Spotlight: Why Pornography is Wrong (It's Not Really About Sex)

There's a lot of depth to this post. Not only is it beautifully written, it's insightful and powerful:

Why Pornography is Wrong (It's Not Really About Sex)

A sample:

"In normal, healthy, husband-and-wife sex, two people have to work together to find mutual pleasure and joy in physical expression. That's why it is such hard work, and why so many people struggle with it. It is not that there is anything wrong with the individuals, it is that divinely-sanctioned sex is not meant to be easy. It is not meant to be about fulfilling one's own needs, it is meant to be about seeking ways to meet a spouse's needs. When two people attempt this, there is bound to be missteps along the way. However, when this is done, husband and wife form strong bonds of love as they seek their spouse's needs before their own (very powerful) ones. Sex should be a form of charity held sacred to be performed only between husband and wife, so there can be a bond between them that no others share..."

"...Is pornography wrong because it exploits women? Undoubtedly. But it also exploits the viewer or reader, teaching them that joy comes only from control. In the end, that is far more damaging."

Reactions to Family Armor?

2010 Update: "Family Armor" was not picked up by TLC.

While it was interesting to see the business side of Texas Armoring, I was a bit uncomfortable watching the family aspect of Family Armor. I found myself wondering if any ordinary person would assume that that is how all Mormons are. The family approach just wasn't my cup of tea. Or hot chocolate. Whatever.

Camera's in every room? "Someone is always watching". Seriously?

I don't know about other Mormons, but I know that "obedience" shouldn't come out of fear, pressure, or coercion. It should come out of love and gratitude for what God has done for us in providing a Savior.

One more point of criticism. The father of the niece (who wanted to come home to her own family) basically told her on the phone that while they want her to come home, she would essentially stay there forever if she didn't shape up. (I know I'm paraphrasing, but it still seemed odd--too strict--and something I would never say to my daughters.)

Perhaps the TV show didn't really portray reality (or maybe it did), but I found myself thinking about how I don't live the gospel like that. I even found myself saying at one point: "If I weren't Mormon and I was watching this, I'd probably think to myself 'I'm glad I'm not a member of that church'". Sad to say.

Am I being too harsh? Any other reactions? (Positive or negative?)

"Family Armor"

As a Mormon in San Antonio, this show is especially intriguing to me. I've set the DVR to record Thursday night's premier of "Family Armor", and I'm looking forward to it. Regardless of my faith, it just seems like it would be a fascinating show on multiple levels. Even better that it takes place so close to home!

On A Personal Note...

Guess it's time for a new blog header! Our family has now grown by one--a boy. Jericho Bryven (after his grandpa's Bryant and Steven) was born Monday, November 2nd--8lbs 1oz, 22 inches long. Both he and his mom are doing well.

Bound to the Lord

Spotlighting an excellent post: I the Lord Am Bound, by Sam MB at By Common Consent.

Some of my favorite lines:

“When I think about binding God, this is the image that fills my soul with light. That God has adopted me, that he will claim me–bedraggled, bemused, bedeviled me–as his son, that he will allow our relationship to be the tender and overwhelming and often ineffable relation of parent to child. This to me is the great promise and reassurance of the possibility that God is willing to be bound to us.”

“God is not a vending machine”

“In my times of yearning and struggle, when I most hunger for God’s presence, it is the promise of a 'bond and covenant that cannot be broken' that buoys me up.”

Accounting For The Book of Mormon

Jeffrey R. Holland's recent sermon and testimony has put a spotlight back on the Book of Mormon. It was a powerful and moving address. Three great commentaries on the talk can be found here at Mormanity, Dave's Mormon Inquiry, and Life on Gold Plates.

While his primary audience obviously consisted of believers in the truthfulness of Book of Mormon, it once again piqued my curiosity about how non-believers account for the Book of Mormon. I've been curious enough to try and step into others' shoes to see how they account for it. And while I often find myself being able to empathize with their position, I also repeatedly find their explanations frustratingly insufficient. Perhaps that sentiment goes both ways.

Nevertheless, for those who do not believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, explaining it away presents a serious and difficult challenge. Most do not step up to the challenge at all, and dismiss it far too easily. Those who so quickly dismiss it never seem to convincingly articulate why, or at least how they do account for it. It's one thing to question various pieces of a puzzle, but to dismiss this puzzle without examining so many significant and important pieces seems reckless and irresponsible.

After examining any and all of these alternative explanations, it's still more improbable for me to believe that Joseph Smith, and those witnesses who saw and felt the plates, were lying the whole time. Not that people don't lie; people lie all the time. But in this case, look at what was at stake! And what would have been the motive for even attempting to pass off a "19th century hoax" as a sacred record and ancient witness of Jesus Christ? These are not unreasonable questions. And I think they demand good and reasonable answers, especially if I were to be persuaded to change my mind regarding the Book of Mormon--that it truly is what it purports to be.

I most certainly would need someone to do much better in making a case than regurgitating the same explanations that have already been brought forward. That Joseph thought it would be fun to get involved with magic, produce a hoax, and then live the unrelenting and persecuted life he lived in defending that lie--even eventually giving his life for it--just doesn't work for me.

As Elder Holland recently pointed out, why would Joseph and Hyrum turn to a fabricated hoax for spiritual strength and comfort right before they were killed? Meanwhile, there still cannot be found a reasonable and good explanation for how it was fabricated in the first place. Either Joseph was a genius who wrote it himself or he improbably got help from some other ghostwriter(s). And if the best someone can do is connect a few verses of Alma 40 with similarities from the 32nd chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, or say that Joseph just copied from some other manuscript, then an explanation has been attempted for only a small portion of the book. But how was the rest of it written? What of the rest of Alma, or Mosiah, or the vast majority of the rest of the Book of Mormon? Certainly there are many other complicated books which have single authors (J. R. R. Tolkien comes to mind), but what of the Book of Mormon's powerful, moving, and convincing witness of the divinity of Christ, our Redeemer? After all, Christ is the central character and focus in the Book of Mormon from beginning to end. Was Joseph Smith really capable of that?

So far the "best" explanation I've been given by a thoughtful critic of the Book of Mormon is that it's simply a "hodge podge of various common 18th century themes, sources, and religious controversies combined into an imaginative and compelling story." But even this explanation doesn't give the entirety of the Book of Mormon and all it represents the amount of thought that it demands. And besides, didn't Alexander Campbell already say essentially the same thing while calling Joseph an impostor back in 1831? Such a flippant explanation does indeed seem a little pathetic for someone familiar with the totality of the Book of Mormon, let alone the abilities of Joseph Smith or the unbelievable help (aka: vast conspiracy) Joseph would have needed to pull off such an amazing scam.

It's actually harder for me to believe these alternative explanations than to simply believe that God and angels were involved. And as crazy as that can sound to a non-believer, it shouldn't be that crazy for any believer in the Bible, which also describes angelic visitations. Knowing what I know, it would require a greater "jump of reason" for me to conclude that the Book of Mormon wasn't brought forth by the "gift and power of God".

The Book of Mormon continues to be a marvel to me. I continue to be amazed at its relevance in my life today, as well as the great wisdom and power I find in its pages. And while I'm open minded about the actual translation process and even the presence of seeming anachronisms, those points all seem to miss the point. The Book is of God. I feel similar to Blake Ostler, who recently wrote on another blog: "The Book of Mormon is like breath to me. I love its teachings and passages so much that they are like a part of my soul."

And even I fail at fully accounting for all that it has meant for me.

Capturing Conference

Conference was wonderful. There were many highlights, but Elder Holland blew me away. It reminded me of his testimony of the Book of Mormon in "Christ and the New Covenant", only delivered orally and aimed at preventing Latter-day "hearts" from failing. I'm looking forward for the printed texts to become available. In the meantime, I've downloaded the audio of Elder Holland's address.

Something else new and exciting is that the music from each conference session is now available for individual download. Looks like you can download the individual songs back to October of last year. I've currently got "O Divine Redeemer" in my iTunes on repeat. Moving, powerful, and right to the heart of the gospel. Capture your favorite Conference highlights for yourself!

Personal Memories of General Conference

I always look forward to General Conference. I especially look forward to participating with my family from the comforts of our own home (thank you BYUTV!). Yet there's also the realization that it ends all too quickly! So today, as I look forward to Conference, I thought it would also be nice to look back. Here are a few of my favorite personal General Conference memories:

April 1999
Singing in the Priesthood Session inside the Tabernacle my freshman year in college. It was Mac Wilberg's last year at BYU. We sang his arrangement of "The Spirit of God like a fire is burning", with all the key changes. I felt like angels were going to lift me through the roof and take me straight to heaven.

April 2001
Sitting in a chapel in Duran, Ecuador with my missionary companion, Elder De Leon, from Guatemala. President Hinckley announced The Perpetual Education Fund and I was overcome with joy at the realization that this blessing would directly impact Elder De Leon when he returned home.

October 2002
I was in Las Vegas as one of the "best men" at the wedding of a friend of mine (not LDS). My flight back to Salt Lake took place during the Sunday morning session of General Conference. I was hoping we'd land in time to at least hear President Hinckley's concluding remarks. After grabbing my luggage, I ran to my car and turned on the radio. Elder Eyring was just finishing his talk. President Hinckley was next.

I drove downtown and circled around and around Temple Square with the radio on, listening to a prophets voice speak about The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith: "We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith. When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, "Yes, sir. That's the miracle of it." That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens."

October 2003
I accompanied my wonderful grandmother to every single general session inside the Conference Center. She had flown in from Oregon and was determined to be at each session in person. She's now 94.

April 2003
Singing in a combined BYU Choir in the Conference Center. We'd been practicing a well known version of "If You Could Hie To Kolob". Right before Conference the First Presidency requested we sing an older version with an entirely different tune. It grew on me. That session Elder Eyring gave a talk entitled "A Child and a Disciple". He ended with a witness that will always be special to me: "I testify that Jesus is the Christ, that He is my Savior and yours and the Savior of all the people you will ever meet."

April 2004
Sitting in the Conference Center with my dad, brothers, and future brothers-in-law; hearing Elder Maxwell testify: "God has known you individually, brethren, for a long, long time (see D&C 93:23). He has loved you for a long, long time. He not only knows the names of all the stars (see Ps. 147:4; Isa. 40:26); He knows your names and all your heartaches and your joys! By the way, you have never seen an immortal star; they finally expire. But seated by you tonight are immortal individuals—imperfect but who are, nevertheless, 'trying to be like Jesus'!"

The next morning I sat inside the Conference Center with my future wife--having just been engaged the night before. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang "For The Beauty of The Earth", and when they sang the line "For the joy of human love" I wondered if that line was meant for that very moment. I was sitting next to the woman I was going to spend eternity with, and I couldn't have been filled with more light, joy, and love.

That session Julie Beck gave a talk entitled "A 'Mother Heart'". My wife truly has a mother heart. Liriel Domiciano had been invited to sing a rare solo with the Tabernacle Choir and it was truly magnificent--"I Know That My Redeemer Lives". That's my testimony too, and it goes right to the bone.

What Goes On Inside Mormon Temples?

In a day and age in which online conversations about Mormonism can sometimes make your head spin, it's refreshing to encounter a video so simple, informative, and presented in such a way that even the most informed can appreciate:

Two Testimonies of Christ: From a Current and a Former Mormon

Today, within minutes of each other, I read testimonies from two sincere followers of Christ. While each focuses on his current life in Christ, the paths each traveled have been very different. Yet, both are enlightening and worthy of reflection.

In Why I Left The Mormon Church, Mike shares his testimony about how Jesus, not a church, is the head of our salvation. Thus, his is a testimony with which I completely agree. I only feel sad that this truth was not reinforced and made more obvious during the dozen years Mike was still a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This line of his struck me as so very tragic: "I had believed in [Jesus Christ] for years, but I had been taught that the way to salvation was by obedience to the Mormon church. The church had effectively stood between me and God".

I can't blame him for leaving. I can only hope that his experience is a rare exception. If there are others who feel this way, how can we ensure that the ball doesn't get dropped? All I can say is that I'm so glad my personal experience has been quite the opposite. I have come to truly know Jesus and feel of his saving grace and power. I've also been a life-long Mormon.

In Ray's A Testimony for My Birthday, the "central point is that I have experienced and continue to experience God in my life as a follower of Christ who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

While my own experience more closely reflects Ray's, reading these two testimonies back to back made me curious how many people out there would fall into the experiences of the former or the latter. It's disheartening to think about even one person who can go for a year, let alone a dozen, being outwardly active in the Church while not truly inwardly active in Christ. It reminds me of Stephen Robinson's analogy of those sitting in a cold, dark room pretending to be warmed by all the heaters and the lamps without actually having turned on the power switch. Or put another way, truly being made "alive in Christ because of our faith" (2nd Nephi 25:25).

While I don't think this challenge is necessarily unique to the Latter-day Saints, it is nevertheless a challenge. I feel part of my personal mission is to share the "good news" with those who still haven't "got it", whether LDS or not.

What Matters Most

Finding Hope

A powerful story "from the tragedy and trauma of 9/11 to hope, healing, and renewal through Jesus Christ."

Who Are the Mormons?

Sometimes it's hard to get accurate information about various religious groups directly, without the filter that others often put in the way. I frequently feel this way as I try to learn about other faith groups and how they frame themselves. Thus, I found the "Who Are the Mormons?" link quite helpful as an introduction to what Latter-day Saints are all about. I hope others feel the same way.

I especially appreciated this clear explanation:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of New Testament Christianity as taught by Jesus and His apostles. It is not Protestant, evangelical, Catholic or Orthodox. Nevertheless, the basic values of morality, civility and family espoused by the Church are similar to those of most other Christian faiths. Church members find refuge from the uncertainties of the world in the gospel message of hope and happiness. The reality that life has divine purpose, that God cares for each individual and that everyone has the capacity for improvement through correct choices is a central theme of Mormon thought."

For those who are already familiar with Mormons, it might be interesting to read about The Centrality of Christ from the LDS perspective. It may serve as a good launching point in the important conversation about what we believe about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The Doctrine of a Plurality of Gods Is Not Polytheism

By request, rather than diverging in the comments section of a recent post, I'm dedicating a new post as a place of discussion concerning some matters of confusion. It involves belief in a plurality of gods, which some credal Christians mistake for polytheism. (One disclaimer for those who mistakenly insist that LDS are polytheists: even evangelical scholar Gerald McDermott has conceded that Mormons are not polytheists, and clarifies that "polytheism portrays a world in which competing gods either vie for ultimate authority or have delimited provinces over which they rule".)

While the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate beings, they function as one God, or Godhead, to oversee, bless, and save the human family. There is no competition between Them. They are "one", and share a perfect love and unity. Moreover, They desire that we too share a relationship of love. See "That They May Be One As We Are One".

To avoid confusion, I should clarify and separate two different concepts here. There are two different kinds of plurality: the plurality within the Godhead (only three) and the plurality that arises from the fact that exalted children of God can be called gods. Whether we're talking about a plurality of Gods within the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), or a plurality of gods (ie: all the "sons of God"), it doesn't change the fact that there is only one true source of worship, love, power, light, and glory in the universe--God the Eternal Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Elder M. Russell Ballard touched on both kinds of "plurality" and their accompanying confusion years ago in a talk entitled, "Building Bridges of Understanding":

[An] area of misunderstanding among some of our friends in Christianity is that they refer to us as “polytheists,” meaning that we believe in a plurality of Gods. Much misunderstanding would be avoided if they understood that we worship only one Godhead, consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. We believe that the biblical record teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons. When the Savior was baptized, the Father spoke His approval from heaven, and the Holy Ghost was witnessed to be present by the sign of a dove (see Matt. 3:16–17). Likewise the Bible records the prayers of Jesus Christ to our Father in Heaven, a separate being (see John 17:3). We believe this doctrine is taught in the Bible despite what the creeds of other Christian denominations may teach. Such creeds were created hundreds of years after Christ’s mortal ministry through the processes of debate and compromise, often at the expense of biblical truths. The falling away from the teachings of Jesus Christ resulted in the Apostasy, which made the restoration of the gospel essential. This is a subject to be studied by all; the various Christian creeds were born through church councils and other efforts to define the true nature of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Through revelations to modern prophets, we now know God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost and our true relationship to each one of them.

There is another related dimension of the scriptures that causes discomfort for many traditional Christians regarding this whole matter. We believe our Father in Heaven has promised His faithful sons and daughters “all things”—even that those worthy of exaltation in the celestial kingdom will be as “gods, even the sons of God” and that “these shall dwell in the presence of God and His Christ forever and ever” (see D&C 76:55, 58, 62). Although we do not know the full detail of these promises or what is fully meant by being “gods, even the sons of God,” we do accept these promises as revealed doctrine. Yet notwithstanding these promises, we say that for us there is indeed no other object of worship than God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Now, in fairness to credal Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity also recognizes that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate persons (that is, that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father), but it holds that these divine persons mysteriously share the same ousia, substance, or being. Latter-day Saints recognize that there is more than one way to worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "one God" than simply numerically as one ousia. These three divine persons are one in purpose, love, unity, and just about every other way except physically. Thus, Mormons also believe in "one God", even though we know each has their own being/ousia. (ie: D&C 20:28: "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end."). Therefore, notwithstanding this separateness of being, or plurality of Gods within the Godhead, because they are "one", there is no polytheism.

On the most misunderstood point of a plurality of gods in reference to LDS belief in deification, people need to understand that "becoming a god" is not the equivalent of setting up independently from God, replacing or displacing God, or competing with God. Deification involves becoming the sons of God, and this is done only in and through a loving relationship with God, and becoming one with the Father and the Son as Christ prayed we would in John 17. Stephen Robinson explains in his book "Are Mormons Christians?":

Some believe that certain LDS doctrines are so bizarre, so totally foreign to biblical or historical Christianity, that they simply cannot be tolerated. In terms of the LDS doctrines most often criticized on these grounds, however –the doctrine of deification and its corollary, the plurality of gods–this claim does not hold up to historical scrutiny. Early Christian saints and theologians, later Greek Orthodoxy, modern Protestant evangelists, and even C. S. Lewis have all professed their belief in a doctrine of deification. The scriptures themselves talk of many "gods" and use the term god in a limited sense for beings other than the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost. If this language is to be tolerated in scripture and in ancient and modern orthodox Christians without cries of "polytheism!" then it must be similarly tolerated in the Latter-day Saints.

If scripture can use the term gods for nonultimate beings, if the early Church could, if Christ himself could, then Latter-day Saints cannot conceivably be accused of being outside the Christian tradition for using the same term in the same way.

I don't need to argue whether the doctrine is true, although I certainly believe it is. I am only arguing that other Christians of unimpeachable orthodoxy have believed in deification long before the Latter-day Saints came along, and that it has been accepted and tolerated in them as part of their genuine Christianity. Fair play demands the same treatment for the Latter-day Saints.