Google Webmaster Tools
 
Back in 1991 when I attended the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, I met a Born Again Christian student named Michelle. When I found out that she attended a university bible study group, I asked if I could attend. She said yes and a week later I was introduced to the group. I knew that they would have a problem with a Mormon in the group, but it was a nondenominational gathering and I wanted to find out how they would react to me being there.

At a meeting with about 10 students, the leader, an assertive young man in his mid-twenties, asked me questions to find out more about my beliefs. He asked, “Which church do you go to?” I replied, “A nearby church.” He asked, “Have you accepted Jesus Christ?” I replied, “Yes, I’ve accepted him as my Lord and Savior.” He asked, “Do you believe in the bible?” I replied, “Yes, I believe it is the word of God.”

I answered all his questions truthfully with the intent of showing the group that I shared many of their religious beliefs. In fact the beliefs we had in common outnumbered our differences. However, I knew that eventually they would discover that I am a Mormon. The questions continued.

“Why do you want to join our group?” I replied, “Because I like discussing the bible with others.” Then he went back the original question: “What is the name of your church?” “The Church of Jesus Christ,” I replied. I could see the wheels turning in their heads as they tried to figure out what church that was. Then one girl hit on it. “You mean the church of latter-day saints!?” she blurted. I replied, “That’s right.”

“So you’re a Mormon,” the leader said. He continued: “You can’t join our group.” “Why not?” I replied. “I want to study the bible with you and I believe in Jesus Christ.” Then someone said what I expected to hear all along: “You don’t believe in the same God that we believe in.” Members of the group then proceeded to give me several of the anti-Mormon talking points I heard on my mission. The group leader then called for a break at which point I left.

I know my friend Michelle was embarrassed by their behavior. Although she was a Born Again Christian and I a Mormon, we spent lots of time together. I guess you could say we dated for a short while, but we were more friends than anything else. We discussed the bible. We went to sporting events together. She asked me to take her to the Cardston Temple open house after it was renovated. And she invited me and my wife over to her and her husband’s place for dinner after we both married.

Recently I thought about how posting articles on evolution at mormonsandscience.com is a bit like going to the Christian bible study group. Those who attack my evolutionary posts sound a lot like the bible study group members. “You don’t know the true Jesus - You don’t understand evolution.” “You reject the true God - You reject evolution” (when actually I accept a lot of evolution). “You don’t belong in our group because you are not a believer - You should not be commenting on evolution because you are not a natural scientist.” “Your LDS church is full of falsehoods - Mormonsandscience.com is pseudo-science.”

It did not matter to the bible study group that I thought that they believed in the true God, that they embraced many correct Christian principles, and that their religion was mostly correct and good. Because I was Mormon I was heretical. In likewise manner, it does not matter to LDS evolutionists that I accept a great deal of evolution, that I believe that they understand science fairly well, and that I think that their acceptance of common descent is reasonable given the evidence. Because I reject common descent, they accuse me of being a misguided and confused scholar.

Don’t get me wrong; I am not pleading for acceptance. It does not hurt my feelings when people post nasty replies to my evolutionary posts. I do not care that I was kicked out of the Born Again Christian bible study group (I expected it), and I do not care that pro-evolution latter-day saints make false accusations against me and my site. I am confident and comfortable in what I write and that is all that matters to me.

The similarities between my experiences at the bible study session and mormonsandscience.com illustrate how intolerant and stupid people sound when they impugn me and others latter-day saints for not accepting common descent. 

I am happy to say that, like my Born Again Christian friend Michelle, I receive comments at mormonsandscience.com from a couple of pro-evolutionists who are courteous and respectful. Notwithstanding our irreconcilable differences and spirited debates, we get along well and respect one another. I hold them in high regard as I did my friend Michelle. They know how to get along and disagree without being disagreeable, a Christian quality.
10 Comments
 
 
Dr. John A. Widtsoe and I agree. When it comes to understanding the limits of evolution, he hit the nail on the head.

Detractors will immediately accuse me and Dr. Widtsoe of not understanding science and evolution. We’ll let the evidence speak for itself. He had a PhD and was the author of 7 scientific books and over 76 articles on chemistry and agriculture. I have a PhD and have written 1 scientific book and (co)authored 11 articles for peer-reviewed scientific journals.

To begin with, he and I agree that the law of evolution is an undeniable fact of nature. “[T]here seems to be a steady process by which unorganized matter is being organized into more and more complex forms. . . .[C]reation as a whole has been and is moving forward, becoming more complex, evolving and creating.”

Now the steady development of life forms on earth has led some to conclude that all life “must have descended from a common ancestor.” The belief that all life descended from a common ancestor is not factual; it is an inference from the facts. Widtsoe correctly argued that “inferences from the facts . . . must be treated as hypotheses or theories.” Hypotheses and theories like common descent are just scientific best guesses about the way the natural world operates. As such, they are subject to revision and refutation. Very few theories achieve lasting law-like status that has been ascribed to well-tested theories like gravity and relativity.

The following statement by Dr. Widtsoe demonstrates his far reaching wisdom on this issue. He wrote: “If the difference between fact and inference had been held clearly in mind, much of the absurd talk on the subject would have been eliminated.” He did not tell us what he meant by “absurd talk,” but I am confident that I know what he was talking about. By “absurd talk” he was, in all likelihood, referring to scientists claiming that common descent is a proven fact when it is not.

Like Dr. John A. Widtsoe I am all for evolutionary research. I support scientists’ efforts to develop evolutionary principles and test evolutionary hypotheses. I declare that most who teach and/or research evolution are true scholars and I respect them as such. But those who endeavor to convince others that common descent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt are selling ocean front property in Arizona. Believing, teaching, and researching common descent are fine as far as I am concerned; trying to convince people that science has proven common descent is not. On this matter, Dr. John A. Widtsoe and I agree.  
22 Comments
 
 
Christosophy is a word I coined to describe the process of mixing of philosophy and Christianity.  Unfortunately christosophy was common during the early years of the Christian Church. There are two main reasons for its presence. Scholars who joined the Christian faith during the era of great persecution from the Romans embraced christosophy in the hopes of making Christianity more appealing to the state, while other early members embraced christosophy as a means of finding truth after apostolic authority was taken from the earth. As will be shown, both endeavors drove the church further into obscurity and darkness.

An early sign that the Apostasy was afoot was the rise of Gnosticism during the late first century. Gnostics, as they were called, were largely concerned with esoteric and mystical explanations about an unknowable god, who we are, where we came from, and how we got here. Gnostic metaphysical speculations on these and other matters drew criticism from Christian traditionalists such as Irenaeus and Tertullian (2nd century AD), who accused the gnostics of polluting church doctrine with philosophy and mysticism.  Despite the noble efforts of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others to protect Christianity from outside influences, philosophy and mysticism eventually infiltrated Christian doctrine. Efforts to combine Christianity and philosophy surprisingly came from within.

The introduction of philosophy into Christianity was largely the work
of scholars who, after converting to Christianity, combined religion and
philosophy in an attempt to make Christianity more appealing to nonbelievers,
especially the Romans who were persecuting Christians. One Greek scholar who devoted himself to this task was Clement of Alexandria (circa ad 150–215). As a theologian and head of the catechetical school of Alexandria in Egypt, Clement promulgated the belief that the Church would be held in higher regard and gain more converts if its beliefs were blended with ancient Greek philosophy. He therefore set out to “Hellenize” Christianity by combining Church doctrine with Greek philosophy, particularly that of Plato.

After Clement died, his student, Origen (circa 185–254 ad), continued
the effort to infuse Church doctrine with Greek philosophy. Origen was a
highly respected theologian and scholar in his day. Amid the confusion over
doctrinal issues that prevailed during the third century, Origen observed
that “there are many who profess to believe in Christ who disagree among
themselves not only in small and minor matters, but rather about the great
and the greatest matters.” These disagreements largely centered on the
nature of the soul, resurrection, Holy Spirit, and incarnation of Christ.
Origen believed that doctrinal truths could be discovered through intellectual
study and reasoning, and thus set out to resolve doctrinal disagreements
through personal study and theological discussions.

Origen’s efforts to settle doctrinal disputes through study and discussion
produced less than satisfactory results. Admitting defeat, he declared,
“If anyone can find out anything better, or confirm by more evident proofs
the assertions he makes concerning the Holy Scriptures, let such conclusions
be accepted in preference to [mine].” Thus we see how, as the spiritual
apostasy was taking hold, “the foundations of doctrine had shifted
from prophetic revelation to human reason.” This shift from prophetic
authority to human reason was inevitable, given that priesthood authority
to speak and act in the name of the Lord was taken from the earth. Without
spiritual guidance from prophets and apostles, people began to rely on
human reasoning to find answers to doctrinal questions.

Christian beliefs were gradually transformed as scholars and theologians
infused church doctrine with philosophy. Nineteenth century Greek
historian Edwin Hatch remarked, “It is therefore the more remarkable
that within a century and a half after Christianity and philosophy first
came into close contact, the ideas and methods of philosophy had flowed
in such mass into Christianity, and filled so large a place in it, as to have
made it no less a philosophy than a religion.” This influx of philosophy
transformed many of the fundamental truths of the gospel into mystical
and confusing doctrine.

Take, for example, the basic principle of faith. According to Hatch, “under the influence of contemporary Greek thought, the word Faith came to be transferred from simple trust in God to mean the acceptance of a series of . . . propositions in abstract metaphysics . . . concerning Him, His nature, relations, and actions.” Indeed this was a time when many plain and precious truths of the gospel were being lost (1 Nephi 13:26) and people were seeking the word of the Lord, but not finding it (Amos 8:13).

(Source: Truth & Science)
8 Comments
 
 
Unfortunately, following the death of Paul and the other apostles, apostolic authority was taken from the earth and the gospel of Jesus Christ fell into obscurity and darkness. This decline in spiritual truth and apostolic authority corresponded with a sharp decline in secular scholarship, indicating that as the plain and precious truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ were being lost, so too were secular truths being lost.

The simultaneous loss of both was not a coincidence. The spiritual apostasy and wickedness of man diminished the enlightening power of the Spirit of the Lord. Because so much of humanity’s secular knowledge comes from the Spirit of the Lord, this diminishment affected mankind not only spiritually, but secularly as well. As the power of the Spirit of the Lord waned during the apostasy, so too did mankind’s ability to receive enlightenment.

The spiritual apostasy contributed to the decline of secular knowledge in another way. During the apostasy mankind tried to compensate for the loss of spiritual enlightenment and apostolic authority by appealing to human reason. The philosophical contributions of ancient Greek scholars were monopolized by misguided theologians and scholars who wanted to settle doctrinal disputes and make Medieval Christianity more appealing to the masses. The works of famous scholars like Plato and Aristotle now served the interests of a powerful apostate church.

Because the church controlled a large number of educational institutions and most medieval scholars were clergy members, few people dared interpret Classical Greek principles in a manner contrary to the teachings of the church. Those who attempted to enlighten mankind faced reprisal from the church if their ideas opposed church doctrine. The hijacking of Classical Greek philosophy by dogmatic religious authority, diminished blessings from the Spirit of the Lord, and the loss of priesthood authority all combined to create the Dark Ages. 

(Source: Truth & Science)
6 Comments
 
Google Analytics