did strike me that religious people have done amazing work to help the poor. But where are the atheists doing exactly same thing?"

Sometimes even atheists can appreciate the impact that God has on his children...

Continue to Full Post...

Collision: Is Religion Good For The World?

Check out the trailer for the new documentary Collision which is released in limited theatres and on DVD next week:


From the Huffington Post,

Last fall, we went on tour debating the topic "Is Religion Good For The World?" Our arguments were captured on film for a new documentary, Collision. Are our morals dictated to us by a supreme entity or do discoveries made by science and reason, make Atheism a natural conclusion? You decide.

In the same article, both Hitchens and Wilson respond to the question, "Is Religion Good For The World?"

Wilson writes,

...The atheistic worldview is nothing if not inherently reductionistic, whether this is admitted or not. Everything that happens is a chance-driven rattle-jattle jumble in the great concourse of atoms that we call time. Time and chance acting on matter have brought about, in equally aimless fashion, the 1927 New York Yankees, yesterday's foam on a New Jersey beach, Princess Di, the arrangement of pebbles on the back side of the moon, the music of John Cage, the Fourth Crusade, and the current gaggle representing us all in Congress.

...So if the universe is what the atheist maintains it is, then this determines what sort of account we must give for the nature of everything -- and this includes the atheist's thought processes, ethical convictions, and aesthetic appreciations. If you were to shake up two bottles of pop and place them on a table to fizz over, you could not fill up an auditorium with people who came to watch them debate. This is because they are not debating; they are just fizzing. If you were to shake up one bottle of pop, and show it film footage of some genocidal atrocity, the reaction you would get is not moral outrage, but rather more fizzing. And if you were to shake it really hard by means of art school, and place it in front of Michelangelo's David, or the Rose Window of Chartres Cathedral, the results would not really be aesthetic appreciation, but more fizzing still.

If the atheist is right, then I am not a Christian because I have mistaken beliefs, but am rather a Christian because that is what these chemicals would always do in this arrangement and at this temperature. The problem is that this atheistic assumption does the very same thing to the atheist's case for atheism. The atheist gives us an account of all things which makes it impossible for us to believe that any account of all things could possibly be true. But no account of things can be tenable unless it provides us with the preconditions that make it possible for our "accounting" to represent genuine insight. Atheism fails to do this, and the failure is a spectacular one. Nor does atheism allow us to have any fixed ethical standard, or the possibility of beauty.

It does no good to appeal to the discoveries made by science and reason, for one of the things that reason has apparently brought us is atheism. Right? And not content to let sleeping dogs lie, reason also brings us the inexorable consequences of atheism, which includes the unpalatable but necessary conclusion that random neuron firings do not amount to any "truth" that corresponds to anything outside our heads. This, ironically enough, includes atheism, and so we find ourselves falling out of the tree, saw in one hand and branch in the other.

Wilson then contrasts atheism with the Christian gospel, which whether you believe it or not, grounds reason, morality and beauty in something that is objective and transcendent.

Hitchens contribution to the article answers the question "Can we be good without God?" and again fails to address the question that every Theist has asked of him including Douglas Wilson in the trailer clip for Collision, "What is the evidence for the objective moral standard by which you condemn religion? What is morality grounded in?"

Continue to Full Post...

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 122

What’s So Unique About Christianity?

In this podcast, Jim begins by talking about the unique nature of Christianity then continues responding to listener email by addressing several topics, including: a brief response and observation related to the Baha’i faith, a discussion of the importance of keeping the Sabbath, a review of the relationship between the documents of the early church fathers and the nature of the church, and the value of understanding the nature of Christian Dualism.


Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Continue to Full Post...

We Only Have the Freedom to Agree

CNS News published an article describing the continuing bias that exists in the scientific community. The American Freedom Alliance (AFA) recently contracted the Smithsonian-affiliated California Science Center to premiere a new documentary entitled "Darwin’s Dilemma". The feature length film describes the challenge that neo-Darwinism faces in explaining the sudden appearance of life in what is known as the "Cambrian Explosion".

"There are two ways that modern evolutionists approach the Cambrian explosion, or what has been called “Darwin’s dilemma”: A. Some freely acknowledge that the Cambrian fossil evidence essentially shows the opposite of what was expected under neo-Darwinian evolution. B. Others deal with the Cambrian explosion by sweeping its problems under the rug and trying to change the subject."

The films posits that creative intelligent agency is the best explanation for the Cambrian Explosion and makes a case for Intelligent Design. The California Science Center apparently bowed to the pressure of the naturalistic scientific community and cancelled the viewing of the film just two weeks prior to opening night. Once again, it appears that the scientific community is unwilling to allow opposing views enter into the discussion:

"Darwin’s dilemma isn’t just about a lack of transitional fossils in ancient rocks. It’s about how the guards of evolutionary orthodoxy will treat contrary scientific viewpoints. Will they silence minority views, or will they grant dissenting scientists freedom of speech and scientific inquiry to make their case?"

While Christians are often said to be biased in their view of the sciences and that world around them, we simply cannot ignore the fact that those who hold a philosophical naturalist view of the world are not willing to allow those of us who disagree to have the freedom to disagree!

Continue to Full Post...

More Evidence That the Israelites Were in Egypt

I often receive emails from skeptics who claim there is no evidence to support the Biblical claim that the Israelites were in Egypt, that they served as slaves or ever left the nation in the Exodus. While it is true that the Egyptians made little effort to document or chronicle the lives (or even the existence) of their slaves, archaeologists have been slowly uncovering the evidence. The Jerusalem Post reported on an archaeological finding last month that uncovered ancient Egyptian coins that bear the identity and image of Joseph (from the Genesis account):

"A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait," said the report.

Archeology has always been a friend of Christianity and the number of archaeological findings that support the Biblical narrative is simply astonishing. We've written about this on the website:

The Old Testament Has Been Archaeologically Verified
The New Testament is Archaeologically Verifiable

Continue to Full Post...

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 121

How Were People Saved Before Jesus?

In this podcast, Jim begins to respond to listener email by addressing two difficult issues. How were people saved prior to the life of Jesus? If faith alone in Christ alone is required to be saved, how were Old Testament saints saved prior to the arrival of Christ? Jim also addresses the ‘hot topic’ issue of abortionist murders. Does the Old Testament require us to stop the murdering of the unborn by murdering the doctors who are performing abortions? Are abortionist murders permissible in light of the Old Testament Law? How are we to reconcile the tension between what we believe and what the law of the land permits?


Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Continue to Full Post...

A Sign of Things to Come?

The Canadian National Post posted an article on Saturday that described the shrinking denominational Church in Canada. It's clear that the worldview of Canada is less and less Christian as attendance in mainline denominational churches continues to decline. Canada is typically slightly ahead of the United States in cultural trends, just behind Europe in shifting away from traditional mainline denominations. The article cites a British study predicting that 18,000 mainline denominational churches will close in England by 2040. Canadian research predicts that Quebec will lose half of its 2,000 denominational churches by 2016.

SO where are the Christians going? Well, some are simply moving from denominational churches to non-denominational churches, but the larger number seem to be leaving the organized, denominational religion:

The numbers show that Canadians have been fleeing the church for decades. In the mid-1940s, about 67% of adult Canadians attended church weekly. By 1985, the number had plunged to 30%. In 2005, the number hit 20%. In 2006, a Canwest News Service poll found that 17% of Canadians attend church at least once a week, even though about half of those surveyed said they believe in God. More worrying for churches is the number of young Canadians who are turning their back. In a sweeping study last year by renowned Canadian sociologist Reg Bibby, 47% of the teenagers surveyed said they never go to church. Another 20% said they "hardly ever go," while 21% said they go weekly.

At the same time, many of those surveyed say that they still believe in God, even though they are leaving the church. So, is this a trend that will be repeated here in the United States? If so, what does it tell us about our culture and what opportunity does this provide us for the future?

Continue to Full Post...

Was God a Sinner?

According to Mormonism, the answer is "Maybe". Joseph Smith declares that God the Father once had a mortal existence like ours; that he lived as we do and that someday we can each be a God like the Father as well. The problem is that if we are to follow in God's footsteps; if we are here in this life to learn how to be Gods, we are already off to a bad start because we are sinners and God is not. This problem has encouraged many LDS to adopt the idea that God could have been a sinner.

Brian Mackert, in his autobiographical book, Illegitimate: How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy writes,

...You and I who ARE SINNERS are, according to Mormonism, supposed to be able to become Gods just like God the Father did, but God the Father wasn’t a sinner? See the contradiction? God the Father wasn’t a sinner, didn’t need a Savior, didn’t need atonement for sin, didn’t need to be redeemed, never fell into sin, it is impossible for us to become a God like He did!!!

The whole of Mormon Theology begins to unravel. If God was a sinless Savior like Jesus, then how was He tested by the flesh so that He could earn His own godhood and be exalted? Was he special somehow? And if we are to become gods just like he did then why aren’t we all sinless Saviors too?

What about the Holy Ghost? How did He become a God without a physical body and being tried by it? What’s up with that? Is He special too?

What about Jesus? How come it’s possible for him to become a God without ever having fallen into sin like us and needing to be redeemed?

It seems to me that if being a sinner or being sinless is optional then there is no need for this probationary period and the trials of the flesh. Why should we have to endure the trials of the flesh in order to become a God if this is optional. It seems to me that if we were to become Gods as they became Gods, then we wouldn’t have had the fall in the Garden of Eden. We would have all remained sinless and become sinless Gods as God the Father did and as Jesus did.

Another problem for LDS is that they claim that the Father and the Son have been eternally Gods. If LDS are to be Gods one day, are they now, in present time eternally Gods as well? How can Mormons have any assurance of becoming a God when all the examples they have of Godhood are unattainable. LDS would have to be sinless and eternally God right now by all known examples. Blaspheming God's holiness only solves part of the problem for Mormons.

And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. Revelation 4:8

God has always been holy, he was never a sinner.

I would love to hear from a Mormon perspective on this as well.

HT: Mormon Coffee
Continue to Full Post...

Will Relativism Be Our Demise?

Parade Online Magazine conducted a poll on Spirituality earlier this year and released the findings on Sunday. Like many other recent polls, the data indicates a shift away from main-line denominational church attendance and toward a more personal form of "spirituality". Of course, this word is incredibly vague and braid and indicates the growing sense that the truth about God is purely subjective. In fact, the poll provided specific data to confirm the impact of relativism on matters of religious faith:

"As Americans’ ideas of spirituality have become more expansive, so have their attitudes toward people of different faiths. Even though the notion that one’s own religion is the sole means of “salvation” has launched a million missionaries from this country’s shores, today only a small fraction are so fervent. A scant 12% of respondents said that their own religion was the only true faith, 12% said no religion has validity, and 59% said all religions are valid."

Only 12% of those surveyed said that what they believed was exclusively true. Ideas about God are subjective to most of us and it appears that we are more and more comfortable with that notion. Our concepts related to the nature of God are no more objectively true nor significant than our personal choices related to our favorite pizza toppings. No one is 'right' or 'wrong'; we all just seem to have an opinion. There are, however, objective truths, and most of us are willing to accept this in every area of life EXCEPT for matters of spirituality. We've written about the issue of objective truth here:

There is No Absolute Truth

Continue to Full Post...

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 120

What Is the Essential Truth About the Church?

What does the Bible teach about the nature of Church? Are there certain non-negotiable essentials that all of us, as Christians, must believe about the Church in order to call ourselves Christians? Are there any over-arching principles that God has given us to help us live as a community of God? In this final podcast in a series examining Christian “essentials”, Jim discusses the essential doctrinal truths related to the “Communion of Saints”.

Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Continue to Full Post...

Is There Still an Opportunity with American "Nones"?

U.S News and World Report posted a recent article about the newest Trinity College survey that indicates that once again confirms the growing number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation. Folks like this are now referred to as "nones" (having no religious affiliation) and their numbers are growing from 8% of the population in 1990 to 15% today. the prediction is that one quarter of the population will be in this category within 20 years. Interestingly, those Americans who identify themselves as "nones" are not rabid atheists:

"...American religious nones tend to be religious skeptics as opposed to outright atheists. Fewer than 10 percent of those identifying with no religious tradition call themselves atheists or hold atheistic beliefs, according to the new study. 'American nones are kind of agnostic and deistic, so it's a very American kind of skepticism,' says Barry Kosmin, director of Trinity's Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture. 'It's a kind of religious indifference that's not hostile to religion the way they are in France. Franklin and Jefferson would have recognized these people.'"

I can't help but wonder if American "nones" are still somewhat receptive to theism because they haven't yet been influenced by some of the more extreme representatives of New Atheism. Are they in a period of transition with one foot in and one foot out, on their way to both feet being fully out? Is America eventually destined to be just as secular as Europe? Are we in the midst of a season in which we might still be able to impact this group?

Continue to Full Post...

Evaluating Worldviews on the Basis of Sexual Choice?

This recent WorldNetDaily article describes a recent claim by a homosexual advocacy group that 250 California schools have already registered to show their students a curriculum of films called "Youth in Motion: Empowering students through LGBTQ film". The curiculum is offered by FrameLine, a LGBTQ media outlet. Without even addressing the issue of homosexuality in this post, what struck me about the article was one of the stated goals of the curriculum:

The accompanying discussion guides also encourage students to evaluate their religious traditions based on whether they encourage "choice" in sexuality or "reinforce gender expectations."

Regardless of how you may feel about the issue of hoimosexuality, do we really want our children to evaluate a worldview on the basis of whether or not the view allows them sexual choice? If so, can I then evaluate and accept a worldview on the basis of other personal desires? I thought we were supposed to evaluate worldviews on the basis of whether or not the evidence indicated that the view was, in fact, accurate and true? The truth may not be convenient for me personally; it may not allow me the "freedom" to do whatever I want today; but that simply cannot be the criteria I use to determine whether or not I accept the view.

I'm a Christian not becuase it works for me; not because I always want to conform to what it teaches about the world around me; I am simply a Christian because, given the evidence, it happens to be true.

Continue to Full Post...

Are Mormons to Have a Personal Relationship with Jesus?

Click on the above image to watch the video from the Mormon.org website. The Mormon.org website is the Church of Latter Day Saints media rich site with testimonies and answers to questions about the LDS faith. You can even chat with a Mormon Missionary online (I highly recommend that you do - maybe you could ask about some of the questions I present at the end of my post). In the above video, Noel says about Jesus, "I didn't have a personal relationship with Him" before coming to the LDS church and that she "had gone to churches looking for that personal relationship."

I find it extremely deceptive that the LDS church would put this on their website as an attractive attribute of Mormonism when the church has traditionally taught that you should absolutely not have a personal relationship with Jesus. Joseph Smith taught that Jesus and the Father are two separate Gods and that the Father is the only God that should be worshipped. This can be seen clearly in the Apostle Bruce R. McConkie's BYU speech Our Relationship With the Lord to address this very issue in the LDS church.

We worship the Father and him only and no one else.

We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense--the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.

Our revelations say that the Father "is infinite and eternal," that he created "man, male and female,"

And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship. [D&C 20:17–19]...

Our relationship with the Father is supreme, paramount, and preeminent over all others. He is the God we worship. It is his gospel that saves and exalts. He ordained and established the plan of salvation. He is the one who was once as we are now. The life he lives is eternal life, and if we are to gain this greatest of all the gifts of God, it will be because we become like him.

Our relationship with the Father is one of parent and child. He is the one who gave us our agency. It was his plan that provided for a fall and an atonement. And it is to him that we must be reconciled if we are to gain salvation. He is the one to whom we have direct access by prayer, and if there were some need--which there is not!--to single out one member of the Godhead for a special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be the one to choose.

Our relationship with the Son is one of brother or sister in the premortal life and one of being led to the Father by him while in this mortal sphere. He is the Lord Jehovah who championed our cause before the foundations of the earth were laid. He is the God of Israel, the promised Messiah, and the Redeemer of the world...

Now, in spite of all these truths, which ought to be obvious to every spiritually enlightened person, heresies rear their ugly heads among us from time to time...

There are yet others who have an excessive zeal which causes them to go beyond the mark. Their desire for excellence is inordinate. In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous...

Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed....

This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father, and to him only. They do not go through Christ, or the Blessed Virgin, or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary. We are entitled to "come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16).

Now I know that some may be offended at the counsel that they should not strive for a special and personal relationship with Christ. It will seem to them as though I am speaking out against mother love, or Americanism, or the little red schoolhouse. But I am not. There is a fine line here over which true worshipers will not step...

The proper course for all of us is to stay in the mainstream of the Church. This is the Lord's Church, and it is led by the spirit of inspiration, and the practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture.

And you have never heard one of the First Presidency or the Twelve, who hold the keys of the kingdom, and who are appointed to see that we are not "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14)--you have never heard one of them advocate this excessive zeal that calls for gaining a so-called special and personal relationship with Christ...

I wonder if it is not part of Lucifer's system to make people feel they are special friends of Jesus when in fact they are not following the normal and usual pattern of worship found in the true Church. (emphasis mine)

As you can see, Apostle McConkie continually points to his position of an Apostle and that these are not just his opinions, but the mainstream view of the church and that these matters are vital to the LDS understanding of salvation.

I shall speak of our relationship with the Lord and of the true fellowship all Saints should have with the Father. I shall set forth what we must believe relative to the Father and the Son in order to gain eternal life.

I shall expound the doctrine of the Church relative to what our relationship should be to all members of the Godhead and do so in plainness and simplicity so that none need misunderstand or be led astray by other voices.

I shall express the view of the Brethren, of the prophets and apostles of old, and of all those who understand the scriptures and are in tune with the Holy Spirit.

These matters lie at the very foundation of revealed religion. In presenting them I am on my own ground and am at home with my subject. I shall not stoop to petty wranglings about semantics but shall stay with matters of substance. I shall simply go back to basics and set forth fundamental doctrines of the kingdom, knowing that everyone who is sound spiritually and who has the guidance of the Holy Spirit will believe my words and follow my counsel.

Please do not put too much stock in some of the current views and vagaries that are afloat, but rather, turn to the revealed word, get a sound understanding of the doctrines, and keep yourselves in the mainstream of the Church.

Now, it is no secret that many false and vain and foolish things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus. I shall summarize the true doctrine in this field and invite erring teachers and beguiled students to repent and believe the accepted gospel verities as I shall set them forth.

There is no salvation in believing any false doctrine, particularly a false or unwise view about the Godhead or any of its members. Eternal life is reserved for those who know God and the One whom he sent to work out the infinite and eternal atonement.

True and saving worship is found only among those who know the truth about God and the Godhead and who understand the true relationship men should have with each member of that Eternal Presidency. (emphasis mine)

While more and more Mormons I talk to now say that they have a "personal relationship with Jesus", most still admit that they do not pray to or worship Him, but the Father alone. My question then is how can you have a personal relationship with someone you never talk to? I use the example that if I have a best friend, and the only way that I know him is by talking to His dad, then I do not have a personal relationship with him.

I wish that LDS truly did have a personal relationship with the biblical Savior and trusted in His sufficient work on the cross, worshipped Him in all His glory, not just as a role model elder brother and prayed to Him in a personal way.

So why is the church promoting this "heresy" that is "both improper and perilous"; "a fine line here over which true worshipers will not step" and outside "the mainstream of the Church"? Is Noel being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine"; "part of Lucifer's system to make people feel they are special friends of Jesus when in fact they are not following the normal and usual pattern of worship found in the true Church" and "led astray by other voices"? Why promote an idea against "the view of the Brethren, of the prophets and apostles of old, and of all those who understand the scriptures and are in tune with the Holy Spirit"; "at the very foundation of revealed religion", and "fundamental doctrines of the kingdom"? Isn't the idea that we can have a personal relationship with Jesus "some of the current views and vagaries that are afloat"; one of the "many false and vain and foolish things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus"?
Continue to Full Post...

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 119

What Is the Essential Truth About the Holy Spirit?

What does the Bible teach about the Holy Spirit? Are there certain non-negotiable essentials that all of us, as Christians, must believe about the Holy Spirit in order to call ourselves Christians? Why does it even matter what we believe about the Holy Spirit? What difference does a proper understanding of the Spirit make in our daily lives as Christians? In this podcast, Jim discusses the essential doctrinal truths related to the Holy Spirit as part of his continuing series on Christian Essentials.

Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives. Continue to Full Post...

The Morality of Practicality

My oldest daughter is now in the eighth grade. Like her two brothers before her (now grown and off to college), she recently had the pleasure of taking home the proverbial "fake baby". Our local junior high school has adopted a curriculum that includes one night with a computerized plastic baby that is designed to keep us up all night and require periodic and frequent attention from my daughter. She has "rock" it and make sure that she has contact with the baby (verified by a computer contact she has to wear on her wrist) in order to keep the baby from crying. Her teacher will download how the baby is cared for over a 24 hour period to make sure it wasn't "neglected".

The point of all this is to expose 8th graders to the 'burdens' of child-raising. This junior high age (8th grade) is presumably targeted in order to reach young people before they become sexually active, and it is incorporated into the health curriculum that also teaches about reproduction. The hope seems to be that the baby will convince each student that babies can be a 'pain' in order to discourage them from activity that may lead to having a baby of their own. In essence, the message seems to be, "Hey don't be having sex with each other, cuz the result might be one of these annoying babies, and you can see what a pain in the butt these can be!". Great message, huh?

In a world that is less and less inclined to ackowledge any transcendent moral truth, it seems the best we can do is try to discourage behaviors that lead to results that are 'impractical' and 'inconvenient'. We used to argue that premarital sex was wrong because it violated God's plan for sex within the context of marriage, but we could never take that approach in the public schools, right? Better now to simply say that some things should not be done because they lead to extreme inconvenience.

Of course the problem is that we really can't equate inconvenience or impracticality with immorality. There are lots of things that are impractical or inconvenient but also happen to be the the result of moral activity. It's not practical for me to spend time on the mission field serving the poor; it's not practical or convenient for me to stay up all night tending to a sick friend; it's not convenient for me to place the needs of others above my own selfish desires. But all these things are often the right moral choice. In a similar way, we also can't equate practicality and convenience with moral behavior. I am not assured to behave morally if I simply choose what is practical or convenient for me personally.

So, I'm not sure what message we are trying to send our young people with the "fake baby". I'm glad that my daughter now sees how much work babies can be, but I am far more concerned that she understand the transcendent moral issues that apply to sex outside the context of marriage, and I know that the public school system is never going to address those realities. Continue to Full Post...