(Starred links lead to the source of the info, from the LDS website when possible)

Christian: Do Mormons believe the Bible?

Mormon: Yes, it is one of the four scriptures of the LDS Church, along with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. As it says in our Articles of Faith #8: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly“

Christian: I have a question about that, but first, which translation of the Bible does the LDS church currently use?

Mormon: We use the Authorized King James Version (KJV).

Christian: You also mentioned the Book of Mormon. That was translated by Joseph Smith Jr, is that correct?

Mormon: Yes, the prophet Joseph Smith Jr translated the Book of Mormon. He “translated them by the gift and power of God”* from the “reformed Egyptian” language into English.

Christian: My understanding is that Joseph Smith Jr was the first president of the LDS church, and each president who has followed him is also a prophet?

Mormon: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always been led by a prophet of God. These prophets also serve as Presidents of the Church.*

Christian: Are presidents of the church also translators, like Joseph Smith was?

Mormon: Yes, all of the presidents which followed our founder are likewise seers, revelators, translators, and prophets.*

Christian: So here’s the conundrum. The LDS church states that the Bible is the word of God only “as far as it is translated correctly.” This implies that some parts of the officially sanctioned Bible are not God’s word because it is translated incorrectly. (There would be no need for this caveat if it were not so.) If each president of the church has the capacity as a prophet and a translator, why have none of them (since Jospeh Smith Jr’s unfinished attempts included in the Pearl of Great Price) over the last 180 years, produced a fully accurate translation of the Bible, since in their capacity as a translator it would be entirely possible to do so? It seems that it’s not considered important to have a fully accurate translation, and therefore the LDS church gives lip-service to believing the Bible but seems quite unconcerned with its true teaching.

“All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others”

There is a weasel word used here: “forced”. The original article title mentions “forcing” beliefs on others, while the article itself is really talking about when people “take their theology out in public”. Of course we would never want anyone to try to “force” their religious beliefs; but what’s wrong with sharing our faith (in love) with others?

If Christians truly believe we have found the greatest love, greatest hope, and greatest truth in the world, why would it be wrong to winsomely share that faith? I might argue it would in fact be wrong to keep such a wonderful thing secretly to ourselves!

1. I’m Not OK, You’re OK
2. I’m Not OK, You’re Not OK
3. I’m OK, You’re Not OK
4. I’m OK, You’re OK

Which of these life positions best describes the various world religions?

One of the most prevalent today, IMHO, especially in secular society, is #4: I’m OK, You’re OK. This is the pluralist approach … all roads lead to Rome, all paths lead to the top of the mountain, etc. “You believe in and worship Jesus?” someone might say, “That’s great … for you.” Or “You believe in Muhammad, Krishna, or Adi Da? Wonderful … for you.” This life position often takes the colloquialism “Whatever makes you happy …” Of course, even here there are limits … ex, “You believe and worship Satan? … Um. That’s … um, great … *cough* … <changes subject>”

#1 is less prevalent but still abounds: I’m Not OK, You’re OK. This is a self-depreciating position. It imagines that everyone else is good, and I am markedly inferior to them. I must admit sometimes I fall into this sort of thinking myself, and this sort of unhealthy guilt is sometimes unfortunately common in Christian circles. After all, doesn’t the Bible even say “consider others better than yourselves”? (Philippians 2:3) More on that in a moment.

#3 is also prevalent: I’m OK, You’re Not OK. In fact, this is the view of most religions in the world. There is a specific set of requirements that you must pass in order to qualify. If you do those things, you pass the test and are “in”. If you, for example, pray the confession, pray five times a day, tithe 2.5%, fast, and go on the pilgrimage, you’re in! At least, pretty sure you’re in. Kinda sure. Well you don’t really know but you hope you are. And this view is seen as being pretty “intolerant” and not at all politically correct, not to mention it’s not exactly very humble.

#2 is probably the least prevalent: I’m Not OK, You’re Not OK. This, in fact, is the view of biblical Christianity, where we read that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8) … moreover, “everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). Wow! Isn’t that just excessively negative?

Actually, I’d say #2 is accurate. Real Christianity does not encourage people to wallow in self-pity or negativity, nor is it encouraged to gloss over our sins and failings, nor is it taught to think we’re “all that” (OK) and point the finger at others (not OK). Instead it recognizes that we’re all in the same boat. At least, initially.

The full text of the verse which contains the previous quotation (“consider others better than yourselves”) actually reads “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” When we are honest with ourselves, we know that we don’t even meet our own self-imposed standards of morality. (See “Good People?” for more about that.) How much more do we not live up to God’s standards?

But that is only stating the problem. God also provides the solution: Jesus. Christianity is utterly unique in that we are not saved because we are “OK”. We are saved by our acceptance of the fact that we are NOT, and our acceptance of the One who is strong enough, and merciful enough, to carry the weight for us that we cannot bear on our own, as Paul explains: “God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.” (Romans 5:8)

Are we all OK? No. We’re all NOT. As John Piper might say, “John Piper … is … bad!” And that includes me. But I hope I never become complacent in remembering the price that Christ paid for my freedom from sin, not by my own works that I might become conceited and prideful, but instead entirely by the grace of God. And that makes the Christian message unique, and uniquely true, among all world religions and “life positions”.

Resources:

• Good People? – Are we really OK?
• Jesus Christ: Who is he? – And why does it matter?

(Image credit: striatic, who of course does not necessarily endorse any of the content of this post!)

Already some worthwhile comments have been made to the original post; a comment from Tyler is, I think, on the right track:

The simple answer is that we don’t have to defend Christians, or so called Christians, or the church of the past, we defend Jesus Christ and the gospel, and say that if anyone claiming to be a Christian did not act in accordance with what the Scriptures teach then we don’t defend those actions, we simply believe in Jesus Christ and His Word and what He did on the cross and what He is doing in our lives today. (Tyler / Thinking Christian site)

Well said. But let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that all of the charges regarding misdeeds of Christians of the past and present are entirely accurate. What, exactly, does that prove about the truthfulness of the Christian faith? Absolutely nothing.

Atheists, Muslims, and Scientologists do bad things too, sometimes institutionally, and sometimes individually, but this doesn’t prove that these worldviews are wrong. Nor do past misdeeds of Christians (regarding which we should be deeply sorrowful and sorry) do not disprove the Christian faith. Such misdeeds, by Christians and all people, prove something about people: That we are sinners to the core and in need of God. But it proves nothing about the Christian faith itself, as I’ve previously commented.

Related reading: Good People? – What makes a person “good”? Is your definition of the word built upon a firm foundation, or is it floating in thin air?

Essentially, the group espouses that because they say that human beings have overpopulated the earth and are causing it irreparable harm, the human race should voluntarily stop breeding, and eventually end its own existence, ostensibly for the well-being of our planet.

While I am committed to environmentally sound living principles, nonetheless I would ordinarily dismiss such a site as some sort of crackpot environmentalist nonsense. However, since the site makes an attempt to be intelligently written (although quite patronizing in tone) I thought I’d offer a few questions regarding the basis for their argument.

Most notably, on what basis are they concluding that the environmental viability of the Earth is more important than the continued existence of human beings? This seems to be a moral conclusion: The environmental health of the Earth is more important than the human race. This is not stated as a subjective opinion, like the authors happen to like the Earth better than human beings, rather it is (implicitly) claimed as being an objective fact but never proved or explained why we should accept it. Certain facts are stated (such as that 40,000 people die every day from starvation, or that many animal species are becoming extinct) however while I would agree that these are disturbing truths, how do we move from the fact that many are dying to the assertion that all should die?

That word “should” is important: It implies moral responsibility. Why SHOULD we (that is, why do we have a moral responsibility to) care if, for example, the endangered wizzletit moth [fictitious creature for the sake of example] becomes extinct? In the FAQ area of their site, someone poses a similar question:

“I read through your stuff and I realize that you are an intelligent person and not just some internet crackpot so this is surprising. Why should I care about the environment and animal concerns over human needs and wants?”
My perspective is more Earth-centered, so the answer to this question is obvious to me. However, even with a human-centered perspective, we should care about other life because, whether we realize it or not, we are dependent on them for our survival. By reducing biodiversity as we are doing, we are sawing off the limb we stand on.

This response skirts the question by merely restating their particular stance. It is not, to me at least, “obvious” why an Earth-centered perspective would be superior to a human-centered perspective. On what basis could we come to this conclusion?

If the Argument from Morality is correct, objective morality is grounded in God. (Link is to some writing on the subject by Christian philosopher John DePoe.) The argument goes something like this:

1. There is a universal moral law.
2. If there is a universal moral law, then there must be a universal moral lawgiver.

Therefore,

3. There must be God.

Conversely, if there is no God, then it would seem that there is no universal moral law. Michael Onfray, an atheist author with whom I have much disagreement, nevertheless agrees that without God we are free to replace current moral values with our own, whatever those morals may be. Arguments to the effect that evolution explains morality are flawed.

What has compelled the author of VHEMT to create their website and propagate their beliefs? Unlike a certain page on that site (which lists reasons people claim to want to have children and then purports to give you the “real” reason they do so) I won’t speculate, and will simply assume that they believe their ideas to be true. But if there is an element of guilt to what is happening to the planet, perhaps people feel guilty because we ARE guilty? The proper response, it seems to me, to the fact that a particular thing causes a problem is not necessarily to attempt to destroy (whether immediately or by a painful suffocation process) that thing, but rather to redeem that thing and have it be used for good, rather than evil. Of course, I base my opinion not by standing in mid-air on what is “obvious” but rather on the firm foundation that God exists and by the moral precepts that follow from that.

Further reading:

• Animals Are Only Human – “These ideas are the product of a sick human being, ladies and gentlemen. I don’t mean mentally sick. I mean morally sick, socially sick, spiritually diseased.”
• Relativists & Sociopaths – What if there are no moral absolutes?

I think the objection goes like this: It is wrong for you to believe that your belief is true because it implies those who adhere to other religious beliefs are wrong. This objection is rife with problems in validity and soundness, but I’d like to ignore all of that for now. Consider what the objector is suggesting: Christians should have a belief that they do not think is true. [Full post]

Sometimes when a person expresses offense when Christians claim that Christianity is true (not just “true for me” but absolutely and objectively true for everyone) they may indeed object because they hold to an incorrect and inappropriate conception of tolerance, as I’ve commented on previously (see Tolerance and Stating Facts != Hating). But more often they are objecting because of a similar but subtly different reason, namely that they are making what I’ll call a category error regarding religious truth claims.

When some people express offense that a Christian believes Christianity to be really true, they are conceiving of Christianity as being in the realm of personal (relative) opinion rather than objective truth. That is, they see choice of religion as being like choosing your favorite ice cream flavor: A person isn’t “wrong” because they prefer vanilla over chocolate. So too, the erroneous argument goes, a person isn’t “wrong” because they prefer Baha’i over Christianity. Greg Koukl talks about this using the ice cream / insulin analogy:

There is significant confusion on this point. Americans think of God, religion, and morals like ice cream and not like insulin. They choose religious views according to tastes, according to what they prefer rather than according to what’s true. [Full post]

Of course, this raises the question of whether choice of religious belief is really like choosing our favorite ice cream flavor. Hmmm, after adding the picture above I really crave ice cream … Ahem. Like I noted in my article Aren’t there many different paths to God? for From Today On (also posted here):

If someone is dying and needs medicine, you need to give them what will heal them, not what they like best. In the same way, Jesus gives us what we need, and ultimately what is best for us. There are many different paths, but they don’t all eventually lead to the top of the same mountain. Some veer off to the left and the right; others climb entirely different mountains! And if God is real, truth about God is not like ice cream; it’s like medicine, and only what is true can heal.

Further reading: Three Tough Questions and Their Answers by philosopher Michael Horner, including “Aren’t all religions the same?”

Chopra seems to love saying what people want to hear rather than saying things that actually make sense. Is sin merely ignorance as Dr Chopra says? That seems ridiculous. Certainly if a person truly isn’t aware that what they are doing is immoral then we cannot blame them for what they are doing. But that is not what sin is. Sin is when people do things they know are wrong … and if we are honest with ourselves we know that we sin all the time.

On the topic of sin, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron encourage an evangelism style that confronts people with the Ten Commandments. They ask people if they’ve broken the Ten Commandments, and then when people inevitably admit that yes, of course they have, then therefore they are “sinners” in need of forgiveness. While true in a sense, a non-Christian could easily simply deny the Ten Commandments and their argument falls apart. After all if a person doesn’t believe the Bible is the word of God, why should they give credence to the Ten Commandments? However, IMHO it’s totally unnecessary to bring the Ten Commandments into the argument, and it works just as well without even mentioning them. Here’s why:

Regardless of whether a person is Christian or not, everyone has their own moral standards; aka their moral conscience, or moral rules. And whether a person accepts God’s moral rules or not, every person must admit that they have broken THEIR OWN moral rules.

The question then becomes: Who do you think has higher standards when it comes to morals … you or God? If you say God has higher standards, then we’re in a heap of trouble, because we’ve already admitted that even by our own standards we don’t measure up, so that means we fall WAY short of God’s own standards, whatever they may be. If someone were foolish enough to claim that we have higher standards than God, then they would be claiming that we have greater (more just, more accurate) moral standards than the God who is the source of all moral standards, which is absurd.

Greg makes a great comment near the end of the video regarding “guilt”, which is also made in an article on Greg’s website:

Folks, we don’t get rid of guilt through denial . We get rid of guilt through forgiveness. And that forgiveness can only come from the One whom we have offended. The One who gave the law in the first place. (Read Greg’s full article here.)

Further reading:

• I’m essentially a good person! What’s wrong with that? – Read one of my previous articles where I discuss what it means to be a “good person”.
• Why did Jesus have to die? – He paid the price for our sins so that we wouldn’t have to. The beautiful thing about grace is that it’s unfair: We don’t get what we deserve.

Click to view the streaming video: »»

“You can’t drive a computer.” Thanks Greg

McGrath begins his reply by saying that the foundation for his belief is in the person of Jesus, and that for Christians their beliefs are not just abstract musings about “a god” but instead Jesus and His resurrection are key to “understand everything”. One of the main reasons that Christians believe in God, says McGrath, is Jesus. He notes that the ideas of sin, atonement, etc are not “added on” but rather are core beliefs that have explanatory power. He concludes by saying that “Christianity is not so much about explanation but about salvation”.

Here McGrath takes a different stance than I do. First, I would have made reference to Dawkins’ last point, that McGrath believes because it’s the way he was brought up. Dawkins is aware that McGrath was an atheist early in his life, so that comment does not apply to him. Nor does it apply to me, since I was brought up in an intentionally non-religious environment. Of course, even if McGrath DID believe just because it’s the way he was brought up, that says nothing about the truthfulness of those beliefs. (See: Genetic fallacy)

My journey from agnosticism to Christian faith went something like this:

1. Does God exist?
• Yes.
2. What would God be like? What attributes would this God have?
• One God … creative … omniscient … omnipotent … good …
3. Which, if any, of the gods of the world religions comply with these attributes?
• Some: Judaism, Islam, Christianity. (And Christian splinters like Mormonism.)
4. After investigating these faiths, which seems to be worthy of further investigation?
• Christianity, for what have become my “big three” reasons (among others): Historical reliability, the person of Jesus, and salvation by grace. (And by extension, greatest “explanatory power” as McGrath says.)
5. After studying Christianity in more depth, do I have good reason to think it is true?
• Yes.

Of course, as you can read in more detail in my personal story, even after I had come to that point of intellectual acceptance it took awhile for me to take the step of “faith”. This faith is not blind … see my post Faith & Evidence.

Again, like the miracles issue, I agree wholeheartedly with what Dr. McGrath is saying. However, I would have attempted to point out what makes Christianity uniquely different from other faiths and naming the reasons why belief in Jesus is warranted in the first place. These things are, I think, the “substantiating basis” that Dawkins is asking for. Christianity must be about both explanation and salvation.