A recent research report in the journal Pediatrics suggests that children of gay parents are not adversely affected by their parents’ sexual orientation. Results showed that kids raised by lesbian parents are psychologically well-adjusted and even experience fewer behavioral problems than kids raised by heterosexual parents. 

This report is creating quite a stir.

As a statistician and researcher who has both published and evaluated peer review articles for professional journals, there is always a room for debate when it comes to arguing the legitimacy of results. There are questions such as: Was the study adequately powered? What is the effect size? What kind of test was used? What sampling method was followed? Who funded the study? While these are important issues in the debating the results of the aforementioned study, I shall leave these issues to groups that have much more interest in the issue than I.   

I do not find the results of the study surprising. It does not surprise me that children of lesbian parents are psychologically well-adjusted. Why should a lesbian not be a good parent in terms of loving, providing, and caring for her child? I want children of lesbian parents to do well; I want them to be just as well-adjusted as children from homes with heterosexual parents. In a way, the results or this study are good news – I want psychologically well-adjusted kids no matter what the home environment is like. 

For me there is a more important issue that the study did not address. I want to know what effect growing up with lesbian parents has on one’s morals. Put differently, I want to know if the kids of lesbian parents are morally well-adjusted, in a Judaeo-Christian sense. Do they ever receive Christian teachings which tell them that homosexuality is a sin? Are they taught that sexual orientation is merely a matter of personal preference?

I suspect that lesbian parents are downplaying the Judaeo-Christian viewpoint which is that homosexuality is a sin. They are likely emphasizing the homosexual viewpoint which is that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. So my concern does not center on psychological adjustment; it centers on moral adjustment. 

If lesbian parents are teaching their children that homosexuality is normal, then that teaching is contributing to the normalization of homosexuality in our society. This is a dangerous trend. The normalization of homosexuality could lead to our nation’s downfall. Mosiah put it this way: “if the time comes that the [greater] voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land” (Mosiah 29:27).

The concern is not psychological adjustment; it is moral adjustment.
 
 
Picture
With an ecological disaster currently underway in the Gulf of Mexico, I could not help but wonder if this calamity falls under the last days' calamities listed in the scriptures.

Presently four angels on our world have been given the power to save and destroy life, to spread the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and to seal up things unto life or to cast things down into darkness and despair. (D&C 77:8)

These four angels have another important responsibility - as destroyers. At God’s command they will send great calamities upon the earth. The Lord said “For all flesh is corrupted before me; and the powers of darkness prevail upon the earth, among the children of men, in the presence of all the hosts of heaven—Which causeth silence to reign, and all eternity is pained, and the angels are waiting the great command to reap down the earth.” (D&C 38: 11-12).

Given their direct involvement with mankind, it would seem that these four have an intimate knowledge of the wickedness that is in the world; this might explain why they have been pleading with the Lord to let them carry out their duties as destroyers. D&C 86:5 tells us that these “angels are crying unto the Lord day and night . . . to be sent forth to reap down the fields.” It appears that they have grown weary of the wickedness that covers the earth. They have seen enough and are anxious to get on with the business of punishing and purging wickedness. Certainly they have marveled over God’s patience.

Why have they been held back? The Lord has held them back because He does not want their calamities to disrupt his growing church, which is why He said “pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender, lest you destroy the wheat also.” (D&C 86:6). However, I wonder if things are beginning to change.

The BP oil disaster has me thinking about angel #2. What is in his vial? His vial contains destruction in the seas. Revelation 16:3 says that when “the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea . . . it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.” And Revelation 8:8-9 says that when “the second angel sounded . . . it [was as though] a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died.”

When I view the video of oil gushing from the ocean floor, it reminds me of a volcano blowing fire and dust (“a great mountain burning”). Pictures of the oil washing up on shore resemble the “blood of a dead man”. And the oil is killing many creatures in the sea. With no end to the gusher in sight, the spill may once day cover an area large enough to qualify as “a third part of the sea” (what the ‘sea’ refers to, I don’t know).

 
 
Picture
The recent death of four-year-old Ethan Stacy at the hands of his abusive step father has been heart wrenching for many Utahns. Recent evidence indicates that he was repeatedly beaten by his step dad, left alone to suffer from his injuries, and left alone to suffer through traumatic brain injury during the final days of his life. 

Where was Ethan’s mother through all of this? She was physically present, yet emotionally detached. A former friend of the mother told KSL news that the mother telephoned her in Florida days before Ethan died and complained that Ethan would not stop crying and would not stop calling for his “mommy”. Apparently his cries were irritating the mother. The woman who should have loved and helped her son turned into an unfeeling bystander. Ethan cried for help as he slowly died.

Picture
A similar event took place a few years ago in Galveston, Texas. In October 2007 the body of a young girl was discovered in a plastic container partially buried in a watery bog. Investigators called the child Baby Grace until they found out that it was the body of Riley Ann Sawyers.

During the trial it came out two-year-old Riley was repeatedly beaten with a belt and had her head repeatedly pushed into a pillow and under water for not saying “please” and “yes sir” to her parents. During her final beating she cried out to her mother for help by saying “I love you.” Her plea for her mother to save her went unheeded. Moments later she died after her rampaging stepfather threw her across a room and fractured her skull. 

In both cases the parents tried to cover up the murders. Ethan’s parents bashed in his face and teeth with a blunt object (probably a hammer) and set fire to his body before burying him. Riley’s parents let her body decompose in a plastic container for a month or two before putting her out to sea.

I am not going to go into behavioral science explanations of infanticide or discuss the issue of insanity as a legal defense (which seems to be the defense that Ethan’s step father is cooking up). Also, I am not going to discuss the anger and sorrow that I feel whenever I contemplate these events. Instead I am going to finish this blog post with an expression of light and hope.

Because of the great plan of happiness of our God, Ethan and Riley will be taken into God’s presence where they will be surrounded by His love and compassion for eternity. They will be exalted on high as a prince and princess to the most high God, and become heirs to all that He has. This is God’s blessing to all children who die before the age of accountability. This realization helps replace feelings of anger and sorrow with feelings of hope and peace.
 
 
In my study of epistemology (i.e., knowing and how we know), I have come to the conclusion that spiritual ways of knowing can be just as certain as empirical (visual) ways of knowing. 

For some time I believed that spiritual knowing lacked the certainty that we attribute to empirical knowing. I mean, most people would agree that seeing something is more certain than spiritually ‘feeling’ something. After re-evaluating this position and the evidence, I think it is false.

I have come to the conclusion that there is just as much certainty in spiritual experience as there is in empirical experience. Consider times when the spirit bears powerful testimony of the Book of Mormon, when the Lord directly answers heartfelt prayers, and when the power of God is felt through priesthood blessings. We can know that those experiences are real. For many they are just as real as reading this post on a computer screen. I have experienced this sort of thing myself. I have had spiritual experiences where I know something supernatural happened.

Alma commented on the certainty of spiritual experiences in his address to the Amalekites. Regarding the experiment of planting a seed of faith (Alma 32), he wrote that when we plant a seed of faith, it will swell, sprout, and begin to grow. This swelling, sprouting, and growing refer to the spirit working in our lives. Planting a seed of faith causes us to feel the spirit more strongly, to see that it is good.

Can we be certain that something good is happening to us? Alma’s answer is “Yea.” He wrote that “ye must needs know that the seed is good.” Herein lies the certainty. “Your knowledge is perfect in that thing . . . for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.” In other words, we know that the spiritual experiences are real. We know that something good and supernatural has happened to us.

But wait a minute; I thought faith was not having a perfect knowledge. Where does the uncertainty come into play? Alma explains it this way: “and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? Nay.” He is saying that while we are certain of having had spiritual experiences, we still lack perfect knowledge of God and the power of the priesthood and prayer. There is so much more for us to learn. The more we exercise faith in the Lord, the more knowledge we will receive. We can continue to acquire knowledge through faith until we reach the point where, like the Brother of Jared, we receive a perfect knowledge of the Lord.

Our certain spiritual experiences are what allow us to rationally declare “I know God lives”, “I know the priesthood power is real”, and “I know the Book of Mormon is true.” Although we lack a perfect knowledge of these things, the experiences which led to our testimony of these things are as real as the chair you are sitting on. As Alma pointed out, these experiences are clearly “discernible.”
 
 
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)
 
 
Given that deists believe that the Lord’s influence in the world following the creation is essentially non existent, it is worthwhile asking why deist scientists choose to believe in God.

Surely some choose to believe because of an inexplicable inner sense that He lives. Other deists take a more rational approach and argue that life, with all its complexities, could not have come about by chance; therefore there must be an intelligent force which started it all. Whatever their reasons for believing, deists are largely concerned about preserving the belief that natural laws are the only forces at work in the world. This belief justifies their focusing solely on natural, law-driven processes, usually to the point of rejecting notions of divine influence. Moreover, many deists believe that because science is able to uncover the laws of nature, and that such laws are the only forces at work in the world, science is therefore the only reliable source of truth. This belief, known as scientism, is sometimes taken to extremes by those who declare that science will one day reveal all there is to know about the world. 

In a way, deism is like having your cake and eating it too. With deism you can believe in God and accept scientism. But as the Savior taught, "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon" (3rd Nephi 13:24). By accepting scientism and denying divine intervention and revelation, deists are clearly worshiping scientific mammon.  

A redeeming value of deism is that it advocates a belief in divine creation. This positive aspect diminishes, however, when theological implications of deism are taken into consideration. Because of its stance against divine involvement, deism denies the mission of the Jesus Christ, thus rejecting the Savior’s atonement which is central to the Plan of Redemption. Also, if, as deists claim, the creator does not reveal himself to his creations, then it follows that He is unknowable. The belief that He is unknowable has led to some obscure conceptions about the nature of God. According to one deist, the creator is “the ground and source of our sense of wonderment, of power, of powerlessness, of light, of dark, of meaning, and of bafflement. . . . It is the God of mystics of all cultures and creeds. We look out into the sea of mystery and speak his name. His name eludes all creeds and theories of science. He is indeed the ‘dread essence beyond logic.’”  This author’s god exists in the creations and natural events where he eludes reason and science. 

Other deists equate God with nature, a belief known as pantheism. A 17th century scholar who promoted this view was Benedict Spinoza. Spinoza’s phrase “Deus sive Natura,” or “God or Nature”, suggests that the creator is nature, the structure of the cosmic order, operating according to blind universal laws and devoid of divine purpose. “Spinoza’s God . . . [can]not be spoken to, [does] not respond if prayed to, [and is] very much in every particle of the universe.”  Similar pantheistic-style beliefs have been expressed by influential scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.  Is it any wonder, then, that deists view the creator as a detached and impersonal entity? How can anyone commune with such a god? 

Another concern with deism is that if the creator does not reveal himself, then humankind cannot know the purpose of creation. To know that this world was created for the purpose of “bring[ing] to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:29) engenders respect for the Lord and enables us to find meaning in His creations. Such sentiments are conspicuously absent in deistic understandings of nature. For example, in Skeptics and True Believers, deist and science author, Chet Raymo, expresses amazement over the Hubble Deep Field photograph which shows over 1500 galaxies in one photo of the night sky. His wonderment stems from being able to witness those galactic structures, knowing what they are, and having some knowledge of the natural processes by which they came into existence. 

I am similarly amazed when I look at the Hubble Deep Field hanging on the door in my office. Yet there is so much more to my amazement when I view the Hubble Deep Field. I also feel immense respect for the greatness and power of God. I am amazed that, notwithstanding His greatness and power, He is merciful, just, and loving (Alma 42:15; 26:37). Furthermore, notwithstanding His innumerable creations, He is keenly aware of each of us and concerned about our well-being (Matthew 7:11; Mosiah 4:21). And I am amazed that He wants to share His creations with us, and have His children partake in similar creations (D&C 98:18; 132:19-20). Such claims would constitute intellectual heresy in the eyes of deists because they do not realize that the Lord’s purpose is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). 

Lastly, because deists do not believe that the creator is involved in the world, they are unlikely to petition Him for assistance in their scientific endeavors nor will they give thanks to Him for their scientific talents and discoveries. In reference to the sin of ingratitude in scholarly work, Joseph F. Smith said,

In all the great modern discoveries in science, in the arts, in mechanics, and in all material advancement of the age, the world says, "We have done it." The individual says, "I have done it," and he gives no honor or credit to God. Now, I read in the revelations through Joseph Smith, the prophet, that because of this, God is not pleased with the inhabitants of the earth but is angry with them because they will not acknowledge his hand in all things.

We need to give thanks to Heavenly Father for every blessing we receive (D&C 46:32), something which is difficult to do if we do not believe that He grants blessings. Because He is the ultimate source of Light and truth that enlightens mankind, we owe a debt of gratitude to Him for all the scientific and technological discoveries that have enriched and prolonged our lives.

(Source: Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective)
 
 
            Following the 16th century scientific revolution, Western Europe entered into a period known as the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, which lasted for most of the 18th century, gets its name from the fact that people who lived during that era believed that they were living in enlightened times. They believed that they were living in an age that was far more civilized and advanced than previous generations. With respect to science, they were correct; theirs’ was a prosperous time unmatched by the previous millennium. Unfortunately, however, the Enlightenment was un-enlightening in a spiritual sense. It produced a spiritual malaise in science that continues to this day.     

            Belief in an active and purposive creator began to wane as Enlightenment scholars downplayed the role of God in the universe. Efforts to minimize the role of deity were largely spearheaded by French thinkers known as philosophes, such as Diderot (1713-1784), Voltaire (1694-1778), and Montesquieu (1689-1755). The philosophes were writers and publicists who read abstruse scientific treatises and books by theistic scientists like Newton and Galileo, and re-wrote them in the vernacular. In these re-writings the philosophes downplayed the role of deity and eliminated references to a higher power while elevating human reason and scientific experimentation as the great arbiters of truth.  As a result, Western European science became prideful of its scientific accomplishments as few scholars were willing to recognize the influence and handiwork of the Almighty.

            One can imagine how the theist pioneers of the scientific revolution might have felt about the secularization of the science they helped build. Science historian Brian Silver gives us some idea. He wrote, "Newton neither foresaw nor intended any of this. He was not the John the Baptist of [i.e., the one who prepared the way for] the Enlightenment, and he would not have been at home with its ideals."  I am certain that the same could be said for Boyle, Descartes, and Galileo.

            As the influence of deity was being removed from science, many scholars began championing a watered down belief system about God known as deism. Bruce R. McConkie described deism as "the partial acceptance of God, that is, deists profess to believe in him as the Creator of the world . . . but they reject the idea that he rules over or guides men during the interval between the creation and the judgment."  In other words, deists believe that the Lord is a disinterested creator whose only involvement with humanity occurred during the creation. They assert that after the creation, He left the world to run on its own according to natural laws that He had established. He is like a watchmaker who, after building a watch and setting it to work on its own, has no continual involvement with its function. Most importantly, as McConkie also pointed out, deism rejects Christianity because the Savior's divine mission of redemption and His earthly miracles violate the deist concept of divine uninvolvement.   

(Source: Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective)
 
 
Evangelical Albert Mohler's comment communicates my thoughts on the matter of Tiger's return to Buddhism very well.

“[T]he statement by Tiger Woods points to the radical distinction between Christianity and Buddhism -- between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the dharma of the Buddha. . . .  [T]he most remarkable aspect of his confession is its Buddhist shape. American Christians should look at those words with care.”

“A Christian looking at those words sees just how distant they are from the Gospel. The distinction between the Christian and Buddhist worldviews is laid bare for all to see. Tiger Woods should be taken at his word when he grounds his apology and confession in Buddhism. . . . Christians should see this as further reason to pray for Tiger Woods. We should respect the integrity and honesty of his statement, but hope and pray that he will one day come to know the salvation and forgiveness of sin that comes only through faith in Christ. We believe that he will not find salvation in renouncing all desire. We would hope instead that he might hear the Gospel and desire Christ.”
 
 
I’ve always thought that the proportion of spirits cast out of heaven for rebelling against the Plan of Salvation was 1/3. To give you an idea of how much this is in relation to the whole, it is like cutting a blueberry pie into 3 equal sections and tossing one piece into the garbage. Just as I cringe at the thought of so much good blueberry pie being tossed out, I cringe at the thought of so many souls losing their first estate and being cast into hell.

Last week I discussed this issue with Craig, a member of our HP quorum. He said that it wasn’t 1/3 of the hosts of heaven; rather, it was a “third part” (D&C 29:43) which, in all likelihood, is much smaller than 1/3 of the whole. In other words, he claims that 3 groups were present during the war in heaven: (1) the noble and great ones who are leaders; (2) those who kept their first estate; and (3) those who rejected God’s plan. According to this viewpoint, these 3 groups were NOT equal in size. Those who did not keep their first estate in group 3 were likely much smaller than 1/3 of the entire whole.

To put this theory into blueberry pie terms, there are three slices of pie: a very small piece representing the leaders; a very large piece representing those who kept their first estate; and a smaller piece representing those who did not keep their first estate. The last small piece is taken out and thrown away. I’d feel better knowing that just a small piece of the yummy pie was tossed out.

So which is it? 1/3 or a third part?

The Bible Dictionary (BD) says it is 1/3. It reads: “The war broke out because one-third of the spirits refused to accept the appointment of Jesus Christ as the Savior.” However, the BD is not canonized scripture and the introduction even states “It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth.” Also, the scriptures never say one-third; they say “a third part”.

I’d like to think that those who did not keep their first estate were a third part smaller in size than 1/3 of the whole. Yet having been taught for so long that it was 1/3, I tend to think that it was one-third of the whole.

To help me decide, I am putting it to a vote.
 
 
There are seemingly well-intentioned teachers, scholars, scientists, and academicians who are working to make the world a better place, but they are also doing the work of the devil.  I am referring to secular humanists.  Mormon tells us that “whatsoever thing persuadeth men to . . . believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil.”  This is exactly what secular humanists are doing – they are persuading people to disbelieve in God.

It wouldn’t be so bad if they kept their atheism to themselves, but they don’t.  They are the modern day Korihors who go about persuading people that there is no God, no divine law, and that “everyone fare[s] in this life according to the management of the creature.”  A major Korihorian tenet of secular humanism is that the key to human prosperity is mankind’s own abilities.  It claims that we can achieve lasting peace and happiness through human ingenuity, reason, and strengthening humanity through science and technology (compare to Alma 30:17).  There is absolutely no place for God in achieving lasting peace and happiness according to this belief system.

Secular humanism has become more than a system of beliefs.  It is now an organized religion.  Its gods are science and philosophy.  Its old testament is the book of human reason.  Its new testament is the book of nature.  Its holidays are the summer and winter solstices.  Its priests are highly educated evolutionary spin doctors and academicians who are ever learning without coming to the knowledge of the truth.  Its missionaries are teachers who openly criticize notions of intelligent design in front of our young children.  Its “churches” and “meetinghouses” are websites that promote atheism and denounce Christian beliefs 24/7.  And its current leader is a highly successful author, scholar, and retired professor of philosophy named Paul Kurtz.

There are positive teachings in secular humanism.  There is an emphasis on freedom of choice, moral values, ethics, reason, and scientific progress.  These are worthwhile pursuits, but as they say, “the proof is in the pudding.”  In this case the pudding contains a dangerous mixture of a denial of godly existence, influence, and authority.  Like a snare hunter, secular humanism lures people with attractive bait, and then springs the trap of atheistic dogma.  That atheistic dogma traps individuals in a world devoid of hope and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Here are two questions regarding the secular humanists.
 
1. Deep down inside do some of them truly believe in a supreme being, as did Korihor?  I think the answer is yes. 

2. Will those who are intentionally deceiving others meet the same sort of fate as Korihor?  I don’t know.  I’ll leave that one up to the Lord.

Korihor had no evidence that God does not exist, and neither do the secular humanists.  They have not been able to disprove the existence of divinity with their intellectualizations and pedagogical ramblings.  Yet, like Korihor, secular humanists have plenty of reasons to believe in a supreme being.  As Alma pointed out, the scriptures, the earth and its motion, all things upon the earth, and all the planets bear witness of the existence of a supreme creator (Alma 30:44).  But until the learned secular humanists humble themselves and exercise a particle of faith, the Lord will not reveal himself to them (2 Nephi 9:42).

I am hopeful and prayerful, but am not holding my breath.
 
Google Analytics