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.
 
 
Picture
What did Isaac Newton, Renes Descartes, Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, James Maxwell, and Michael Faraday all have in common?

They were highly successful scientists and scholars who lived during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. 

Isaac Newton is one of the brightest and most influential scientific minds that ever lived.  Descartes’ earned the title “father of modern philosophy” for his contributions on reason and scientific methodology.  Galileo’s popularization of experimentation and mathematical analysis played a major role in shaping modern science.  Boyle is a co-founder of the influential Royal Society and a founder of modern chemistry.  Maxwell made groundbreaking discoveries in mathematics and physics, most notably in the area of electromagnetic theory.  And Faraday revolutionized modern physics with his work in electromagnetism. 

These men shaped the world in which we live.  Without their contributions the world would be a very different place.  They brought us out of the Dark Ages and laid a foundation of scientific progress and prosperity that continues to this day. 

What some may not realize is that they were also devout believers.  They were theists, which is to say that they believed in a Supreme Being who is actively involved in His creations.  They believed in divine inspiration, guidance, and intervention, and accepted the divine mission of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Why is this significant?  It means that if you believe in God and believe in science (in the sense of recognizing science as a noble pursuit of truth), then you are in good company.  You are in the company of men like Newton, Boyle, and Galileo. 

I’d rather be in the company of these men than in the company of contemporary godless scholars such as Dawkins (author of The God Delusion), Stenger (author of God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist), and Hitchens (author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything).  I don’t need to say anymore about their work; the titles of their recent books speak for themselves.

For the past 250 years atheists and agnostics have been driving God out of science, and they have largely succeeded.  Science is now packaged to our children as a secular endeavor that is entirely free of religious ideas.  In today’s environment, mixing scientific and religious beliefs is considered scientific heresy and unscholarly work.  Ben Stein’s recent film Expelled illustrates the hostility towards religious beliefs that currently exists in academia, education, and science.  

When believers reference deity and present evidence in favor of intelligent design, the response from atheists and agnostics is usually resentment and rejection.  Objections from the non-believers usually sound like “There is no place for god in science!” and, “If we accept the supernatural into science we will digress to the way things were in the Dark Ages.”  Scientific history indicates that these claims are misleading.

You see, Newton, Decartes, Boyle, Galileo, Maxwell, and Faraday would have disagreed with the claim that there is no place for God in science.  For them, just the opposite was true.  Newton mentioned the Creator several times in his book The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, which is arguably the most influential science book ever written.  Descartes claimed that the Creator played a major role in humanity’s acquisition of secular truth.  Galileo thanked the Creator for his discoveries in astronomy that changed the way we view our place in the universe.  Boyle believed that science enriched mankind’s understanding of the nature and purpose of God’s creations.  Faraday’s belief in a unified Supreme Being likely contributed to his unification of electrical and magnetic forces.  And Maxwell was motivated by the belief that the wisdom of the Creator’s handiwork can be found in scientific discovery. 

Moreover, these men would disagree with the claim that allowing supernatural beliefs into science will hinder the latter.  That they are among the greatest scientific minds that ever lived suggests their beliefs did not hinder their work.  The opposite is true.  Their religious convictions strengthened their resolve to uncover the mysteries of the God's creations and opened their minds to the enlightening power of the Spirit of the Lord.

When skeptics from academic, education, and scientific institutions scorn your beliefs in God, just remember, you are in good company.
 
 

Orson F. Whitney was an early 20th century apostle, poet, academician, writer, and Millennial Star editor who had some very strong things to say concerning the proper order of things. According to Whitney, God gives secular blessings to achieve His purpose of bringing to pass the eternal life and immortality of man. Because the Restoration is directly connected to bringing to pass the immortality of man, Whitney claims that all secular blessings serve the interests of the Restoration or Mormonism.

Here are Whitney’s bold claims:

Mormonism is not only Scriptural, but natural, reasonable, and philosophical. The laws of nature, known or unknown, are its laws. The truths of philosophy are its truths. The arts and sciences are its handmaids and co-laborers in the great cause of human redemption. 
God sends His philosophers into the world; His scientists, His artists; His poets, painters, and musicians; His warriors, patriots, reformers; inventors and discoverers—just as He sends His prophets and apostles; for the benefit of mankind, and for His name's honor and glory. All have lived and labored and died for Mormonism, whether they knew it or not. 
These claims may seem arrogant, presumptuous; but they are the claims of Mormonism, the claims of truth, which always appear arrogant and absurd to mankind. They are susceptible of proof, however; God, Himself, vouches for their authenticity. It is because I have learned that they are valid claims, that I am a Mormon.  (Source: Orson F. Whitney, Contributor, Vol. Viii. January, 1887. No. 3. 84.)

So the next time you witness great art, literature, science, and technology, try thinking about those things in the context of the purpose they serve in bringing to pass the great plan of redemption. Is it possible to do so? 

I tend to see such things as being separate from the restored gospel. There are two exceptions, however. Many latter-day secular blessings were inspired by the Light of Christ which has been poured out in greater abundance upon the earth because of the Restoration. And many scientific and technological advances (e.g., computer, travel, television etc.) have been given to fulfill the 3-fold mission of the Church which is to perfect the saints, redeem the dead, and proclaim the gospel. 

Beyond that, I have a difficult time seeing how the Sound of Music, Mona Lisa, vampire love stories, Josh Groban, and Ferraris are handmaidens to the restored gospel. With the exception of the vampire love stories, these are examples of wonderful artistic achievements that may have been inspired, but are they necessarily handmaidens to the Restoration?

Perhaps "potential" is the key issue here. These wonderful achievements have the potential to be handmaidens of the Restoration. Ferrari could give cars to the missionaries. The Mona Lisa may be sold and the revenues sent to the general missionary fund. And Josh Groban may one day be baptized and sing for "MoTab" (although I must say his powerful rendention of "Oh Holy Night" has helped to bring to past the purposes of God by inspiring countless people at Christmastime).

Who knows? 

I think I'll go listen to some Josh Groban.

 
 
Picture
(Update2: This post has become a lightening rod for people who oppose the LDS Church's stance on gay marriage, thus I am ending comments on this topic - Dave

Update1: Readers, while submitting comments is open to everyone, please note that this is a conservative blog that attempts to stay true to the doctrines of the LDS faith. Comments that decidedly oppose the LDS Church's fundamental position on gay marriage will be removed. This is not a venue to voice opposition to the Church's position nor to ridicule fundamental LDS beliefs.  Thank-you for your cooperation.  - Dave) 

I played high school and college basketball. A strategy that teams often use when a game reaches a crucial point is the full court press. The full court press is an effective way of throwing the opposition off kilter and disrupting normal play. Amid the confusion, the pressing team hopes to steal the ball or force a turnover that will clinch victory.

Full court presses don’t just happen in basketball. They happen in life as well. Recently there have been full court presses on traditional Judaeo-Christian values. One that is particularly evident nowadays is the full court press on traditional marriage.

Homosexual activists have stepped up efforts to normalize homosexuality. They have succeeded in gaining medical, employment, and insurance benefits for same-sex partnerships (e.g., granted to federal government workers in June 2009). In California they have succeeded in getting the gay lifestyle into elementary school curriculum with the proviso that kids cannot opt out (passed May, 2009). Currently efforts are under way to pass federal gay hate crime legislation. And there are efforts to remove the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” on gays serving in the armed forces.

It may surprise you to know that none of these accomplishments is the ultimate goal of homosexual activists. The grand prize is to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by former President Bill Clinton. It states that the federal government recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, and that no state can be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Gay activists are trying to tear down this law because it prevents them from normalizing the homosexual lifestyle. If DOMA falls, then the gay community will have successfully legitimized its sexuality.

While I support treating gay and lesbians with respect and dignity in all areas of society, and I understand their wish for same-sex employment and insurance benefits, I am a bit confused by their desire to marry. Why am I confused? I am confused because marriage represents mutual commitment to fidelity and a long term relationship, however, generally speaking, homosexual partnerships are anything but stable. In fact, many are full of promiscuity.  

Here’s the evidence:

* In a survey of gay men living in San Francisco, 28% reported having sex with more than 1000 partners (Psychology Today, 1981)

* In a study of homosexuals who kept sexual journals, the average number of annual sexual partners approached 100 (New England Journal of Medicine, 1980)

* Gay activists Kirk and Madsen admitted that “[T]he cheating ratio of married gay males, given enough time, approaches 100% (After the Ball).

* In 1984, the American Psychological Association Ethic’s Committee reported that the fear of AIDS had lowered gay men’s promiscuity from 70 partners per year in 1982 to 50 partners per year in 1984 (USA Today, November 21, 1984).

* According to recent research, 43% of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, 61% have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15 partners (Sexual Organization of the City, Chicago University Press, 2005).

* A recent survey found that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. 20% of homosexuals surveyed have had 51-300 different sex partners, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300 (Agape Press, September 2006).

Indeed, it appears that, as gay advocate and author Gabriel Rotello put it, “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions” (Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, 1998).

I don’t mean to denigrate all homosexuals - I am sure that plenty of them live in stable relationships - but the fact of the matter is that, on the whole, homosexual relationships are characterized by infidelity. Putting aside the issue of attempting to normalize homosexuality, all this begs the question: Why marry if marriage does not fit the type of relationship you want to live in?

What is marriage? Marriage is hard work. It is learning to love each other more and more as you grow older and less attractive. It is about sacrificing your wants and needs for those of the other. It is about developing a stronger bond as you work through hardships and trials. It is about raising young children who frequently cry, disobey, fight, and make messes. It is about committing yourself emotionally, spiritually, socially, and sexually to one person for a lifetime. It is about building a loving relationship to stand the test of time.

To the homosexual community I say, if this is not what you want or are willing to commit to, then leave marriage alone!

If the DOMA is repealed, I predict that our fundamental understanding of marriage will gradually be transformed to be more inclusive of the unstable homosexual lifestyle. In fact, transforming marriage may very well be the goal of some activists. According to the playbook of one gay activist, after winning the “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, . . . [we’ll] redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution” (Michelangelo Signorile, OUT Magazine, December, 1994).

If our society allows a radical altering of the divinely appointed institution of marriage, this will, as stated in the Proclamation on the Family, “bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

The best way to beat a full court press is to implement a good offensive strategy. Whatever your strategy, be proactive and don’t let the people in the great and spacious building make you shy away from taking a stand for traditional marriage. There is too much at stake.



 
 

According to the prophet Joseph Smith, the spirit world is not on some distant planet or star, nor is it millions of miles from earth. The world of spirits is right here, around us. He also taught that many of the righteous spirits in the spirit world are able to observe our actions and hear our thoughts. Sometimes they are saddened by the things they see us do and think.

The best scientific explanation for two entities being in the same location where only one is able to view the other is dimensionality. Dimensionality is a Euclidian concept that refers to the number of specific points needed to define any location within space.

We live in a 3 dimensional world where we are able to define any point in our space with 3 spatial dimensions (up or down the y-axis, left of right on the x-axis, and in or out on the z-axis). In our 3rd dimension world we are able to view 1 and 2 dimensional space because they are lower than our 3rd dimension. Yet, an entity restricted to 1 or 2 dimensional space would not be able to experience our higher 3rd dimension world. 

Know where this is going?

Could it be that the spirit world is in a higher 4th dimension of space? If this is true and we apply the same logic, then spirits in the 4th dimension would be able to see our 3rd dimension world, but we would not be able to see their world. All the while our two worlds could be in the same location because the 3rd dimension exists within the 4th dimension.

Here are a couple of short video clips that describe this process in greater detail. The videos describe a fictional 2 dimension world called Flat Land and its relationship to a 3 dimension world. The denizens of 2-D Flat Land are unable to “see” our 3-D world but we are able to see them because we are in a higher dimension. The first video is a comic description of Flat Land by Dr. Quantum (may be skipped). The second video is a more sophisticated but easy to follow presentation of Flat Land by Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan also gives some insight into the mind boggling essence of the 4th dimension, the possible location of the spirit world.

Are we like the Flat Landers, living in a lower dimension than the 4-D world of spirits, unable to see their world, yet being visible to them?  Or is the world of spirits in a dimension higher than the 4th, possibly the 5th or 6th? These are interesting questions to ponder.

 
 
Picture
Time is wasting
Time is walking
You ain't no friend of mine
I don't know where i'm goin'
I think I'm out of my mind
Thinking about time

- Hootie and the Blowfish

These lyrics from the 1996 hit song Time sums up the influence of time in our modern world - we are obsessed with time! There are pros and cons to this obsession with time. Modernity’s productivity and efficiency is largely a product of our ability to agree on deadlines and start and stop times. Yet when we view time as an unavoidable objective entity that influences every aspect of our lives, then, as Hootie points out, obsession with time can result in a sort of mild neurosis, created no less, by something that is not real.

Time is not an objective reality, it is a human construction. Humans “create” time to make sense of change in the world. For our ancient ancestors, time was attached to changing seasons because an understanding of the seasons was important to their survival. Seasons dictated when to plant, hunt, harvest, and prepare for drought and cold weather. For example, in ancient Egypt time was tied to the rising of the Nile River, which, the Egyptians noted, occurred when the star Sirius arose above the horizon just before sunrise. 

Because the ancients used time to represent reoccurring events, their understanding of time was cyclical. For them the planting and harvest seasons were not events that came and went; they were events that continually repeated themselves. A classic example is the way in which Egyptians returned to “year 1” every time a new pharaoh came to power, a practice that has created angst among more than a few modern Egyptologists trying to figure out when one kingdom ended and another began. By using time to prepare for important cyclical events, the ancients made time conform to natural events. 

Things are much different today. Rather than viewing time as change, time is now viewed as a linear sequence that drives change. Linear time, as it is sometimes called, is the modern belief that time is a causal force that flows in a linear fashion, like an arrow. There is the past extending behind us and the future extending in front of us. In between lay the present, the knife point representing the here and now. We are locked into the present, never able to move forward into the future and never able to retreat back into our past. 

Linear time is so commonplace in our society that we have reified it, which is to say that we have characterized it as a real entity. With reified time, we make our lives conform to time rather than making time conform to our lives. This modern view of time has us locked into the present, determined by an unchangeable objective past, and ever moving forward into an unknowable future! Is it any wonder that this state of affairs creates anxiety for Hootie and others!?  To make matters worse, because time comes and goes in a linear fashion and is real, when it is gone, it is gone for good, so we should not waste it. 

If this modern concept of time has created some angst in your life, here are some thoughts to consider.

Time is not real. It is a human construct built to make sense of change. It is not the final arbiter of when events should and should not occur. You do not have to eat lunch at noon; you can eat when you are hungry. There is no such thing as an objective past determining your present circumstances, and there is no such thing as an objective unknowable future. The past is merely a conscious perception of what was, and the future is merely a conscious perception of what may become. In a manner of speaking, the past, present, and future simultaneously exist in the here and now, in your conscious experience.  

When we de-reify and de-linearize time in our minds, time becomes less of a disinterested task master and more of a way of representing change. De-reifying and de-linearizing time may also help us more fully appreciate our agency and the importance of living and delighting in the here and now. It may also help us gain somewhat of a godly perspective on things. God’s work is not driven by time schedules; it is driven by His infinite goodness and wisdom. And God does not have an objective past and future.  The Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “The past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal now” (Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism).
 
 

 Theistic evolution is the belief that God uses evolution to create life. 

I accept this proposition, to a certain extent.  I believe that one of the joys of being a creator of worlds without number is seeing how life evolves on worlds without divine intervention.  The Creator placed life on His worlds and subjected it to the vicissitudes of chance and time (Ecclesiastes 9:11).  So, in a manner of speaking, the effects of time and chance are part of the grand master plan.

Thus we see that there is harmony between randomness and divine purpose.  Contrary to Einstein’s assertion that the Creator does not leave anything to chance (i.e., all events, including falling dice, are law governed), God allows randomness and apparently “uses” it to accomplish His creative objectives (more on these objectives in the next paragraph).  Divine purpose and randomness are compatible.  They can co-exist peacefully!

It is important for us to recognize the compatibility between divine creation and randomness because, as science has shown, random events occur at the genomic level.  Random mutation is a fundamental tenet of neo-Darwinism. According to the reputable Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science, “The theory of neo-Darwinism asserts that much of the evolutionary change observed at the molecular level occurs via random genetic drift.” 

Because God and randomness are compatible under certain circumstances, there are no theoretical problems with asserting that He relies on evolutionary, random, genetic drift to achieve His objectives (by ‘objectives’, I am referring to the creation of new and interesting variations without direct divine intervention).  So if God sometimes relies on evolutionary randomness, what is wrong with believing in theistic evolution?

The problem lies with the creation of man (and woman).  You see, most theistic evolutionists believe that Adam and Eve’s bodies evolved from lower life forms, just like every other mammal.  This claim is entirely inconsistent with gospel doctrine.  

The gospel teaches that the creation of mankind was purposeful and directed – it could be no less because mankind had to be created in the image of God (Moses 6:8-9).  The creation of mankind was not left up to the vicissitudes of chance over time.  The Creator was not looking for new and interesting variations when He created mankind.  It had to be done a certain way, in a manner that did not involve randomness inherent in evolution. The creation of mankind was not a processes to be left to evolutionary creativity.  Prominent Latter-day Saint scholars support this view.

Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote:

Some have argued for a form of theistic evolution—that is, a God-inspired evolution—in which lower forms of life progressed over great periods of time to the point that God could take the spirit of the man Adam and place it in an animal and declare it to be the first man. The argument is at odds both with scripture and with an official declaration of the First Presidency on the origin of man.

Robert J. Mathews similarly wrote:

The theistic evolutionist often speaks of a guided evolution, in which God intervenes in the process. There are those in and out of the Church who, because they believe in a divine being, sincerely attempt to hold to both the theory of evolution and their faith in God as creator. It is my opinion that in the eternal plan of God these two positions are incompatible.

I have heard rationalizations from Latter-day Saints desperately wanting to reconcile gospel doctrine and their belief in common descent.  I cannot fault them for trying, however, their efforts have largely proved ineffectual.  Their explanations lack theoretical and theological rigor.  For instance, a common explanation is that God-directed evolution only appears random to us lowly mortals.  This explanation falls short because the real issue is not one of appearances; it is one of what is ontologically real about the creation of mankind.  In other words, at its foundation, was the creation of mankind driven by chance processes as evolution asserts, or was it guided by deity?  If God created mankind with guided “evolutionary” processes, then it really wasn’t evolution, was it, regardless of appearances?

Parallel evolution is another perfunctory attempt at reconciling the theory of evolutionary descent with gospel doctrine on the creation of man.  In a manner of speaking, parallel evolution refers to the independent evolution of similar traits in life forms that shared similar ancestral conditions.  Put differently, two organisms with similar traits may evolve in a similar manner in different settings.  I suppose that this is supposed to show that there is an underlying law or metaphysical principle guiding the evolution of similar traits in separate environmental contexts, and that this principle has something to do with God’s influence.  

Atheistic evolutionists will readily concede that parallel evolution reflects the underlying laws of nature governing evolutionary processes, but they will also add that those laws are purposeless and are not devised by higher intelligence.  Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, will say that parallel evolution evidences a purposeful creator, that he set the laws of evolution in motion and dictated how those laws were to work from the beginning.

How do the atheists feel about divine guided evolution?  They do not like it, and rightfully so.  For atheists, parallel evolution just shows that there are underlying laws of nature resulting in uniform progression. Atheists believe in law governed evolution, however, they reject that those laws were created for a divine purpose.  The laws are just laws, nothing more and nothing less.  Atheists reject divine, purpose-driven evolution because, as they correctly point out, at its core evolution is purposeless.  

Notwithstanding their anti-religious stance, Richard Dawkins and Will Provine are two evolution atheists who tend to think more clearly about this issue than most theistic evolutionists.  Here is what they had to say about believing that God provided the laws of evolution for the purpose of creating mankind.    

Dawkins:
If I were God, I wouldn’t do it by evolution!  I would do it directly. By invoking the idea of evolution by natural selection as God’s way of doing it, you are in effect invoking the one way which makes it look as though God isn’t there.  So if God chose that way of doing it, then he deliberately chose a way which totally covered his tracks.

Provine:
I think creation scientists are very intellectually honest in their beliefs. If evolution is true, then none of the things that deeply religious people want to be true are in fact true. No God. No life after death. No free will. No ultimate meaning in life and no ultimate foundation for ethics. All these things are taken away.

So what are we to conclude about Latter-day Saints who embrace theistic evolution, notwithstanding its inconsistencies with true gospel doctrine and evolution orthodoxy?  Perhaps LDS scholar Robert J. Mathews put it best when he wrote:  

It may be that the believer who accepts [theistic evolution] has simply never thought it out to its logical, moral conclusions.  


 
 

I could not resist – it is time for another political “science” post.

America has always been a great country.  The American Constitution was established by the Lord to be a banner of freedom and liberty to the rest of the world.  Also, America was founded on Judaeo-Christian values and is the birthplace of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, which makes it the standard bearer of morality and righteousness.  And American is a country of laws.  Her law abiding denizens show the world how upholding laws of the land leads to peace and prosperity.  

All of this appears to be changing at an alarming rate.  America is embracing policies that threaten her status as a light to the world.  

First, we can no longer call ourselves an ensign to the nations on what constitutes moral sexual behavior.  The Center for Disease Control health statistics report that births to unmarried women rose to 40% in 2008.  That means that only 60% of babies are born into homes with a father and mother.  Also recent pressure from pro-homosexual groups has raised efforts to normalize same-sex relationships to new heights, and it appears that governments and politicians are responding.  On April 2, 2009 the Vermont House passed a bill recognizing same-sex marriages.  On April 16, 2009 New York’s governor Patterson introduced a bill favoring same-sex marriage.  On April 16, 2009 a leading Republican strategist urged conservative party members to drop its opposition to gay marriage.  And on March 26, 2009 the one time prominent republican Michael Bloomberg announced his support of gay marriage. 

Let’s be clear: The Proclamation on the Family opposes these efforts.

Second there is the recent spike in massive deficit spending that threatens our freedom and way of life.  Billions of dollars have been committed to dubious spending projects that are supposed to stimulate the economy.  Billions of dollars are being spent on shoring up companies with failing business plans and corrupt managers.  Billions of dollars are being spent on mortgage companies that made high risk loans (sometimes under pressure from politicians) to home buyers who could not afford their homes.  The massive debt that the Bush and Obama administrations have built will likely enslave our children and our grandchildren.

Let’s be clear: Massive government deficit spending is contrary to the church’s divine counsel to live within one’s means.

Third there is the current administration’s lackadaisical approach to the laws of the land.  A few recent cabinet appointees in the administration have, in the past, avoided paying their fair share of taxes.  Consider also that our newly minted chief of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, effectively ended ICE raids on business hiring illegal immigrants and illegals who committ identity and social security fraud, so when an ICE raid was carried out last week at a Bellingham, WA business that hires illegals, you can imagine her reaction.  An angered Napolitano said that she would “get to the bottom” of the Bellingham raid, and she did.  Well, she did not get to the bottom of the matter by detaining and deporting the illegals (standard procedure).  No!  Instead she ordered immigration officials to take the illegals to an INS office, issue them work visas, and send them on their way.  Surprised?  Don’t be – This is the same woman who recently put the Dept. of Homeland Security on alert for right wing “extremists” who strongly oppose illegal immigration and abortion.

Let’s be clear: These actions contravene the notion of sustaining and upholding the laws of the land.

The apostle Paul said that in the last days, perilous time would come.  We are in the last days and it appears perilous times have come.  I just never thought they would come so fast in America.  If this downward tailspin is not checked, I predict that America will lose her standing as an ensign to the nations.

 
Google Analytics