How The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected

US News & World Report has an interesting short little interview with John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of The Economist, and Adrian Wooldridge who have worked together to write a book. The book, God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World, makes the case that on a global scale, secularism is on the wane and religion is making a strong comeback.

In the interview with US News & World Report, the authors make an interesting observation about America's approach in resolving the tension of modernity and religion and how it has an influence on the revival of religion around the world:

"You've had two sorts of versions of modernity competing with each other, both stepping from the Enlightenment, one stepping from the French Revolution, the other from the American Revolution. The European version is: The more modern a country becomes, the less religious it becomes. The American version is: So long as you separate church and state and create a free market of religion and don't have an official church, the two things can coincide. You get competition between various religious groups, and religion can therefore become a friend of democracy, a friend of technology, a friend of all the things you see in the modern world. What you're beginning to see is the American approach to things becomes quite universalized. It is the slow spread of an American model whereby religion is a choice, not just something that's just inherited, and different religious groups compete for souls."

This is an interesting observation in light of the recent finding that most religious groups in USA are on the decline. Counting the number of adherents in a religion can be a challenge but the drop in church membership is steep enough to prompt the Christian Science Monitor to publish an article about the future collapse of Evangelical faith in the United States.

So, how is it that America can be the principal driving force for reviving religion around the world IF church membership in the United States is on the decline?

The perfect explanation for this is that we're not really reviving religion around the world. We're not reviving anything really because religion has always been around for since time began. Religion can survive, even the most harshest of circumstances, such as in secular countries or oppressive regimes as evidenced throughout history.

What is going on is that we're exporting something new that hasn't been seen since the beginning time or religion. The truth is that we're exporting the democratization of religion around the world. In other words, we're exporting the ability to choose whatever faith you want to belong to.

Its the Internet that is making the ability to learn about other religions easier. Prior to the recent explosion in communications, learning about other religions was pretty limited. You could visit some local churches, visit a library or read some news articles. However, with the Internet, anyone regardless of where they are or what kind of governmental system they live under can read up on just about any religion they want.

What we're witnessing is the fulfillment of Joseph Smith's prophecy that the standard of truth:

"will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done."

Until I read this article, I used to think that the "standard of truth" was referring to the LDS Church. While we're seeing the rapid growth of the LDS Church around the world, I am inclined to believe that that "standard of truth" about something broader, deeper and more profound.

I believe that the "standard of truth" to represent agency, freedom, and choice. Isn't that the "truth" that we fought and defended in the Pre-existence? Isn't this the same battle we fight for on earth?

President Howard W. Hunter explained what the "War in Heaven" was all about:

"Our Father in Heaven wanted our growth to continue in mortality and to be enhanced by our freedom to choose and learn. He also wanted us to exercise our faith and our will, especially with a new physical body to master and control. But we know from both ancient and modern revelation that Satan wished to deny us our independence and agency in that now-forgotten moment long ago, even as he wishes to deny them this very hour. Indeed, Satan violently opposed the freedom of choice offered by the Father, so violently that John in the Revelation described “war in heaven” (Rev. 12:7) over the matter. Satan would have coerced us, and he would have robbed us of that most precious of gifts if he could: our freedom to choose a divine future and the exaltation we all hope to obtain."

President Gordon B. Hinckley explains that the War in Heaven continues here on earth:

"Brethren, the war goes on. It is as it was in the beginning. There may not be the intensity, and I am grateful for that. But the principles at issue are the same."

The principles are indeed the same and it is principle of agency and choice that is going forth boldly, nobly and independently. It is currently penetrating every continent, visiting every clime, sweeping every country, and sounding in every ear!

The Orange County Mormon Choral Organization: Virtuous, Lovely, & Praiseworthy Music

If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. (Article of Faith #13)

I would like to make a good report about lovely music I heard over the weekend.

Last Saturday, I went to see the Orange County Mormon Choral Organization (OCMCO) perform at the Segerstrom Hall at the Orange County Performing Arts Center. The theme of OCMCO's 2009 annual spring concert was The Lord Is My Shepherd which was appropriate for the Easter celebrations. The concert gave a moving and inspiring presentation of Leonard Bernstein's Chichester Psalms and Overture to Candide as well as Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2, Op. 18. The choir also sang some African-American Spirituals which were pleasing to the ear and soul.

I was blown away by the choir. However, I was also equally impressed by the two directors, Brett and Brandon Stewart. They are two brothers who both have graduate degrees in music and are the founders of OCMCO. I appreciate the directors, for going beyond just a simple choir by having a choral organization composed of choirs composed of saints of all ages backed up by a wonderful orchestra.

That is what made The Lord Is My Shepherd a phenomenal concert. Not only was there a choir full of adults but that there was a choir composed of youth, a children's choir and a "sunbeam" choir. Each of these choirs were magnificent and were complimented nicely with the Orange County Mormon Orchestra. This is what makes the OCMCO unique because it is the only Mormon choral “organization,” (including the famous Mormon Tabernacle Choir) that consists several choirs, including those for children, youth, and adults, and an orchestra.

If you are able, I suggest that you attend future OCMCO events and hear the awesome and amazing music created by LDS members who reside in Orange County. I also highly encourage my readers, if they can, to make a donation to OCMO which will go to help support good, uplifting and inspiring music, which is rarely heard today.

It is Not Good For Men AND Women To Be Alone

Larry Barkdull, wrote an article for Meridian Magazine, called Why It Is Not Good For Man To Be Alone. He argues that only men (not women) are under the duty to not remain alone, or single because it his Priesthood duty to obey and fulfill the commandment to be married in the temple. The basis for his argument rests primarily on the passage in the Bible and the Pearl of Great Price that states that “it is not good that the man should be alone.”(Genesis 2:18, see also Moses 3: 18 and Abraham 5:14) The simple and major flaw of his article is that he believes that this scripture applies only to men.

The truth is that that scripture applies to BOTH men and women.

Whenever the word, “man” is used in the in the scriptures, it has always referred to both men and women. President Hinckley explained that the “word man and the word men are used in scripture without also mentioning the words woman and women. I emphasize that these terms are generic, including both sexes. They are so used in the scripture and have been used in other writings through the centuries of time." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Daughters of God,” Ensign, Nov 1991, 97) Thus, the idea that it is not good for males to be alone also applies to females. It is not good that either gender remain single.

The scriptures support President Hinckley's statement. The Bible is clear that the responsibility to avoid remaining single falls on both men and women’s shoulders because it teaches that we should “let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2). The Lord’s doctrine that men and women are to both be active players in finding a spouse is reinforced with the teaching that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

It is clear that forming a bond of marriage requires both a man and a woman and that neither gender have a passive or active role to play in obtaining celestial marriage. Men and women are both needed to create a marriage. It is the responsibility of both genders to actively and aggressively work on creating that marriage since neither men or women can be without the other in the eyes of the Lord. This concept is affirmed by Prophet Howard W. Hunter, who explained that men and women cannot “fill the measure of their creation without the other.” (Howard W. Hunter, “Being a Righteous Husband and Father,” Ensign, Nov 1994, 49)

Larry Barkdull cites D&C 132:4, D&C 132:5-6 and D&C 132:19-20 as support for his contention that ONLY men are under the obligation to avoid being single. That is not true. Those scriptures are clearly gender neutral and are applicable to men AND women.

For example, D&C 132:5-6 reads:

"For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world. And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."

Note the use of the word "all." This clearly shows that the Lord had both men and women in mind concerning all who enter into the temple and are under the duty to abide by the Celestial law. The connection between Priesthood as being the power to act in God's name and the Priesthood holder’s duty to get married in the temple is extremely weak. He attempts to establish this link by citing D&C 132: 23:

"Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."

Once again, Brother Barkdull misses the key word "all" which means that the revelation was given to both genders and that they are both under the obligation to obey the commandment to obtain the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. His interpretation would be correct had the passage said "all men." But it doesn't say that. It just says "all" which clearly is gender neutral and therefore applies to both men and women.

Brother Barkdull is clearly stretching the scriptures so that it fits nicely into his thesis. The problem is that upon closer scrutiny and careful reading of the scriptures, the passages won't comply with his erroneous interpretation. He correctly points out that the Priesthood is the authority, given by God to man, to perform ordinances in his name but then he makes a giant, unsubstantiated, leap into arguing that males are under a Priesthood covenant to be married in the temple. The link he's attempting to make is that the revelation of Celestial Marriage applies only to males and as he states that "once a man learns of the law, he must obey it or face serious consequences. "

What do the scriptures and the Prophets tell us about the Priesthood? What it tells us is that God delegated the power and authority to Man, which in turns, makes it possible for us to receive and perform the ordinances needed for salvation. Had God not delegated the Priesthood to Man, the existence, or possibility, of such saving ordinances would not occur on earth. In other words, had God withheld His power from us, there would be no baptism, sacrament, Priesthood blessings or temple. The saving ordinances wouldn't have come into existence unless God first delegated his authority to Man.

Brother Barkdull's article is a good example of a shoddy exegesis of the scriptures. He attempts to force the scriptures to fit his thesis and commits several major errors which makes his analysis of the scripture stating “it is not good that the man should be alone” extremely flawed.

The simple gospel truth is that BOTH men and women should not be alone.

Why Mormon Doctrine IS NOT Mormon Doctrine

Many people within the Church and outside the Church think that Bruce R. McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine, is the official declaration of the LDS Church doctrine. Here are several reasons why Mormon Doctrine is NOT Mormon Doctrine:

1. Mormon Doctrine was written when Brother McConkie was a member of the First Counsel of the Seventy (1946-1972), not when he was an member of the Quorum of the 12.
2. The Prophet is the only individual who could put forth official doctrine of the Church (D&C 28:1) which makes Bruce R. McConkie's book in violation of D&C 28:1-3.
3. Given that the Prophet is the only individual who can set forth the official doctrines of the Church, Bruce R. McConkie's book is in violation of Doctrine and Covenants 19:31 because all other individuals in the Church, except the Prophet, are in no position to declare what the "tenets" of the Church are but are allowed to simply declare "repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea , even the Holy Ghost."
4. He did not submit it to the Church's Reading Council before publishing it.
5. The Prophet, David O McKay objected to the fact that the book implied it was the official representation of official Church Doctrine.
6. Two senior apostles, Mark E. Peterson and Marion G. Romney, at the request of David O. McKay, reviewed Mormon Doctrine and found that the first edition had 1,067 "corrections" that needed to be made.
7. David O. McKay insisted that the book never be republished not even in corrected form.
8. David O. McKay insisted that the book not be recognized as an authoritative source of Mormon Doctrine and that Bruce R. McConkie take full responsibility for his book.
9. The book itself has the presumptuous title of Mormon Doctrine when the book really should have been called "Doctrine according to Bruce R. McConkie."
10. Despite the fact that David O. McKay declared the book not be republished, Bruce R. McConkie published it anyway six years later when the Prophet was in poor health.
11. If you look at subsequent editions of Mormon Doctrine, it now has the standard disclaimer that the book does not represent the official position on the doctrines of the LDS Church.

Despite the many reasons why the book is not an official declaration of Church doctrine, it still gets cited and quoted in General Conference and Church talks, lessons and articles. Thus, while the book does not represent the official statement of Church beliefs, such actions of using it in official Church meetings by General Authorities and members gives the book undeserved legitimacy and authority.

It is no wonder that opponents of the LDS Church attack the Church by citing from Mormon Doctrine. We deny the near canonical status of the book, yet, the book sales and use of it in Church tells the critics of the Church otherwise. 

UPDATE: The LDS Church announced that it would stop publishing Mormon Doctrine in May of 2010 and explained that it was due to low sales of the book even though it is still a wildly popular book. As a result of discontinuing the publication of this book, the LDS Church has also removed references to McConkie’s book in the new Gospel Principles manual that was reissued in that year for use in Priesthood and Relief Society classes. Given that much of the Bible Dictionary in our current editions of the LDS scriptures comes directly from Mormon Doctrine, will the LDS Church be coming out with a new edition of the Book of Mormon in which we will get a new Bible Dictionary that is free of material taken from Mormon Doctrine? 

2008 & The Problem of Religious Unity

For most Americans, the 2008 elections have erupted into a national debate about the role of religion in American politics. However, for most members of the Republican party, the debate has narrowed down to an ugly debate over whether or not the candidate belongs to the "right" religion and whether or not membership to a specific religion qualifies a candidate to be a leader for America.

There is nothing wrong with a national debate on religion since it has been going on since the founding of this nation. However, the debate as always been about the general role of religion and not about a specific denomination. Our Founding Fathers came from various different religious backgrounds and when they were in the process of creating this nation, they specifically wanted religion to play a role in public life but they also wanted to prevent America from endorsing a specific denomination or sect. The Founding Fathers were purposely trying to avoid the mistake that Old Europe had made and that was one religion had the endorsement of the Government at the exclusion of all other religions. In fact, England herself has suffered a wave of political instability as one King or Queen was placed on or overthrown from the royal throne simply because one King or Queen was of a particular religion.

Thus, the Founding Fathers understood the problem that faces a country and its religiously pluralistic society. It is a problem of religious unity. Old Europe's solution was to force unity through governmental endorsement of a particular religion. The Founding Father believe that the answer lies in the paradox of allowing unifying a religiously diverse country by forbidding the government of endorsing a particular religion.

Fast forward from 1776 to 2008 and we find ourselves squabbling over whether or not a Evangelical Christian or a Latter Day Saint is the "right" religion for a GOP candidate to be. But this isn't the only harmful consequence of the 2008 elections and its focus on religion. The Internet and daily conversations are filled with people contending with one another about the merits or validity of a particular religion and its doctrines. Furthermore, the old and sad debate of whether or not its a particular religion is a "cult" or an authentic religion has become a part of our national discourse.

John F. Kennedy in address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association during the 1960's campaign warned that if the American voter got too focused on religion and refuse to vote for a candidates based on his or her faith, it might be that the voter's own faith might be the subject of unfair scrutiny by the general public in the next election cycle:

"For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist...Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril."

The problem of religious unity that JFK identifies is that the public (and not the government) will endorse a particular faith based upon their support for a particular candidate and the religion he belongs to. This is a problem that the Founding Father sought to avoid when they inserted into the Constitution, a clause forbidding the application of a religious test to any candidate.

Fast forward from 1776 and passing through 1960 to 2008, Mike Huckabee's campaign has brought us into this unfortunate moment in history by making a candidate's religion an issue. While Mike Huckabee hypocritically refuses to make his own faith and the sermons he delivered a target of intense scrutiny. In fact, Mr. Huckabee gets irritated with the press when it focuses on his faith and its particular doctrines and yet he has made the faith of Mitt Romney's faith an issue. He plays passive-aggressive in feigning ignorance in questioning (or attacking) Mitt Romney's religion and then later apologizing for his remarks even though there is plenty of evidence that he is very knowledgeable about LDS doctrines when he was the Keynote Speaker at the 1998 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in Salt Lake City and that Janet L. Folger gives Mr. Huckabee advice on "Faith and Values" issues.

But Mike Huckabee isn't just making an Mitt Romney's faith an issue of his campaign, he's making religion a central issue of his campaign. This is evident as he releases a Christmas campaign commercial with a well lighted cross disguised as a bookshelf or his willingness to speak at Churches across the nation but snubbing request to speak to the general public or offending the Catholics by visiting Pastor John Hagee, a man who some Catholics feel spreads an anti-Catholic message to his followers.

Huckabee's strategy of using religion to get himself in to the White House is dangerous for America and the political process. It leaves us divided as we are separated into religious groups. It gets us debating over the issue of "authenticity" of a particular religion. Feelings are hurt when religious groups such as Mormons and Catholics are snubbed by Mike Huckabee's campaign. But it also hurts the group that Mike Huckabee is trying to appeal: the evangelical vote since the secular public grows more and more weary of religion in the public sphere and sees religion as being exclusive rather than an inclusive institution. Not only will voters reject religion but they will reject its Christian message too.

In short, Mike Huckabee's harmful plan of using religion and appealing to a specific group of Christians to win the White House is hurting America because its not bringing us together but dividing us.

JFK wisely warned us of this problem us about because making religion an issue a central issue of the election because it will continue to divide us until "the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril."

In contrast, Mitt Romney understands the important of keeping the fabric of our harmonious society together. In his speech at the George Bush Presidential Library, he acknowledges that despite the diversity of religion in America, "we share a common creed of moral convictions" and that when a candidate becomes president, "he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths." Mitt Romney's campaign is inclusive, not exclusive like Mike Huckabee's. He tells the American voter that his campaign is inclusive because:

"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

Given the troubled times that we live in, we need a leader who can represent a religious, ethnic, social and politically pluralistic nation and bring us together. Mike Huckabee, by his words and actions, cannot bring us together. Mitt Romney can.

Mitt Romney, Christians and the 2008 Elections

Mitt Romney has announced that he will give a speech about his faith that will be similar to John F. Kennedy's address that he gave when his Catholic faith was under scrutiny during the 1960 presidential campaign.

As LDS person who has a keen interest in politics, I find it amusing that some Christian conservatives have made Romney's faith an issue during this 2008 presidential election. To those who refuse to vote for Romney on theological grounds, I request that you give the following thoughts some consideration. This is not an attempt to convince you to support Mitt Romney but an appeal to the Christian political community to rethink its priorities if it wants to reach their political goals. Here are some thoughts:

What's more important: Theology or Values?

In deciding who is the best candidate for Christian voters, its values that matter, not theology. This is an important fact for the religious right to remember. For example, Harry Reid is Mormon, but I would never vote for him since he doesn't reflect my values. On the other hand, I support Romney, not because of his religion but because of his values.

Likewise, Christians are aware that there are many politicians who are Christians but don't have good values and are not worth supporting. On the other hand, Senator Joesph Lieberman is obviously not Christian, but is a Jewish politician who values reflect the traditional conservative view of America.

The Founding Fathers understood that values was more important than theology in politics. For them, it was never, never, ever about a particular brand of interpretation or view of the Bible. A prime example is that the Founding Fathers themselves came from all different religious backgrounds and yet they all shared the same Christian values and morality even though they may have had disagreements over theological approaches to the Bible and other doctrinal issues. Thus, a person's faith was never a factor in considering someone for elected office and thats' why they specifically forbid religion as a litmus test in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers understood this concept, and yet modern Christian society seems to be unable to grasp this idea.

For the religious right to be politically successful, it needs to be inclusive, not exclusive

If Christians want to restore the classical Judeo-Christian values that made America great, then it needs to make all the friends it can get to make that goal a reality. The LDS and Christian faith share much in common in their vision for America such asstrong families, bringing back morality & religion in the public square, appointing conservative judges and bringing freedom to the oppressed around the world.

LDS and Christians have worked together on numerous political issues and have been successful both on national and state issues. It makes no sense for Christians to reject a presidential candidate whose faith is closely aligned with them on political, social and moral issues and is eager to implement policies and programs that reflect our shared values.

If Christians are not making friends and allies in restoring America's values, how else are you gonna rally people to your cause?

The Golden Rule: It applies to politics too!

It is interesting that many (not all, of course) Christians complain about being persecuted and that there is prejudice against Christians in America and but many of those same people persecute Mormons as well as other faiths.

Rejecting people based on their faith only gives Christians a bad name in the public eye. I agree that there is an anti-Christian sentiment in American public today but opposing a political candidate's faith only exacerbates the problem to which more people will be turned off to Christianity, both religiously and politically. The more people make Romney's religion an issue in the 2008 election, the more the people will see the hypocrisy and double standard that is at play here. Many secular people will wonder, If you don't like being picked on as a Christian, maybe you shouldn't pick on other religions?

If Christians want to advance their conservative agenda, (1) Christians need to put an end to the "in your face, offensive style" preaching to those that are not of a particular Christian denomination or religion in general and (2) be more open minded about those who wish to be called Christians-if Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics. or even some Jewish people want to be labeled as "Christians"-let them do it. It only serves to help the Christian cause as a political group and usually these religious denominations may have different theological positions but they're almost always on the same page when it comes to traditional values.

Consider the 2008 elections

Its already turning out to be an historic election for many reasons with the most obvious being that many minorities are running for office. We have a potential for the first woman (Hil), first African American (Obama), first Hispanic (Richardson), first Mormon (Romney), first mayor in over a century (Guilliani) and oldest president (McCain) to occupy the White House. This isn't a flash in the pan moment for American politics. The populace is getting warmed up to the idea of having minorities run for office, especially the office of the President.

Given the political realities of the 2008 elections, people are starting to think outside the box in terms of what they want in a President. A person's religion isn't the only factor people take into consideration any more in American politics. JFK's victory as a Catholic president made it possible for people of all faiths to run for office. Look at Keith Ellison, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney and Joseph Liberman. Political diversity and tolerance is apart of the American political landscape now. And it should be. Insisting that a person be of the "right" faith is simply out of touch with our country's newfound American values.

As Mitt Romney makes his address to the nation about his faith and his bid to be the next President, he will invoke JFK's vision of a time "where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal" and where people of all faiths "both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood."

Remember, that while America " is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish" or Mormon, it is "the real issues which should decide this campaign" since they are the problems that not only afflict America but the rest of the world such as terrorism, war, the economy, and immigration. Judge Romney, not on his faith but on the basis of his experience as Governor of Massachusetts, in managing the 20008 Olympics and other endeavors that shows he has the ability to lead America through the challenges that America faces.