Texas School Board Decision Angers Evolutionists

The Texas School Board voted 13-2 on Friday approving the language that will be used in Texas science textbooks. Why is this important? What happens in Texas has a huge influence over the whole country. Because Texas is the biggest buyer of textbooks in the United States, biology textbook publishers won't want to make one version for Texas and another for other states. Although recent advances in publishing technology give the publishers more freedom to make changes, the textbooks written after 2011 to incorporate the new science standards have the potential to become normative for the rest of the country.

Reaction to the ruling from Salon:

But in a compromise that alarms and dismays many science education advocates, the board did adopt language that attempts to cast a shadow of doubt over the validity of the central evolutionary concepts of natural selection and common ancestry.

...Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif.-based organization dedicated to protecting the integrity of science education in the public schools, says that once McLeroy and his allies failed to pass the "strengths and weakness" language, "they had a fallback position, which was to continue amending the standards to achieve through the back door what they couldn't achieve upfront."

And they succeeded.

From the Houston Chronicle:

"I think we've seen some classic examples of politics interfering with science education," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.

Critics say the requirement has been used to undermine the theory of evolution in favor of religious teachings.

And from the Wall Street Journal:

Kathy Miller, president of the pro-evolution Texas Freedom Network, said, "The board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks."

Depsite the National Center for Science Education and other pro-Darwin groups petitioning the school board that their opponents had religious motivations, the language passed. So why are evolutionists so angry? Does it identify God as the Creator? Endorse Creationism? Does it require Intelligent Design be taught along side Evolution?

The new science standards state that students "...in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."

Robert Crowther of the Discovery Institute states,

In a huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution, Texas today moved to the head of the class by requiring students to “critique” and examine “all sides of scientific evidence” and specifically requiring students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations.

“Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned,” said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute. “Contrary to the claims of the evolution lobby, absolutely nothing the Board did promotes ‘creationism’ or religion in the classroom. Groups that assert otherwise are lying, plain and simple. Under the new standards, students will be expected to analyze and evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution, not religion. Period.”

While I agree with Crowther that this is a huge victory and am thankful to those who fought diligently, it is so sad that such an incredible amount of time and effort is necessary to establish something so foundational as critical thinking into our science classrooms. Anyone skeptical of evolution is painted as solely motivated by religion, anti-science, deceptive and dishonest. But it is the evolutionists who are rejecting the empirical demonstration of science for their ideological purposes.

HT: The ID Update

Texas School Board Decision Angers Evolutionists

Is Church Necessary?

Originally posted by Roger at The A-Team Blog

A friend of mine recently asked if I think church attendance is necessary for Christians. Below is my response. I’m sure more could be said, but this isn’t meant to be a theological treatise.

I think the Christian life can be looked at in two inter-related ways: 1) Glorifying and enjoying God 2) Becoming more like God. One of the primary ways we glorify and enjoy God is by becoming more like Him (sanctification) and in order to become more like Him we must seek His glory and enjoy His goodness and beauty.

Within the context of these aims, the fellowship of the body of Christ is a necessity. It is not just commanded, but also explained in Hebrews 10- “let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” The whole passage is about our assurance of faith, and encouragement between the saints is seen as a vital part of that. Elsewhere we see that church provides for the use of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12, 1 Pet 4:10), accountability (1 Peter 5, Hebrews 13:17), and general love between believers (John 10:34, 17:20-21). These commands are meant to be followed within the body of Christ, and are typically neglected by those who cut themselves off.

There’s no such thing in the Bible as a “Lone Christian.” The letters in the New Testament are either to whole churches, or to leaders about churches. The expectation is that Christians will be meeting together regularly, and thus there is no instruction for those who do not.

I don’t think God has a checklist wherein He marks every Sunday we fail to attend. His concern, I believe, is about our heart in the matter. Why is it some have broken fellowship with others He has redeemed? The only explanation for someone who regularly excludes themselves from the gathering of the saints is sin- be it pride, selfishness, or whatever. Ironically, those are heart issues that are often confronted when people live in genuine community with other believers.

Dallas Willard makes a related point in the forthcoming book God & Governing, “People sometimes ask me why, since I’m such a “profound thinker,” I’m still involved in church. I sometimes reply, “Well, the Bible says you’re supposed to love your enemies and you’ll find a few there.” I mean to be humorous, of course, but I sensed some recognition out there as I say that. Actually, however, that’s what the church is. It’s a place where you can get really mad at people and not run off and leave them. It’s a place where anger and contempt can be unlearned. It’s a place to learn the deep things of a fellowship in Christ that lovingly endures disagreement, anger and injury. “Churchmanship” in that sense is important. It’s vital. It’s in God’s plan and nothing is going to take the place of it. The church is intended to be a school of love.”

The bottom line is that if we’re genuinely seeking after God and seeking to become more like Him, we will desire to be in community with His people, even when it’s difficult. If we lack that desire, then it’s likely that we are no longer seeking after God.

Is Church Necessary?

Preserving Marriage, Not Just the Name

When the debate over same-sex marriage is described as a clash between civil liberties and religion, the solution may seem simple. "Remove the government from the institution of marriage" or "Remove 'marriage' from the language of the government" are replies I often hear in response to conversations about same-sex marriage. There. Done. So they seem to think as if the problem is solved. A newly proposed measure

...would overturn Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage, and have California treat all unions — opposite-sex or same-sex — as domestic partnerships. It would also allow churches, synagogues and mosques to decide whom they want to marry in a social, rather than civil, ceremony...

Their proposal might sound startling. But California's Supreme Court justices, in oral arguments on same-sex marriage last week and in 2008, discussed the idea of equal protection for opposite-sex and same-sex couples by eliminating the state from civil marriage, leaving the decision of who can marry to religious organizations.

"We're not banning marriage. We're protecting fundamental rights for minorities and protecting the religious definition of marriage for" religious groups

Removing the word 'marriage' from the language of the government may in fact protect religious freedoms allowing religious and other belief groups to continue to sanction marriage in accordance with their own definitions and give equal treatment under the law to same sex couples, but this is only part of the problem. Never mind that it would necessarily permit polygamy and polyandry by allowing religious groups to define marriage requirements.

While we should fight to protect religious freedom, it is only one symptom of the greater disease. Rights like Freedom of Religion are taken away when priveledges like marriage are forced upon us as rights. To treat this solution as a cure would be like cutting off your hand to cure arthritis. To remove the government from the institution of marriage is a misunderstanding of governments' role, and both solutions make the mistake of equating same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, while ignoring the role of marriage in society.

Redefining (or “undefining”) marriage so that the state comes to embrace same-sex relationships as equally beneficial would deprive a class of children of their birthright to be raised by their natural mother and father. It would advance the notion that children do not need both a mother and a father, let alone their own mother and father. Same-sex parenting would send the message that parenting is not naturally gendered. There would be nothing known as “mothering” or “fathering,” only unisex “parenting.” Both culture and law would be unable to stress the important role that fathers play in their children’s lives without giving offense to “alternative” families in which there simply is no father. This would have disastrous effects for our nation’s children. Even the left-leaning research organization Child Trends affirms the importance of married mothers and fathers to child well-being. In a research brief summing up the scholarly consensus, they write:

Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. . . . There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.

Regardless of the name given to it, the state’s promotion of any pairing of adults as the functional equivalent of marriage would eliminate in law and weaken in culture the ideal that children should be raised by their married, natural parents. The public meaning and purpose of marriage would be ended; marriage would be redefined as merely a private relationship of consenting adults, and parenthood as merely a legal status applied to those who choose to take responsibility for a child. The social function marriage plays in society — providing children with their natural mother and father — would be lost.

No longer seeing the point of public ratification of a strictly personal relationship, many people would cease to get or stay married. As the marriage rate fell, we would also see higher rates of divorce, cohabitation, and non-marital childbearing. As marriage came to be understood as simply a private relationship, the sense of its importance would erode. Traditional marriage would become one lifestyle and family choice among many — one that could not legitimately be given a privileged status in law. That would eliminate the ideal of marriage as the place to bear and rear children. We’ve already seen these developments in several European nations.

Preserving Marriage, Not Just the Name

Against the Best Advice

Of the Eighteen members of President Obama's bioethics council, eleven (including the chairman of the council) have issued a statement of concern over the president's executive order regarding embryonic stem cell research.

• At the outset of his remarks, the president characterized his action as “lift[ing] the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research.” That language does not accurately characterize the federal funding policy that has been in place during the entire tenure of this council. The policy announced by President Bush on August 9, 2001, did not ban federal funding of embryonic stem cell research; rather, for the first time, it provided and endorsed such funding (as long as the stem cell lines had been derived prior to that date).

The aim of this policy was not to shackle scientific research but to find a way to reconcile the need for research with the moral concerns people have.

...In the last two years, several different groups of scientists have succeeded in producing what are called induced pluripotent stem cells. Because producing them does not require the destruction of embryos, they do not raise what many regard as a grave moral difficulty. Because producing them does not require human ova, and because they are patient-specific stem cells that are less likely to be rejected by their recipients, they also have distinct scientific advantages. Indeed, on the day following President Obama’s announcement, an analysis in the New York Times noted that the embryonic stem cell research the president had touted “has been somewhat eclipsed by new advances.”

...With respect to the progress that had been made in reconciling the needs of research and the moral concerns of many Americans, we can only judge, therefore, that the president’s action has taken a step backward, and we regret that.

• In his remarks on March 9, President Obama promised to “ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.” While this may seem comforting, it stands in need of clarification.

...What researchers most desire, in fact, are not spare IVF embryos but cloned embryos, produced in order to study disease models. The funding decision announced by the president on March 9 will encourage such cloning. Nor should we be reassured that, at the same time, the president opposed “the use of cloning for human reproduction.” If cloned embryos are produced, they may be implanted and gestated. To prevent that, it will be necessary, as we noted in Human Cloning and Human Dignity, “to prohibit, by law, the implantation of cloned embryos for the purpose of producing children. To do so, however, the government would find itself in the unsavory position of designating a class of embryos that it would be a felony not to destroy.” We cannot believe that this would advance our society’s commitment to equal human dignity.

When Barack Obama was asked by Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church Presidential Forum the question of when human rights begins, he responded "Answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." The then presidential candidate was essentially deflecting the question, but who could he be describing better than the President's Council on Bioethics, a group of doctors and scientists whose sole purpose was to advise on these types of questions. President Bush may not have been the most intelligent man and fact Obama may indeed be smarter than him. But one thing that Bush did well was surround himself with intelligent and thoughtful people to advise him and that shows his wisdom.

Against the Best Advice

Has the Case for ID Collapsed? Part 2

Rereading the Padian and Matzke article, Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks, I found this interesting:

It has often been remarked that America has two traditions. One is that of the rationality of the Enlightenment, which informed the views of Jefferson, Hamilton and Franklin in building the greatest democracy on Earth and establishing fundamental principles about human life and identity. The other is that of the Puritans, pilgrims who emigrated to America to escape religious persecution at home, only to inflict it on everyone in their newland who didn’t agree with them. Much of the American populace, it seems, is between these two worldviews. The question is how to bring this large segment of the populace (perhaps 40–50%) to the side of rationality...

This problem will not be solved merely by throwing more science at it

Whereas Americans, as a whole, are not as scientifically literate as the citizenries of most other developed countries (and many underdeveloped ones), this is not a problem of mere ignorance but of worldview (see preceding paragraph).

Padian/Matzke don't see the dispute between evolution and ID as having to do with the facts of science, but with worldview. They see this worldview problem as divided between traditions of the rational and the irrational. The irrational are obviously anyone scientifically illiterate enough to not accept evolution (based on an earlier argument that only Turkey has a stronger rejection of evolution than the United States). This circular reasoning says that evolution is the rational view because anyone that believes otherwise is irrational.

So, if it isn't science that will change worldview, then what will solve the worldview problem? As evidenced by the reaction to any scientific endevour by ID, the solution is to attack the beliefs of the scientists involved with ID. Simply point and shout "Creationist!" and ignore the science and any rational discussion about evolution.

Padian/Matzke go on to suggest, “culled from over 20 years of experience at NCSE.”

A glance at any beginning biology textbook, or upper-level textbook in evolutionary biology, reveals that almost all of the coverage of evolutionary processes and patterns is at the level of genes and populations (with some discussion of how species form). This is collectively called ‘microevolution’. Creationists generally do not have a problem with most of this literature because, as far as they are concerned, this is all just variation within ‘created kinds’, not worth arguing about except to question the assertions that natural selection is driving most of it. On the other hand, creationists are virulently opposed to any teaching that some major groups of organisms have evolved from others, that life has a common ancestry, and that major new adaptations have evolved from simpler structures and functions.

Or is it that we see evidence for microevolution and no evidence for macroevolution?

This study is called ‘macroevolution’, and its representation in college textbooks is abysmal [Padian, K. (2008) Trickle-down evolution: an approach to getting major evolutionary adaptive changes into textbooks and curricula. Integr. Comp. Biol. 48, 175–188, Padian, K. (2008) Darwin’s enduring legacy. Nature 451, 632–634]. There is a great amount of evidence, some dating back to before the Civil War, about how animals came up on to land and how they proliferated into different groups; about the origins of dinosaurs, birds, mammals, whales and many other animals and plants and their adaptations... The simple message is this: put more macroevolution in the textbooks, show students how we know about the major evolutionary changes in the history of life, and it will be very difficult for creationists to state otherwise.

Wow, what a great idea. When ID proponents say that the evidence for macroevolution is abysmal (more specifically that the only evidence given for macroevolution in textbooks is actually evidence for microevolution), they are ridiculed. Personally, I think that the evidence is weak at best and that is the reason why it has not been put into the textbooks, but I'm all for exposing this in our textbooks.

Padian/Matzke next highly recommend Randy Olson’s film Flock of Dodos.

Olson, a Harvard-trained evolutionary biologist turned filmmaker, asks why so many Americans do not understand evolution. The ‘dodos’ of his title are not average Americans, nor even the creationist distorters of evolution, but the evolutionists themselves: the scientists who cannot explain the most basic concepts to the man or woman in the street, the experts who convey such elitism and condescension that previously open-minded audience members recoil from them and embrace the smoothtalking, smiling, and apparently equally open-minded creationists. Who would you rather have a beer with?

Based on the elitism and condescension found within the article and elsewhere (Matzke is known for his biting attacks and dismissive attitude with ID proponents), Padian and Matzke can only be seen as giving lip service to this point.

The final points that Padian and Matzke make are that scientists are to encourage teachers to teach good science, become involved in their state and local educational processes and help change content within the textbooks. This is exactly what ID proponents are trying to do and are being called manipulative and subversive for.

Has the Case for ID Collapsed? Part 2

A Jewish Perspective of Jesus

Eric Chabot seeks the answer to Jesus' question, "Who do you say I am?" from Jewish historians and scholars. Seen through the eyes of first-century Judaism, Jesus' claims can neither be seen as simply those of a prophet, teacher or mere man.

It seems Eherenpries is right about this: Jesus spoke in a manner that placed him above the highest category allowed for humans in Judaism, that of the prophet, to say nothing of that of a rabbi. The rabbi may say, “I have received as a tradition from Rabbi A who heard it from Rabbi B,” thus authenticating his halakic ruling by the authority of tradition, ultimately deriving its authority from the oral Torah from Moses. The prophets spoke more directly from God when they say, “Thus says the Lord.” But the prophet also is only a representative of God. He speaks in God’s name, not in his own. He wants to restore or strengthen the people’s relationship with God, not their relationship with the prophet. His own person is not important. He does not have God’s word in himself, it “comes to him”; sometimes he has to wait for it. Jesus never authenticated his teaching the way the rabbis did. He never said “I have received as a tradition.” “He taught as one having authority, and not the scribes’ (Mark 1:22). Nor did he speak like a prophet. He never made himself a representative of God by using the prophetic formula “Thus says the Lord.” He spoke God’s word, he said God’s Law in his own name: “ You have heard that it was said [by God] to those [at Sinai] ,..but I say to you.” (Matt 5:21-22; 27, 31, 33, 38).

Furthermore, the rabbis could speak of taking upon oneself the yoke of Torah or the yoke of the kingdom; Jesus said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” (Mt 11:29). Also, the rabbis could say that if two or three men sat together, having the words of Torah among them, the shekhina (God’s own presence) would dwell on them (M Avot 3:2) ; Jesus said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I will be among them” (Matt 18:20). The rabbis could speak about being persecuted for God’s sake, or in his Name’s sake, or for the Torah’s sake; Jesus spoke about being persecuted for and even loosing one’s life for his sake. Remember, the prophets could ask people to turn to God, to come to God for rest and help. Jesus spoke with a new prophetic authority by stating, “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28). In Mark 10:37, a wealthy individual asks Jesus what must I do to have eternal life? For the rabbis people were perfect according to their degree of Torah observance. Jesus instructed the man not to turn to Torah, but instead to sell his possessions and “Come, Follow Me.” (Mark 10: 17-22). So it is no wonder the Jewish people looked at Jesus’ teaching and healing authority in a significant way. If we look at the Old Testament for role models of this characteristic of Jesus’ behavior –this I beside God, speaking and acting as if this I were God’s own- we find only one: God’s Wisdom (see Prov 1:20—33; 3:13-26; 8:32-36; 9:4-6). (Light in Shadow of Temple [by Oskar Skarsaune] pgs 330-332).

HT: CrossExamined.org

A Jewish Perspective of Jesus

Has the Case for ID Collapsed?

National Center for Science Education (NCSE) president Kevin Padian and former NCSE spokesman Nick Matzke sure seem to think so. In a January issue of Biochemical Journal, Padian/Matzke claim that the "case for ID" has "collapsed," and that "no one with scientific or philosophical integrity is going to take [Discovery Institute or ID] seriously in future."

Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin responds,

I have no objection whatsoever to scientists publishing views that criticize ID in scientific journals. ID-critics have every right to try to persuade people with reason and scientific arguments. But the Padian/Matzke lead review article, the kind that’s supposed to summarize the state of a field, does not try to persuade with mere reason and arguments, but with veiled threats (and with a few less-veiled insults thrown in, just for good measure). This affront to academic freedom should concern everyone, whether you oppose or support ID.

A pro-ID Ph.D. research biologist who wished to remain anonymous, precisely because his career could be negatively impacted by the kind of veiled threats being promoted by the Padian/Matzke piece writes this response:

Junk Science
The Biochemical Journal is a respectable journal publishing articles and reviews about serious scientific research. Their masthead lists various areas of biochemical research, including cell biology, disease, energy, genes, plants, signaling, and structures. In their guideline to authors the journal editors state:

The Biochemical Journal publishes papers in English in all fields of biochemistry and cellular and molecular biology, provided that they make a sufficient contribution to knowledge in these fields.... All work presented should have as its aim the development of biochemical concepts rather than the mere recording of facts.[http://www.biochemj.org/bj/bji2a.htm]

...The “review article” in question contains nothing of scientific merit. There are no interpretations of experimental results, no theories advanced, no biochemical concepts developed. There is no review of the current state of a particular scientific field, either. Instead, the review by Padian and Matzke is a one-sided retelling of a legal trial [There is another side to the story on Dover. To learn about it, see TraipsingIntoEvolution.com] with some simplistic historical analysis and ersatz theology thrown in. The article conflates creationism and intelligent design, misrepresents the views of intelligent design scientists and the Discovery Institute, and engages in vicious character assassination. It is a blatant attempt to scare people away from intelligent design by proclaiming that “no one with scientific or philosophical integrity is going to take [ID] seriously in future.”

The simple reality is that this article is a polemical hit piece. It’s not a scholarly work of history or theology, let alone science. It is biased and prejudicial in its retelling of events, imputing motives to people without first-hand knowledge of events. It makes sweeping statements and broad generalizations with no independent verifiability. It puffs the credentials of one of its authors while snidely referring to the “allegedly peer-reviewed books” of a scientist it attacks and calling him “chicken”.

There have been, and continue to be a stream of articles attacking intelligent design published in science journals, especially in this so-called year of Darwin. But this article is the nastiest I have seen. So my question remains — why did a respectable scientific journal print it? It would appear that, contrary to their guideline to authors, they’ll print anything as long as it denigrates and disparages the right people. And that’s no way to do science.

Has the Case for ID Collapsed?

Sacred or Secret?

Yesterday I posted a link to HBO's Big Love endowment ceremony scene. I struggled with whether or not to post the clip because I know that many Mormons would be upset and offended by it. How could I show something that was so sacred to Mormons? My justification is as follows:

Sacred doesn’t mean secret. There is nothing inherent in sacredness that must also be secret or even private. LDS would agree. It is Mormons who we hear say regarding the unspeakable nature of the proceedings in the temple that they are “sacred not secret.” The notion that it is between them and God; that it is private is something we often hear from Christians as well. Although we see evidence to the contrary in the Bible; of the public revelation of God, Jesus and the gospel, the depiction of a ceremony in no way affects an individual’s privacy. No private information is being revealed. Although I am exposing what is going on with regard to the nature of God and the requirements for Heaven as false, I don’t think that the LDS church could argue that anything deceitful, shameful or embarrassing is being exposed.

To help Mormons understand the meaning of sacred, we could ask them, “is the Book of Mormon sacred?” No faithful LDS would deny that it and yet it is to be read, searched, and given away to anyone interested. The LDS church has been prolific in producing movies and using all types of media to make public their scriptures and history. Even the Sacred Grove, the place where Joseph Smith had his first vision account is a tourist attraction that invites all visitors. There are many things that are considered sacred including weddings, the sacraments and cemeteries that as long as they are not being desecrated, distorted or made fun of are open to depiction.

I have no obligation to protect the secrecy of something that I have not vowed to keep secret. Nor am I compelling or forcing anyone to break an oath of secrecy. Secrecy is a promise that participants in the endowment ceremony have made with the Mormon god and was until recently upon penalty of death.

Bill McKeever explains,

Patrons then had to "covenant" never to reveal these secret handshakes by promising, "Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken." The post-1990 ceremony has deleted the words "of secrecy" regarding this and other tokens but patrons are still told to "never reveal" what they have learned. The newer ceremony also no longer requires patrons to repeat the phrase, "Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken."

While it is true that the temple is sacred to the faithful Latter-day Saint, the fact that what goes on inside is to be kept from public knowledge fits the definition of secret. The fact is, it is both. Respected LDS historian Richard L. Bushman agrees. “While some members will claim that Mormon temples are ‘sacred not secret,’ Bushman said that ‘temples are secret, plain and simple,’ noting that even members ‘don't speak to each other about it.’" (Richard L. Bushman, “Seek understanding, not converts, Bushman urges Mormons,” Deseret News, March 6, 2008).

Though Mormons are told that their ceremony is representative of the ancient ceremony mentioned in the Bible, there is no evidence to suggest that Jewish worshippers in Bible times were ever threatened with death for merely revealing what went on inside the Jerusalem temple. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the ancient temple rites were similar to those enjoined by Mormons in their temples.

The recent official statement from the LDS church regarding the Big Love scene states,

Like other large faith groups, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes finds itself on the receiving end of attention from Hollywood or Broadway, television series or books, and the news media. Sometimes depictions of the Church and its people are quite accurate. Sometimes the images are false or play to stereotypes. Occasionally, they are in appallingly bad taste.
As Catholics, Jews and Muslims have known for centuries, such attention is inevitable once an institution or faith group reaches a size or prominence sufficient to attract notice.

…Certainly Church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding.

…Now comes another series of Big Love, and despite earlier assurances from HBO it once again blurs the distinctions between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices.

They seem to acknowledge that the inevitable attention is fine as long as it is not in bad taste or represented without context or understanding. It seems that the only contention with the show is that it doesn’t clearly differentiate between the aspects of the Polygamists that differ from the official LDS doctrines. It would seem that presenting the video clip of the endowment ceremony doesn’t violate any of those conditions, so then why ask HBO to not show it and make a big fuss?

I think the reason that Mormons get upset if they stop to think about it is that performing the endowment ceremony requires that you are worthy to participate. Not all LDS get to have the knowledge of what is revealed inside the temple; much less non-LDS who are not worthy to receive what are basically “the keys to the Pearly Gates”. In order to be allowed admission to the temple, you must complete the process for a current temple recommend. An interview will be conducted privately, and the member is asked a series of questions about his or her life. The member must be able to demonstrate that he or she is morally clean and has been keeping the Word of Wisdom (i.e. abstaining from coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol and addictive drugs). The member must be paying a full tithe to the church. The member must be following all the teachings of the Church. The member must not be reading or affiliating with the works or member of any group that is critical of the church.

The idea that we need to worthy to enter the temple is in direct contradiction to the parable spoken by Jesus in Luke,

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Luke 18:9-14

In the end I posted the clip and feel justified in doing so. There are many things that may offend others, like the gospel, that we are to be faithful in presenting. There are other dangerous doctrines that need to be uncovered, when they are hidden from unsuspecting converts until a time when they are enmeshed with family and friends in the LDS church. The idea that God requires secret handshakes and passwords to enter Heaven is contrary to the God who knows us intimately and only requires that we trust in Christ and what He has done for our redemption.

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, ‘Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you. Ephesians 5:11-14

Sacred or Secret?

Heaven?

UPDATE April 2, 2009: Go here for clip.

It is with some apprehension that I post this. I am aware of the strong emotional response that many Mormons will have to the presentation of this sacred ceremony, but feel that the clip is instructive and worth watching and talking about. I will address the issue of sacredness in the following post. Although descriptions and reenactments of the endowment ceremony have been available on the web for years, the following clip is the first time the ceremony has been shown in a mainstream format.

The scene is from the HBO series Big Love (see here for some of the controversy) about a polygamist family. If you feel as a Latter-day Saint that this is offensive, then please do not watch it.

The clip shows part of an endowment ceremony that EVERY Mormon goes through before marriage. The More Good Foundation describes the ceremony as follows:

...an Endowment is a course of teaching, ordinances (sacred rituals), and covenants (mutual promises between the individual and God) received in a Mormon temple by worthy and prepared adult members.

...Information is conveyed in a highly symbolic manner during the Endowment in Mormon temples.

...the Endowment and the meanings of those symbols are sacred to Mormons. They view the meaning of the symbols as knowledge (an endowment) from God. For this reason, the only acceptable place for Mormons to discuss the symbols or their meaning is within the walls of a temple. Faithful Mormons do not divulge specific details of what goes on in the temple, not because they are secret, but because they are sacred.

The first time a Mormon goes through an Endowment session, it is for his or her own benefit. This usually occurs before a Mormon male leaves on a two-year mission at age 19 to preach about the restored Church of Jesus Christ; Mormon women usually receive their Endowment before marriage, or if and when they leave on an 18-month mission at the age of 21.

During all subsequent sessions, which hopefully are frequent, Mormons receive the Endowment not for themselves but on behalf of deceased individuals, enabling the dead to accept or reject the ordinances and covenants according to their own free will. The living Mormon feels it an honor and a duty to thus act as proxy for others, and besides gaining a cumulative understanding through repeated visits, the Mormon also gets a vivid reminder of the grand scheme of things, remembering anew what this world and this life are really all about.

The symbols are the handshakes, phrases and new name ("Eve" is the name given to the woman in the clip). They are learned then and not to be spoken of after the ceremony to anyone (not even your child prior to their receiving their endowment). Realize that the man whose hands and voice emerge from behind the curtain is acting as God the Father. Mormons are led to believe that this is what they should expect before entering heaven. They expect that God will stand at the entrance and require them to perform the secret handshakes and phrases, reciting the name given to them that day to enter heaven. Is this how you picture standing before God? Will God need these assurances to know whether or not to let you into heaven?

Notice the fig leaf aprons that everyone wears (these are put on during the ceremony at the request of Satan). Yes, symbolic of the fig leaves worn by Adam and Eve and replaced by the first animal sacrifice that God initiates in the Garden of Eden. Why would we want to reject God’s sacrifice, reverting back to a covering of our own making?

The faithful Mormon returns again and again to perform this same ceremony for others who have died (similar to baptism and celestial marriage for the dead). This is the primary purpose of the temples; to perform the rites and ordinances for people who are already dead in the hope that they will then be able to choose Mormonism in the afterlife. It is also important to appreciate that the endowment ceremony is scheduled just prior to making the huge commitments of leaving on your mission or becoming married.

Many ex-Mormons have expressed how strange and creepy the endowment ceremony experience was when they first went through it. You can imagine the excitement of preparing for this event where family and friends can only tell you that you will experience God and it will be wonderful and then the reality is quite different. This repetition is highly encouraged for the salvation of others and each encounter reassures the participants with the appearance that this is all normal.

HT: MormonInfo.org

Heaven?

Non-Fertilized Embryos?

Listen as former president Bill Clinton talks about stem cell research in this clip from CNN's Larry King Live.



Clinton says with respect to embryos for use in stem cell research,

If it's obvious that we're not taking embryos that can -- that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it's obvious that we're not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this.

Allow them to be fertilized? It seems at first that he just misspoke, but he continues to say the same thing over end over again.

[Obama] has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they're not going to be fertilized. I believe the American people believe it's a pro-life decision to use an embryo that's frozen and never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research...

...any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those...

...But there are values involved that we all ought to feel free to discuss in all scientific research. And that is the one thing that I think these committees need to make it clear that they're not going to fool with any embryos where there's any possibility, even if it's somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings.

He is mistakenly using "fertilization" instead of "implantation" or "embryo" instead of "egg". The problem is that embryos/eggs that are implanted/fertilized ARE part of a "conceivable scenario" that would allow them to "become little babies." Are "these committees going to make it clear" that they're not going to fool with any embryos/eggs where "there's any possibility, even if it's somewhat remote", that they could be implanted/fertilized and "become human beings?" I don't think so. Embryos are unique, individual human beings; the result of the egg being fertilized, regardless of implantation.

The part that really bothers me is that the interviewer, Dr. Sanjay Gupta finds nothing wrong with what the former President is saying as well. According to the transcripts, Dr. Gupta, the CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, describes his background:

Now, in the interests of full disclosure, I was a White House fellow during [Bill Clinton's] administration and served as an adviser to then first lady, Hillary Clinton.

Plus, until withdrawing my name, I was under consideration to become this administration's surgeon general.

It just seems like any justification is acceptable to them, even if it is completely mistaken.

HT: LTI

Non-Fertilized Embryos?

Sad but True

Originally posted by The Sacred Sandwich.

If Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was Published in Christianity Today

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dear Christianity Today:

In response to Paul D. Apostle’s article about the Galatian church in your January issue, I have to say how appalled I am by the unchristian tone of this hit piece. Why the negativity? Has he been to the Galatian church recently? I happen to know some of the people at that church, and they are the most loving, caring people I’ve ever met.

Phyllis Snodgrass; Ann Arbor, MI

Dear Editor:

How arrogant of Mr. Apostle to think he has the right to judge these people and label them accursed. Isn’t that God’s job? Regardless of this circumcision issue, these Galatians believe in Jesus just as much as he does, and it is very Pharisaical to condemn them just because they differ on such a secondary issue. Personally, I don’t want a sharp instrument anywhere near my zipper, but that doesn’t give me the right to judge how someone else follows Christ. Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal matters?

Ed Bilgeway; Tonganoxie, KS

Dear CT:

I’ve seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and frankly I’m surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the Church deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr. Apostle for many years now has had a penchant for thinking he has a right to “mark” certain Christian teachers who don’t agree with his biblical position. Certainly I commend him for desiring to stay faithful to God’s word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the Church, and gives credence to the opposition’s view that Christians are judgmental, arrogant people who never show God’s love.

Ken Groener; San Diego, CA

To the Editors:

Paul Apostle says that he hopes the Galatian teachers will cut off their own privates? What kind of Christian attitude is that? Shame on him!

Martha Bobbitt; Boulder, CO

Dear Christianity Today:

The fact that Paul Apostle brags about his public run-in with Peter Cephas, a well-respected leader and brother in Christ, exposes Mr. Apostle for the divisive figure that he has become in the Church today. His diatribe against the Galatian church is just more of the same misguided focus on an antiquated reliance on doctrine instead of love and tolerance. Just look how his hypercritical attitude has cast aspersions on homosexual believers and women elders! The real problem within the Church today is not the lack of doctrinal devotion, as Apostle seems to believe, but in our inability to be transformed by our individual journeys in the Spirit. Evidently, Apostle has failed to detach himself from his legalistic background as a Pharisee, and is unable to let go and experience the genuine love for Christ that is coming from the Galatians who strive to worship God in their own special way.

William Zenby; Richmond, VA

Kind Editors:

I happen to be a member of First Christian Church of Galatia, and I take issue with Mr. Apostle’s article. How can he criticize a ministry that has been so blessed by God? Our church has baptized many new members and has made huge in-roads in the Jewish community with our pragmatic view on circumcision. Such a “seeker-sensitive” approach has given the Jews the respect they deserve for being God’s chosen people for thousands of years. In addition, every Gentile in our midst has felt honored to engage in the many edifying rituals of the Hebrew heritage, including circumcision, without losing their passion for Jesus. My advice to Mr. Apostle is to stick to spreading the gospel message of Christ’s unconditional love, and quit criticizing what God is clearly blessing in other churches.

Miriam “Betty” Ben-Hur; Galatia, Turkey

EDITOR’S NOTE: Christianity Today apologizes for our rash decision in publishing Paul Apostle’s exposé of the Galatian church. Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth. We regret any damage we may have caused in propagating the doctrines of Christ.

HT: Mormon Coffee

Sad but True

A Day Late and a Dollar Short

With the recent advances that induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells have made it would seem that President Obama, his advisors, or both are behind the times and betting on the wrong horse. Ryan T. Anderson describes why Obama may be Perpetuating a Needless Stem-Cell War.

Last September, a team of researchers discovered a way to use the viruses to reprogram the cells, but without being integrated. And last week, researchers published a paper showing that they can reprogram an adult cell into a pluripotent stem cell without using viruses at all. Instead, they simply insert a sequence of DNA (called "piggyBac") carrying four genes that reprogram the cell. Andras Nagy, who led the research behind this technique, explained that
"after they do their job they can be removed seamlessly, with no trace left behind. The ability for seamless removal opens up a huge possibility."

Harvard's George Daley described the study as "very significant," adding that he thought it was "a major step forward in realizing the value of these cells for medical research." Robert Lanza, of the prominent Advanced Cell Technology, said it was "very exciting work. . . . we're only a hair's breadth away from the biggest prize in regenerative medicine--a way to create patient-specific cells that are safe enough to use clinically."

Anderson then points to the scientific advantages that iPS cells bring.

First, they're cheaper and easier to work with than cells produced by killing human embryos. Not surprisingly, hundreds of labs have made the switch from embryonic stem cells to induced pluripotent ones.

Second, and very importantly, induced pluripotent stem cells are patient specific. As anyone familiar with organ transplants knows, immune rejection is a major hurdle to any form of regenerative medicine. Induced pluripotent stem cells clear this hurdle because they can be created using the patient's own skin cells; thus they will have his exact DNA sequence and will not be prone to immune rejection. For embryonic stem cells to do the equivalent, they would have to be created from an embryo produced by human cloning. Clearly, then, Bush's critics were being disingenuous when they claimed to want only the IVF "spares"--embryos that "were going to die anyway." While those might have been the first cells needed for basic research, any therapeutic uses would require patient-specific cells, attainable only by cloning. That would open up ethical debates over human cloning and killing--and debates about the ethics and safety of encouraging (or paying) women to subject themselves to hormonal stimulation to produce eggs for use in the cloning process. Using induced pluripotent stem cells avoids all of these problems...

Obama's rhetoric this morning was notably toned-down. When speaking of Christopher Reeve, he expressed regret that Reeve was never able to walk again. He predicted that "if we pursue this research, maybe one day--maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime--but maybe one day, others like him might." What happened to the promises from the Democratic Convention of 2004 that a personal repair kit was right around the corner? In fact, after a decade of research on embryonic stem cells (which, despite media spin, has remained legal even as federal funding was restricted), there are no clinically available treatments using embryonic stem cells. Only one study has been approved by the FDA for testing, and the tests have not begun. Meanwhile, after just 18 months of research on induced pluripotent stem cells, scientists are just a "hair's breadth" away.

HT: STR

A Day Late and a Dollar Short

Politicizing Science

Barack Obama issued an executive order yesterday authorizing expanded federal funding for embryonic stem (ES) cell research. Obama claims that science needs to be free from political motivations, but what Obama means is that only the science which supports the creation and destruction human embryos for their stem cells needs to be liberated from the moral restraints of the past. The result is that taxpayers are now paying for human embryos to be destroyed while downplaying the advances seen in adult stem or induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell research and silencing anyone who declares that science shouldn't be allowed to override morality are demonized.

Robert P. George and Eric Cohen describe the announcement as

...classic Obama: advancing radical policies while seeming calm and moderate, and preaching the gospel of civility while accusing those who disagree with the policies of being "divisive" and even "politicizing science."

In his speech, President Obama claims to be taking the high road, removing the Bush administration's ideological agenda from scientific decision-making and bringing integrity back to science policy.

This claim of taking science out of politics is false and misguided on two counts.

First, the Obama policy is itself blatantly political. It is red meat to his Bush-hating base, yet pays no more than lip service to recent scientific breakthroughs that make possible the production of cells that are biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells without the need to create or kill human embryos. Inexplicably -- apart from political motivations -- Mr. Obama revoked not only the Bush restrictions on embryo destructive research funding, but also the 2007 executive order that encourages the National Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem cells.

It seems that Obama only wants to elevate the science that supports destroying embryos at the expense of the science that says that those embryos are unique, living, human beings (the science that answers the question that was above his pay grade of when does human life begin). He wants to liberate the science of ES that has had no success and restrict the science of iPS that has had over 70+ cures for diseases and cancers. He wants to encourage the science that continually sees rejection and tumors in trials and discourage the 'common sense' science that says that cells taken from your own body have the highest chance of not being rejected. He wants to fund with taxpayer money the science that will produce exorbitantly higher cost therapies (therapies that probably won't be covered by a healthcare system that excludes expensive treatments anyways) and withdraw funding from relatively less expensive therapies.

Second and more fundamentally, the claim about taking politics out of science is in the deepest sense antidemocratic. The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science. It is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity.

For those who believe in the highest ideals of deliberative democracy, and those who believe we mistreat the most vulnerable human lives at our own moral peril, Mr. Obama's claim of "taking politics out of science" should be lamented, not celebrated.

A look at how George Bush handled this issue almost 8 years ago and the policy that was undone yesterday.

Politicizing Science

Barna Study Shows Grim Results for Youth and Biblical Worldview

The Barna Group has produced a new survey examining Changes in Worldview Among Christians over the Past 13 Years. The survey reports that 9% of American adults have a biblical worldview. This percentage is relatively unchanged over the past 13 years.

For the purposes of the survey, a “biblical worldview” was defined as believing that absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches; Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today. In the research, anyone who held all of those beliefs was said to have a biblical worldview.

While 9% is neither impressive nor encouraging (a small increase was seen from 1995-2005, but is now decreasing again), it is better news than the 0.5% for the young adults emerging out of our youth groups.

The research data showed that one pattern emerged loud and clear: young adults rarely possess a biblical worldview. The current study found that less than one-half of one percent of adults in the Mosaic generation – i.e., those aged 18 to 23 – have a biblical worldview, compared to about one out of every nine older adults.

Remember, this are not college students who have rejected God, but are those who "had made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that was still important in their life today and who also indicated they believed that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior." This is what "the Church" is producing.

Barna Study Shows Grim Results for Youth and Biblical Worldview

In So Many Ways, We’ve Become Nothing More Than a Voting Block

This Miami Herald article describes the recent selection of Pastor Joel Hunter to President Obama’s Religious Advisory Board. I must admit that I read the article with sad skepticism. It seems that religious leaders are often wooed by worldly enticements. I don’t know Hunter personally, but like you, I can read between the lines of the article. He was courted by Obama and found himself with choice seats at the inauguration, a privileged position on the podium and even a ride in the limo with Oprah. He is the first to admit that the experience was “surreal” and it clearly seems to have influenced him to be a part of the celebrity.

Hunter, who backed Huckabee in the last election, appears to be eager to join Obama’s team, but I have to wonder why. Is it so that he can impact the young president and help him see the error of his thinking on a host of moral issues related to the lives of the unborn? And is this the reason that Obama has asked this well known conservative to join the team; so that he can seriously consider a point of view that is so diametrically opposed to his own? I don’t really think so. Hunter himself seems to know why he is there:

“President Obama's vision is so much broader. How do you engage churchgoers and people of faith to be part of the solution?” Hunter asked during a recent interview in his office at Northland Church. “That's something we never talked about in the Bush era. I think we're at a moment in time when people really want to be inspired and reengaged.”

Something tells me that Obama is simply using Christian leaders from both sides of the aisle and placing them in public positions such as this, not so he can get a more balanced view of the issues (I think he has already examined his own positions and has made up his mind), but so he can garner the support of Christian voters. I think it’s important for all Christian leaders who may find themselves on Advisory Boards of this nature to carefully assess their impact and purpose. Let’s not be swayed by the celebrity and forget who we are, and let’s not become yet another voting block to be manipulated by either party.

In So Many Ways, We’ve Become Nothing More Than a Voting Block

In Government We Trust

Bradford Wilcox makes the connection between Barack Obama’s plans to expand the size and role of government and the inevitable move away from God. I would also argue away from the gospel of grace.

One unremarked and unintended consequence of Barack Obama’s audacious plans for the expansion of government—especially in health care, education, and the environment—is that the nanny state he is seeking to build will likely crowd out religious institutions in America. In other words, if he succeeds in passing his ambitious agenda, the Obama revolution is likely to lead the United States down the secular path already trod by Europe...

Why is this significant for the vitality of religion in America? A recent study... indicates that there is an inverse relationship between state welfare spending and religiosity. Specifically, they found that countries with larger welfare states had markedly lower levels of religious attendance, had higher rates of citizens indicating no religious affiliation whatsoever, and their people took less comfort in religion in general...

Obama's expansion of the welfare state to a place where everything is taken care of by the government is similar to what we have seen in Sweden, Denmark and Norway and will move reliance on and responsibilty for each other/family/community to the government and from the morality of those most likely to volunteer time and money (religious institutions) to the morality of the secular government.

But as political scientist Alan Wolfe observed in Whose Keeper?, one of the primary dangers associated with the rise of the nanny state is that “when government assumes moral responsibility for others, people are less likely to do so themselves.” Wolfe noted that large increases in welfare spending in Sweden, Denmark and Norway over the last half century have ended up eroding the moral fabric of families and civic institutions in these societies. Scandinavians have come to depend not on family, civil society, or themselves, but on the government for their basic needs.

The problem with this Scandinavian-style welfare dependency is that many Scandinavians, especially young adults who have grown up taking the welfare state for granted, are markedly less likely to attend to the social, material, and emotional needs of family and friends than earlier generations. As a consequence, social solidarity is down and social pathology—from drinking to crime—is up. In Wolfe’s words, “High tax rates in Scandinavia encourage governmental responsibility for others; they do not, however, necessarily inspire a personal sense of altruism and a feeling of moral unity toward others with whom one’s fate is always linked.” Not surprisingly, cheating on taxes is on the rise in Scandinavian countries, both because the social solidarity undergirding these societies is fraying and because men and women—especially high earners—are recoiling from paying the hefty taxes associated with keeping their nanny states afloat...

Putting our trust in big government (top down reliance) is contrary to the biblical view of charity and responsibility (inside out effectiveness). God transforms us and we are then responsible for ourselves and those around us, our families, our church bodies and communities. God has made us to be in relationship with Him and each other. That relationship includes reliance on each other in a personal way. We are each moved by the grace we have been given to extend grace to others. The expansion of the welfare state replaces grace with entitlement.

In Government We Trust

No Need to Read the Other Side, Just Subvert Them with Bad Reviews!

This interesting article on WorldNetDaily reveals a recent plot on the part of atheists to undermine the sale of Ray Comfort's book, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think". A plan on the part of atheists to post negative reviews of the book on Amazon.com was exposed by Comfort himself who discovered the 'plot' on-line. It's not that both sides of this debate are not capable of similar childish tactics, but let's be sure to examine the issues carefully (and completely) and let the other side engage in such trickery. We don't need to be afraid to have the public read books that are critical of our position. Instead, we simply need to be diligent to understand why we believe what we believe, and continue to write gracious and thoughtful responses to the ranting of the New Atheists.

No Need to Read the Other Side, Just Subvert Them with Bad Reviews!

They're Not All Empty Headed Starlets

OK, I'll admit that my girls have got me watching American Idol this year. Sometimes the show is an object lesson for good and bad behavior, so I've appreciated the opportunity to talk about individual contestants and their attitudes and choices. I was therefore encouraged to discover Scott MacIntyre, one of the final 36 contestants in the show. Scott was born nearly blind at birth and was homeschooled, starting college at the age of 14 and then graduating from Arizona State University at the age of 19. This article details the incredible journey and accomplishments of this committed Christian. I'm so glad he is in the game and representing Christ in the way he has performed and behaved so far. Let's see now if he manages to get through to the next level (the results for his group of 12 are being announced tonight...

They're Not All Empty Headed Starlets

An Abomination in His Sight

...all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” Joseph Smith History 1:19

Joseph Smith is often quoted as saying and the LDS church is fond of pointing out that the creeds are an abomination, a product of the apostasy of the Christian church that Christ had originally set up and has now been restored by the LDS church. But this is more than just Joseph's view.

These are the words of Christ as proclaimed in Joseph's first vision account. It was Jesus who proclaims that all the creeds were an abomination. My question is what part of the Apostle's Creed did Christ find abominable? What part needs to be or was restored by the LDS church's latter-day revelation?

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

Amen.


*The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I have yet to be given an answer to the question of the Apostle's Creed and am instead told that creeds like the Nicene Creed are man made ideologies contrary to God's revelation. We would argue that the creeds are summaries of the biblical account used to combat heresies in the early church.

I Love Mormons does a great job of providing the Nicene Creed with biblical support for each statement and adds,

Are the statements on the nature of God really a less accurate reflection of the Bible’s teaching than, say, the following summary?

“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see…I am going to prove it to you by the Bible…God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man… That is the great secret. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible…and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves…In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together…to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship…Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together” (Joseph Smith, 1844)

Was this summary ever really proven by the Bible? Would we be able to find as much Biblical support for it as we can for the Nicene Creed?

An Abomination in His Sight

Censor vs. Censure

Gay activists in Italy try to censor Giuseppe Povia, winner of the Festival di San Remo in 2006, from presenting a song entitled, "Luca Era Gay" (Luca was once gay), implying that some gays can change to heterosexuality.

Censoring someone is stopping them from saying what they would like to say. They are censored. Censure is responding to what someone does or says and making a moral judgment on that. In other words, I am not going to censor you and stop you from saying what you are saying because you have the liberty to do so. When you do exercise your liberty in an immoral and inappropriate way, then I am going to censure you and tell you that what you did was wrong and immoral even though you had a legal liberty to do so...

The fact is that our laws don't legislate every moral option. It is not illegal to do many things that would be immoral. It is not illegal to lie to someone unless you are in court, or to cheat on your wife, but arguably those are both immoral behaviors. If the category of morality is much larger than the category of law, it doesn't do any good to object to moral censure by appealing to your rights. Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason

Greg makes the point that just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean that we "should"; that we "ought" to. Not all morality is governed by law. But what happens when we get rid of the Judeo-Christian values that are foundational to morality? What happens when morality is seen as the democratic vote of the society that you live in? Not only do we think that what isn't law is permissible, but when we talk about about what should or ought to be, censure is met with censorship.

Some are fighting back against the censoring of all things Islam and hate speech legislation.

While in the U.S. our freedom of speech is deteriorating.

Censor vs. Censure

Newspeak for Biologists

‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well…Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.’

– Syme, the Newspeak editor, in George Orwell’s 1984

Evolutionary biologist, Walter Bock is proposing that biologists should no longer use the word "design" not because it doesn't fit with the idea that evolution is a process of random chance which is fair, but because the word points to a creator.

In spite of the nice contrast between ‘accident versus design’, the term design carries with it too many undesirable connotations, such as the existence of a creator, and should not be used in evolutionary theory. Design could be replaced with non-accidental or non-stochastic, but these substitute terms are awkward and not really informative.

Once again, the philosophy of science entrenched in naturalism is driving the science. I wonder if other words inconsistent with evolutionary theory will be disappearing from Bock's vocabulary as well? Words like meaning and purpose, truth and beauty.

Newspeak for Biologists