Obligation to Our Fathers?

Who said this?

"I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

If you follow politics, you probably know that this was Mitt Romney is his faith speech.

His phrasing makes me uncomfortable. Do we, as Mormons or people of any faith, have any obligation to remain in the same church as our ancestors? Are we not being true to them if we convert? Aren't we to seek out truth wherever it leads us?

Thankfully, I don't think Mitt's sentiment is endorsed by the church. From President Uchtdorf's conference talk:

"I remember when I was a young man, one Sunday I noticed a new family in our meetinghouse—a young mother with two daughters. It wasn’t long before the three were baptized and became members of the Church.

"I know the story of their conversion intimately because the oldest daughter’s name was Harriet, and later she would become my wife.

"Harriet’s mother, Carmen, had recently lost her husband, and during a period of introspection, she became interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After studying the doctrines, Carmen and her daughters knew the Church was true and made plans for baptism.

"When Carmen told her mother about this decision, however, her mother was devastated. 'How can you be so unfaithful to the faith of your fathers?' she asked.

"Carmen’s mother was not the only one who objected. Carmen’s strong-willed sister, Lisa, was every bit as troubled by the news. Perhaps troubled is too soft a word. She was very angry.

"Lisa said that she would find those young missionaries and tell them just how wrong they were. She marched to the chapel and found the missionaries, and, you guessed it, Lisa was baptized too."

This story (and the rest of this talk) makes clear that honoring the faith of our fathers does not obligate us to stick with it. Pretending that it does cheapens the definition of faith, in my opinion.

(For those of you wondering, don't worry, I'm not considering leaving the faith.:))

Elder Oaks Reads My Blog

Or else great minds think alike. Some quotes from my favorite conference talk:

"Knowledge of outside temperature can be verified by scientific proof. Knowledge that we love our spouse is personal and subjective. While not capable of scientific proof, it is still important. The idea that all important knowledge is based on scientific evidence is simply untrue."

"When we know spiritual truths by spiritual means, we can be just as sure of that knowledge as scholars and scientists are of the different kinds of knowledge they have acquired by different methods."

"We all act upon or give obedience to knowledge. Whether in science or religion, our obedience is not blind when we act upon knowledge suited to the subject of our action. A scientist receives and acts upon a trusted certification of the content or conditions of a particular experiment. In matters of religion, a believer’s source of knowledge is spiritual, but the principle is the same. In the case of Latter-day Saints, when the Holy Ghost gives our souls a witness of the truth of the restored gospel and the calling of a modern prophet, our choice to follow those teachings is not blind obedience."

Amen, Brother... err, I mean... Elder.

His entire talk can be found on lds.org.

Faith vs. Evidence: A False Choice

On the way to work the other day, I was listening to a show on public radio that featured Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist and Oxford professor, as its guest. His fundamental argument was this:

Since religious belief is not based on evidence, it is foolish to believe in it, and irresponsible to teach it to children.

I knew exactly how I would counter this argument, but I didn't call in because I was driving in icy conditions, and when I got to work, well... I was working (which are both excuses for the fact that challenging a very intelligent atheist in front of thousands of listeners is a bit intimidating), so instead I waited for someone to call in and raise the argument I thought was obvious.

But alas, no one did, at least while I was listening. Some people called in to challenge him, but frankly their arguments were weak:

"How can you argue religion is bad when atheists like Hitler have done such bad things?"

"How can you say religion is bad when our society was based on it?"

"Do you really have no beliefs?"

"Don't you know that religious people have been shown to be happier in scientific studies?"

As I would suspect, he swatted all of these arguments like injured flies. They are all softballs to the intellectual atheist. To my surprise, no one brought up the most obvious rebuttal.

My response to his argument is simple. His premise is false:

Religious belief is based on evidence.

I suppose some of you might be saying, "Of course!", while others might be saying, "That's heresy, don't the scripture say that faith is something that is 'hoped for and not seen?'" Yes, but just because something is not seen does not mean that there is no evidence. We do not believe in blind faith, last I heard. And I'm not talking about archaeological or historical evidence here--I'll leave that to FAIR.

At one point in the discussion, the host ask Dr. Dawkins, "So how would one prove the existence of God?"

His response: God himself could easily prove his own existence. He need only to speak from heaven and say, "I am here." Both guest and host chuckled.

So I would ask Dr. Dawkins: "So what if God, or an angelic messenger, appeared before you, and told you that God exists. Would that be enough evidence for you?"

Hypothetical Dr. Dawkins: "Of course."

Me: "So what if instead of appearing before you, he caused you to have a feeling in your heart that was so unprecedented that you knew it must come from some outside source. And at the the same time thoughts began entering your mind that you knew did not come from your own head. These feelings and thoughts worked together in such a way as to stimulate the same feelings and thoughts that you would have if God himself were standing in front of you. Would that be enough evidence for you?"

Mormons are familiar with this idea, as we believe that the Holy Ghost will teach us the "truth of all things." But an atheist would balk at it, since they normally counter such things by saying that these feelings are rooted in our own survival instinct--a desire to feel comfort--, not an external source. But I would argue that, even for an atheist, there must be some level of non-visual experience that would convince them to believe. After all, what is sight? It is only our brain telling us that something is in front of us. If our feelings can be deceived, then why not our eyes? If we can trust that our eyes are telling us the truth, then why not trust feelings that teach us truth also?

Me: "So let's suppose you had a feeling that was so strong that it was undeniable that it came from God. Would that be enough evidence?"

Dr. Dawkins: "Well, if I had such an undeniable experience, then by definition I would have to believe."

Me: "Would it then be irresponsible to teach it to your children?"

Dr. Dawkins: (silence)

Me: "Aha, so you see many who believe in religion do so because they have evidence, not in spite of it. But it is personal evidence. I can no more convince you that there is a God than I can convince you by words alone that the walls of my living room are green, but both are equally evident to me, whether it be by my physical eyes or those of my spirit."

It's fun to debate hypothetical intellectuals.

For more on how faith is based on personal evidence, see Elder Douglas L. Callister talk from the last General Conference entitled "Knowing That We Know." It's a good one.

And Doctrine and Covenants 6:23 "Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?"

But here's a follow-up question: Why did no one bring this up? Is Dr. Dawkins right that most religious people believe with no evidence, even personal evidence? Do they just believe because they were told to? This would be a surprise to me, but based on the evidence of that show, and it's lack of callers making my argument, I'd say he just might be correct.

Editor's Note: This was a repost, since the date on the original post was incorrect.

Faith Subverting Rumors

Every extended family has one: the person that forwards you the email with a "faith promoting story." I received one such email this morning relating the story of a construction worker who worked on the Nauvoo temple.

According to the story, as the statue of the angel Moroni was being hoisted to the top of the temple, a shaft of light shone down from heaven upon the statue. According to the story it was September 22nd, the anniversary of when Joseph Smith took the gold plates from the hillside.

Now if that doesn't give you a warm feeling inside, I don't know what will. Oh wait, maybe that's just heartburn.

The story seamed off to me so I did some research (my main motivation being to have some fun with this particular family member), and found a web cam that was taking a picture once every minute of the construction of the temple. Surely this camera would show the "shaft of light", right? Well no--there's no light. Of course, it's possible that the shaft appeared for only a short time and the web cam just didn't catch it. Ok, I'll give you that. But the other thing the picture from the web cam shows is a large crowd of people watching as the statue was raised. I searched online but couldn't find any other account of anyone else seeing the shaft of light.

Also, the statue was placed on September 21st, not 22nd. This wouldn't be important except for the story was detailed on why the 22nd was significant. The 21st is important in Mormon history also, and is related to the angel Moroni, but it was not when Joseph Smith received the plates. (But since it is also an important date, I suppose it's possible the author of the story was just confusing the dates).

To me it seams very likely that the light in the first picture is an over-exposed reflection from the metal cord holding the statue, or else someone who is mildly familiar with Photoshop was having some fun.

I proudly emailed back to this family member. Again, my intent was just to have some fun. But then my wife called me a "party pooper" and I felt bad. But pondering on whether I really should have rained on the parade, I realized that these sorts of things really could be harmful.

If someone who is trying to establish a true testimony were to stumble across this, they might use it to buttress their faith. Then what happens months or years later when they find out that it might not be true?

So the lesson is clear: If you're going to spread faith promoting rumors, at least make sure they are not easily proven false. I prefer my faith promoting rumors unverifiable, thank you!