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"?

Are Mormons to Have a Personal Relationship with Jesus?

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.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 119

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.

The Morality of Practicality

Responding to Bart Ehrman

It's popular these days to attack the Christian worldview. A number of writers and scholars have emerged on the scene, reiterating old complaints and arguments offered long ago. Perhaps one of the best of these new opponents to the faith is Bart Ehrman, an ex-Christian and professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill). He is a qualified scholar and has written two books critical of the Biblical accounts of Jesus: "Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus Interrupted". While these two books offer nothing new in terms of argument or evidence, Ehrman is a talented writer, an engaging speaker, and widely accepted in our media culture that is distinctly anti-Christian. It's important for us, as Christians, to be familiar with his work and ready to answer the challenges. Thanks to Melinda Penner's recent post on Facebook,

I learned yesterday of a five part series written by Mike Licona (the apologetics coordinator at the North American Mission Board) that responds to the work of Bart Ehrman and provides excellent tools for the rest of us. Licona is an author himself, co-writing "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" with Gary Habermas. His series on Ehrman is posted at Baptist Press:

Part 1 Bart Ehrman: A skeptical scholar not to be ignored
Part 2 The problem of authorship: Who wrote the Gospels?
Part 3 The problem of dating: When were the Gospels written?
Part 4 The problem of differences: Do the Gospels contradict one another?
Part 5 Why were the four N.T. Gospels selected and not others?

I've also written about the reliability of the Bible in a series posted here:

The Power of the Book

Responding to Bart Ehrman

Dan Brown - A Spiritual Lesson for All of Us

Thanks to my friend Tom Witherill who pointed me to last weekends Los Angeles Times and an interesting interview with popular author of the Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown. The LA Times has a media savvy magazine insert on Sundays called PARADE that featured the interview and it has also been posted on the PARADE website HERE. The interview provides some insight on what motivated Brown to write the Da Vinci Code, but more interesting to me were two simple questions asked by the interviewer and Dan Brown's interesting responses. These two questions may help those of us who call ourselves Christians to understand what is required of us as Ambassadors of Jesus Christ:

Interviewer:
Are you religious?

Dan Brown:
I was raised Episcopalian, and I was very religious as a kid. Then, in eighth or ninth grade, I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a minister, "I don't get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?" Unfortunately, the response I got was, "Nice boys don't ask that question." A light went off, and I said, "The Bible doesn't make sense. Science makes much more sense to me." And I just gravitated away from religion.

Interviewer:
Where are you now?

Dan Brown:
The irony is that I've really come full circle. The more science I studied, the more I saw that physics becomes metaphysics and numbers become imaginary numbers. The farther you go into science, the mushier the ground gets. You start to say, "Oh, there is an order and a spiritual aspect to science."

It's both sad and frustrating that the minister in Dan Brown's story was unable to provide a defense for the Christian view of origins. Good, critical questions should be seen as an important part of the Christian faith, but too many of us fail to see our faith as evidential. It's so important for us to be prepared with a response for questions like those asked by Brown as a child. The Cristian worldview offers insightful and power answers to questions related to cosmology, teleology and the Big Bang. I can't help but wonder what might have happened with Brown had the minister simply been prepared.

Secondly, it is certainly honest of Brown to admit that science becomes quite metaphysical when it tries to answer the same questions of origin. Answers from quantum mechanics, string theory and multi-verse theories are far more philosophical than scientific. Brown is correct to observe that he has simply entered into a new metaphysical worldview, exchanging Christian Theism for a form of scientific metaphysics. Brown is often quite wrong about the history of Christianity and perhaps this is why he has rejected the Christian worldview, who knows. But it is interesting to note that people who trust science for the answer have also placed their trust in something that cannot be fully demonstrated. As Christians, we call that "faith". People like Dan Brown are also people of faith, although they may not want to admit it.

Dan Brown - A Spiritual Lesson for All of Us

The Last Place to Look for Conservative Values

On the heels of my post about the growing number of atheist groups in universities across America, this recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, helps describe the growing battle that awaits those of us who enter the university system and identify ourselves as moral conservatives. Mark Lilla writes about the Berkeley based Center for Comparative Study of Right Wing Movements. Lilla correctly observes that the left leaning universities in our country simply fail to understand conservatism as a movement and seek continually to demonize the right.

Politics aside, I am far more interested in the a-political cause of moral conservatism because it finds its roots in the Judeo-Christian worldview that springs from the pages of Scripture (Political Conservatism simply seeks to claim a stake in people who identify with the conservative moral values of the Bible). Lilla's article correctly identifies the fact that university systems across America are growing hostile to moral conservatism:

"There is a concerted effort to keep conservative Ph.D.'s out of jobs, to deny tenure to those who get through, and to ignore conservative books and ideas. It is an old answer, dating back to the 1970s, when neoconservatives began writing about the "adversary culture" of intellectuals...

...Over the past decade, our universities have made serious efforts to increase racial and ethnic diversity on the campus (economic diversity worries them less, for some reason). Well-paid deans work exclusively on the problem. But universities show not the slightest interest in intellectual diversity among faculty members. That wouldn't matter if teachers could be counted on to introduce students to their adversaries' books and views, but we know how rarely that happens."

I've written a little bit about conservatism HERE. As our universities become more and more secular, we can expect them to become more hostile to theistic beliefs and conservative values. Those of us who care to hold on to the truth had better get ready to engage those around us in a winsome and thoughtful way. As Christians, we often get criticized for being intolerant, biased and unreasonable. Maybe these articles will help:

Christians Are Intolerant
Christians Are Biased in Their Reasoning

The Last Place to Look for Conservative Values

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 118

Becoming a Christian “Case Maker” (Part Two)

Can we learn something, as Christians, from the attorneys who present cases in courts across America? What principles of presentation can we employ to become better Christian “Case Makers”? In this podcast, Jim examines the approach of trial attorneys and describes simple presentation principles from over 20 years in Law Enforcement. These principles will help you to become and better Christian thinker, communicator and “Case Maker”.

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.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 118

It's Easier to Leave Christianity Than Ever Before

The Huntsville Times posted an article yesterday reporting that there are twice as many atheist groups on university campuses than there were just two years ago. Granted, the numbers are still very low (up from 80 groups to 162 groups) and they are dramatically outnumbered by religious campus groups of one type or another, but the article has some interesting points to ponder. The article cites data reported by the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) in a press release from earlier in the month. The SSA claims to be having difficulty keeping up with all the demands for "group-starting packets", and attributes the rise as a simple reflection of the growing atheism in our culture:

The rise of the secular student movement parallels that of the broader secular demographic in the U.S., the only population to have grown in every state according to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey. Studies consistently report increases among the religiously unaffiliated, with “under 30s” more prominent among atheists and agnostics than among religious respondents. This year’s annual SSA conference drew its largest-ever audience and featured keynote speaker and Pharyngula blogger P. Z. Myers, along with representatives from national atheist and humanist organizations.

The SSA also confirms my growing suspicion that many young Christians are already beginning to doubt the Christian Worldview (even while attending Christian youth groups across the nation) and are simply waiting for the freedom to leave the Church:

For some students, going away to college offers the first opportunity to openly express doubt about religion or find others with the same perspective. “We got an e-mail recently from a student starting a group in Arizona,” said Liddell. It read, ‘I look forward to getting this process started. Thanks for existing.’ We hear that a lot.”

The Huntsville story also illuminates the growing freedom and comfort that non-believers have to express their disbelief in our society:

PZ Myers, an outspoken atheist and associate professor of biology at the university of Minnesota, Morris, suggested the growth could be related to authors saying that it is OK to be "godless."

While I celebrate this kind of intellectual freedom, I can't help but notice the timing of open hostility toward God in general and Christians in specific. The growing formation of atheist groups comes on the heals of a number of aggressive and hostile popular attacks on Christianity from authors like Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris to name just a few. It seems to me that this is precisely the time when we, as believers, need to quip ourselves and be the absolutely best apologists that we can be. This is my sole motivation in assembling the academy page:

The PleaseConvinceMe Academy

Let's get back in the game...

It's Easier to Leave Christianity Than Ever Before

Embryos Are "Just a Handful of Cells"

WorldNetDaily posted an article featuring President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, who was interviewed this week in Tel Aviv. Sunstein revealed a perspective that has become common amongst those who argue for embryonic stem cell research. These folks have to deny the humanity of embryos in order to convince the rest of us that it is ethical to destroy embryos in order to do the research (remember that adult stem cell research has provided the only viable therapies so far, making ESCR an unnecessary ethical choice). We've written about the viability of embryos and their status as humans HERE and HERE. Sunstein said something interesting:

"If scientists will be using and cloning embryos only at a very early stage when they are just a handful of cells (say, before they are four days old), there is no good reason for a ban (on cloning)..."


"...It is silly to think that 'potential' is enough for moral concern. Sperm cells have 'potential' and (not to put too fine a point on it) most people are not especially solicitous about them."

Sunstein is clearly confused about the difference between an embryo and sperm (or skin cells or whatever other example he might like to offer that fails to meet the standard of a new, unique DNA identified form of living human). But there are two interesting points to consider, given his statement. First, 'potential' IS enough for moral concern. In fact, 'potential' is the critical issue here. We don't unplug induced coma patients, do we? Why not? Because we know that the coma is temporary (induced by a doctor) and the patient will eventually emerge from this temporary unconscious, disabled and immobile state. We can argue about those who are in comas with no hope of ever returning to consciousness, but when a patient has good 'potential' for future consciousness and a normal life, it would be unethical to destroy the life of the human by unplugging the patient. The unborn embryo is in a similar position.

Secondly, it is interesting that Sunstein picked a four day standard. What makes the embryo more human at four days than it is at three days? It certainly isn't significant body plan or consciousness! I wonder if Sunstein would be willing to grant all embryos human status at four days and support a ban on all abortions after such time? Just a couple of issues to consider...

Embryos Are "Just a Handful of Cells"

We May Be Losing Our Common Foundation

Pat Buchanan had an interesting post over at World Net Daily where he asked the question, "Is America Coming Apart". He observes that we seem to be more divided than ever as a country and begins to describe the depth of the divide. While his article used President Obama's recent speech to school children as it's launching point and focused a great deal on the political ideologies that distinguish and polarize the left from the right, he did make one interesting observation that caught my eye:

The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking, as Christianity fades, the birth rate falls and Third World immigration surges. Globalism dissolves the economic bonds, while the cacophony of multiculturalism displaces the old American culture. "E pluribus unum" – out of many, one - was the national motto the men of '76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity? Is America, too, breaking up?

Hey, we've always been a melting pot here in America, but it has been true that we have been largely united by a Christian (or at least Pseudo-Christian) worldview. Is that beginning to crumble? If so, what will the impact be? Is there anything we could (or should) do about it?

We May Be Losing Our Common Foundation

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 117

Becoming a Christian “Case Maker” (Part One)

Do all of us, as Christians, have a responsibility to be good apologists for our faith? If so, what does that look like? What does it mean to be a Christian “Case Maker”? In this podcast, Jim reviews some simple investigative principles from over 20 years in Law Enforcement to help you become a better Christian thinker, investigator and “Case Maker”.

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.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 117

We're Grateful to Apologetics 315!

I've been getting emails and congratulations from friends this year about our inclusion in Apologetics 315's lists of "100 Christian Apologists" and "Top 16 Apologetics Podcasts", so I thought I would share the news with the rest of you! If you haven't visited Apologetics 315, don't waste any more time before you get over there and check out the AMAZINGLY VAST set of resources. This is a Northern Ireland website founded in 2007 that proivides daily apologetics resources including audio, debates, podcasts, book reviews, and more.

We recently made their "100 Christian Apologist" list along with people of staggering stature. Clearly we barely made the cut, but we're grateful to be included! Here is the goal of the list:

Get to know 100 Christian apologists. Most are current. Some are dead. A couple are very old. Some are not popular. They range from world-class philosophers and thinkers to internet and radio apologists. But all have made an impact with their works and ministries. They are in alphabetical order. (This is not a top 100, and theologians and church fathers have been left out.)

In addition to this, we also made the cut for their "Top 16 Apologetics Podcasts"! This list is a true "top 16" list and we are proud to be part of it, especially considering the fact that we are big fans of all the other podcasts (we're listening to them, but I kinda dooubt they are listening to us)!

Anyway, we're grateful to be included...

We're Grateful to Apologetics 315!

The New PCM Academy!

I haven't had much of an opportunity to blog this week, between a crazy work week and my efforts to update the PCM Academy. I get emails from many of you who are looking for a curriculum that can be used personally to train yourselves up as apologists or can be used to train up a small group. The problem generally is that curriculum on the market is either short or expensive. I've done my best to assemble some of our materials in a format that you can use on your own or with your group, and I do think that our Academy pages are ready now and up to the task. Each page is now organized into individual lessons that group all the materials together in one place. Each lesson contains downloads that can be opened by clicking the icon or saved by right clicking the icon and selecting "save target as". You can then save and organize the materials on your own hard drove for use later. The lessons are designed to allow you to read the material and take notes on a note page that then becomes a Bible Insert to remind you abou the material later. IN addition, most of the lessons also have an audio file to listen along to a discussion that is related to the article and insert (we'll be adding even more of these along the way). Finally, I've included a number of additional materials to help you take anohter step with each lesson and bonus materials in related topics. Here are our three courses:

PleaseConvinceMe Academy Course 1
Answering the Objections of Atheists
The "Popularity of Atheism" Curriculum

PleaseConvinceMe Academy Course 2
Making A Case for God's Existence
The "Plausibility of Theism" Curriculum

PleaseConvinceMe Academy Course 3
Articulating the Gospel of Grace
The "Promise of Christianity" Curriculum

I hope these courses help you to become the apologist that God has called all of us to be! The best part is: everything is FREE!

The New PCM Academy!

PleaseConvinceMe.com on WHKW Cleveland Radio

It seems like I have been asked to do a lot of radio lately; I did two interviews this week (one in Cleveland and one in Pittsburgh). Some of the time I'm asked to come on because they are looking for the unique perspective of a Homicide Detective. Sometimes I am asked to come on because they are simply looking for an apologist who will make the case in plain language. Sometimes I'm asked to come on because they are curious about PleaseConvinceMe.com. Today's interview at WHKW Cleveland falls in the latter category and I thought it was a good summary of what we are trying to do on our website, how the site began and where we hope to take it. The one thing I regret, however, was failing to mention this BLOG!!!!! Ugh. Oh well, here is the link (I'll be certain to mention the blog next time):

WHKW Radio Interview

be patient while the MP3 downloads to your computer!

PleaseConvinceMe.com on WHKW Cleveland Radio

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 116

What Does It Mean to Be a “Responsive Christian”?

Why do some of us call ourselves “Evangelical Christians”? Is evangelism an important part of what it means to be a Christian? Are all of us called to be evangelists? What if we aren’t gifted in that way? What role should “apologetics” play in the life of the Christian? Must we all be “apologists” if we want to call ourselves “Christians”? Why should we adopt a new definition and become “Responsive Christians”?

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.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 116

The "Book of Abraham" Still Says It All

When I first became interested in Spiritual things, I began a deep study of the claims of Christianity and the claims of Mormonism (I have some Christian family and some Mormon family members). The Book of Abraham was the single piece of evidence that quickly and definitively turned me away from Mormonism. It is a piece of hard physical evidence that demonstrates that Joseph Smith was a liar, even after claiming to speak for God. I've written extensively about this in these two articles:

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Can_We_Trust_the_Book_of_Abraham
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_a_Defense_for_the_Book_of_Abraham

Mormon apologists have been working for many years to minimize the impact of the Book of Abraham, doing their best to distract members from placing too much importance on this piece of Scripture from the Pearl of Great Price. This very recent article from the Mormon Church again does what it can to persuade Mormon's that the Book of Abraham really shouldn't be taken all that seriously. In fact, the Mormon speaker cited here suggests that there are more important principles that Mormons should be concerned with:

He [John Gee] suggested six: God exists; Jesus Christ is His Son; God talked and still talks with men through the power of the Holy Ghost; Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the world; the Atonement is available to those who trust Jesus, turn from sin, make and keep sacred covenants, and follow the course throughout their lives; and the Book of Mormon is true, an authentic record of God's interactions with actual ancient people.

"Now, we may be called upon to defend smaller points than these [such as the Book of Abraham], but if these six things are not true, there is no point in the rest," Brother Gee said.

"Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?" he asked. "It isn't. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ."

That sounds good, for what it is worth, but the problem is the sixth Mormon "essential": "the Book of Mormon is true, an authentic record of God's interactions with actual ancient people". The Book of Abraham is the one piece of evidence that can most clearly tell us if the Book of Mormon is true. Joseph claimed to translate the Book of Abraham from an ancient text; he also claimed to translate the Book of Mormon from an ancient text. The Book of Abraham is clearly a forgery and a lie. Why should we believe that the Book of Mormon is anything different?

The "Book of Abraham" Still Says It All

Don't Look Now, But Their Bias Is Showing

As Christians, we're often accused of holding a presuppositional bias that prevents us from examining the evidence fairly, and also causes us to judge others and be intolerant towards those who hold a different view of the world. But recent court cases against Christian Homeschoolers seem to point to a ferocious bias on the part of secular courts and school districts. In March, a North Carolina judge "ordered three children to attend public schools this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be 'challenged.'" This, in spite of the fact that the children have tested above their grade levels by as much as two years. The courts are clearly concerned that the homeschooling mom is indoctrinating her kids with her own Christian beliefs. Just last week, a New Hampshire court ordered a home-schooled Christian girl to attend a public school "after a judge criticized the 'rigidity' of her mother's religious views and said the 10-year-old needed to consider other worldviews as she matures." The concern of both judges appears to be that these homeschooling families are actually teaching their kids that Christianity is objectively and exclusively true. Imagine that. But secular school programs are equally guilty of attempting to teach kids that something is exclusively true: the self refuting idea that truth is subjective and all worldviews are equally true. Apparently, this is one exclusive truth (that there are no exclusive truths) is a principle that secular courts and school systems have no problem indoctrinating...

Don't Look Now, But Their Bias Is Showing

"Monsters of Folk" Have Given Us An Opportunity to Share

The driving, creative forces behind "Bright Eyes", "M. Ward", "My Morning Jacket" have given us a chance to respond to the most common (and perhaps most difficult) challenge offered at Christianity. Conor Oberst, Jim James, M Ward and Mike Mogis have formed a "super-group" of sorts called "Monsters of Folk". One of their three early singles from the first album is entitled "Dear God (Sincerely M.O.F)". You can stream the single from their website. In the song, each of the singers gets one line to express his doubt or concerns about the existence of God:

Dear god, I'm trying hard to reach you
Dear god, I see your face in all I do
Sometimes it's so hard to believe in
Good god I know you have your reasons

Dear god I see you move the mountains
Dear god I see you moving trees
Sometimes it's nothing to believe in
Sometimes it's everything I see

Well I've been thinking about,
And I've been breaking it down without an answer
I know I'm thinking aloud but if your loves
Still around why do we suffer?
Why do we suffer?

Dear god, I wish that I could touch you
How strange sometimes I feel I almost do
And then I'm back behind the glass again
Oh god what keeps you out it keeps me in

Well I've been thinking about,
And I've been breaking down without an answer
I know I'm thinking aloud but if your loves
Still around why do we suffer?
Why do we suffer?

I'm sure you recognize the classic "problem of evil" that is being offered here. As this song makes the rounds, it's going to provide all of us, as Christians, with an opportunity to share the truth and respond to a valid and troubling objection. Are you ready. We've provided three articles to help:

Does Moral Evil Prove There is No God?
Does Natural Evil Prove There is No God?
Does Pain and Suffering Prove There is No God?

"Monsters of Folk" Have Given Us An Opportunity to Share

The Evidence Supports the Need for Dad

I've often discussed the critical role of DAD on the PleaseConvinceMe Podcast. I first noticed it when I was working the Gang Detail many years ago. Every gangster I worked had one common denominator: lack of dad! I also recognized that the rate of teenage pregnancy and young male incarceration was directly connected to 'lack of dad'. Well, this article in New Scientist supports the evidence scientifically, affirming the specific need for dad in the raising of kids. Interesting also to note that something immaterial, the dad's new role as dad, appears to be capable of altering something material (the brain chemistry of the father). That's an interesting point for us dualists to consider for a moment. The materialistic, naturalists in our world would have us believe that everything is the RESULT of material processes. Once again we see that THOUGHTS (those are immaterial, right?) actually alter the material chemistry of the brain! Just something to think about...

The Evidence Supports the Need for Dad