Let's talk about horror movies.
Have you ever noticed how some of the most terrifying antagonists in horror movies are things that are normally innocent and sweet?
I mean, you expect a horror movie to have a lion chasing you. Or maybe a guy with a chain saw. And there are those.
But then there are those movies with a haunted porcelain doll, or an eleven year old girl, usually in a nightgown.
Why are these terrifying?
My theory is that we are horrified by things that are supposed to be good (but aren't) because we can never let our guard down. The least terrifying thing should be a sweet young lady or a fancy little doll. So you know that not only do you need to be on guard against the lion and the murderer, but also the most innocent things; the things you thought you could trust.
So you just barred the door against the werewolf, but wait! There's a toddler behind you! Look out!
I think that religion can be this way. It is supposed to be a good thing. It is supposed to be a source of hope, love and encouragement. A comfort. not a horror. A source of social and spiritual support and joy.
Sometimes it's discouraging and hateful. Or worse. Sometimes it is a horror, like when you have a priest who molests children. That's a true horror, made doubly worse because a priest is supposed to be good, comforting and safe.
If this kind of thing happens enough, people can start to think that religion is always evil. A person once bitten is twice shy. We should be careful to not become so cynical because religion, and churches, when done right, can be very, very good. Let me give you two personal examples.
A few weeks ago, our church held an activity where we went to a neighbor who is not a member and replaced his roof, which was falling apart. He was shocked when we'd told him we'd do it, but he accepted. We went on his roof, tore off the old shingles and replaced them with new ones (the neighbor paid for the shingles). He asked us several times why we would do this for no compensation. We told him that that's what neighbor's do for each other. And Jesus said, love your neighbor.
This was church and religion done right.
My second example comes from an answer to prayer. I have been praying a lot lately about my career. And I keep getting answers that have nothing to do with my job. Like last month, I got into work early, shut the door to my office, and got on my knees. I prayed for several minutes, sincerely seeking an answer. The answer I got was a feeling of benevolence and peace. I started thinking about my co-workers and my family and I kept feeling like I wanted to be nice to them. To improve my relationships with them. Or apologize to them for times I had been impatient.
This wasn't the answer I was seeking, but it was a good answer. This has happened more than once.
This second example, is, to me, another way in which religion can be beautiful.
So, in answer to the question in my title: religion can be beautiful and ugly. But I think its true nature is beautiful. When done the way it is supposed to be done, it's amazing.
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Friday, May 12, 2017
Why the Church is True Part 1: the Little Details.
Imagine that you are on a jury in a murder case. The prosecution introduces a video into evidence. In that video, the defendant, Johnny, is clearly seen murdering the victim.
Then the defense attorney introduces the testimony of one of the defendant's friends who said, "Johnny was with me that night. He couldn't have committed the murder."
Which evidence is greater? Obviously the video is greater evidence. If the defense attorney doesn't try to address the video, she is going to lose the case and her client is going to jail.
Unfortunately for prosecutors, there usually isn't a video of the murder. Her case has to be built on less powerful evidence. She builds her case bit by bit, giving evidences that build an overall case. She may show that the day before the murder, the defendant made a threat to the victim. Then he went out and bought a gun. Then his alibi fell apart and he was caught in a lie. Also, the victim knew that the suspect had an embarrassing secret about him and was threatening to go public.
All of these little, circumstantial, evidences can add up to a strong case against the defendant. But none of them by themselves would convict.
In contrast, direct evidence might convict just by itself, if the jury believes it. The video, the eye witness or recorded confession.
That does not mean that direct evidence is irrefutable. Videos can be edited, witnesses can be mistaken or lying. Even a confession may be coerced. Circumstantial evidence is also refutable, of course.
But the more evidence is accumulated (whether direct or circumstantial, strong or weak) the stronger the overall case is for the proposition in question, whether it be that a certain person committed a crime or if the LDS church is true.
In a previous post I made a list of evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon. Most of these evidences are direct evidence or somewhere between direct and circumstantial. For example, the three witnesses' testimony is direct evidence. (not irrefutable, but categorically direct). They actually saw the gold plates, an angel and other things. The discovery of Nahom is also direct evidence.
But there is another kind of evidence that I would like to point to that lends support for the church. By itself it is not overwhelming, but as the little evidences add up, the case for the church gets stronger and stronger.
One bit of evidence that I want to point out is written about by Jeff Lindsay here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/lds/temple-blindness/
Mr. Lindsay shows that some of the Mormon temple practices introduced by Joseph Smith have similarities to ancient Christian practices that were also not common in Joseph Smith's time and culture. These include prayer circles and baptism for the dead.
Mr. Lindsay also points out the subtle temple themes in the Book of Mormon that have links to what we know about Solomon's temple in Lehi's time. These themes are not likely to have been known by Joseph Smith and unlikely for a farm boy to know. Nevertheless, someone put subtle clues in the Book of Mormon of these.
A second bit of evidence is shown on Book of Mormon Central's website. They show that a pattern of proper behavior for a king is found in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The unself-conscious pattern of good kingly behavior, by Mosiah and Benjamin, contrasted with bad kingly behavior in King Noah, is a masterful literary technique, unlikely to be within Joseph Smith's capability and unlikely to even be known from the Bible.
Here is the source: https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/deuteronomy-1714%E2%80%9320-criteria-book-mormon-kingship. Quote: "Deuteronomy 17:14–20 represents the most succinct summation in the Bible of criteria for kingship. Remarkably, the Book of Mormon narrative depicts examples of kingship that demonstrate close fidelity to the pattern set forth in Deuteronomy 17 (e.g., Nephi, Benjamin, or Mosiah II) or the inversion of the expected pattern of kingship (e.g., king Noah)."
Here is a third example found here: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/where-did-the-brother-of-jared-get-the-idea-of-shining-stones
Hundreds of these little, circumstantial evidences are being found in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, doctrines of the church, and the history of the church. Together, they fill out the whole picture, making it harder to deny that there's something to this church.
Then the defense attorney introduces the testimony of one of the defendant's friends who said, "Johnny was with me that night. He couldn't have committed the murder."
Which evidence is greater? Obviously the video is greater evidence. If the defense attorney doesn't try to address the video, she is going to lose the case and her client is going to jail.
Unfortunately for prosecutors, there usually isn't a video of the murder. Her case has to be built on less powerful evidence. She builds her case bit by bit, giving evidences that build an overall case. She may show that the day before the murder, the defendant made a threat to the victim. Then he went out and bought a gun. Then his alibi fell apart and he was caught in a lie. Also, the victim knew that the suspect had an embarrassing secret about him and was threatening to go public.
All of these little, circumstantial, evidences can add up to a strong case against the defendant. But none of them by themselves would convict.
In contrast, direct evidence might convict just by itself, if the jury believes it. The video, the eye witness or recorded confession.
That does not mean that direct evidence is irrefutable. Videos can be edited, witnesses can be mistaken or lying. Even a confession may be coerced. Circumstantial evidence is also refutable, of course.
But the more evidence is accumulated (whether direct or circumstantial, strong or weak) the stronger the overall case is for the proposition in question, whether it be that a certain person committed a crime or if the LDS church is true.
In a previous post I made a list of evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon. Most of these evidences are direct evidence or somewhere between direct and circumstantial. For example, the three witnesses' testimony is direct evidence. (not irrefutable, but categorically direct). They actually saw the gold plates, an angel and other things. The discovery of Nahom is also direct evidence.
But there is another kind of evidence that I would like to point to that lends support for the church. By itself it is not overwhelming, but as the little evidences add up, the case for the church gets stronger and stronger.
One bit of evidence that I want to point out is written about by Jeff Lindsay here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/lds/temple-blindness/
Mr. Lindsay shows that some of the Mormon temple practices introduced by Joseph Smith have similarities to ancient Christian practices that were also not common in Joseph Smith's time and culture. These include prayer circles and baptism for the dead.
Mr. Lindsay also points out the subtle temple themes in the Book of Mormon that have links to what we know about Solomon's temple in Lehi's time. These themes are not likely to have been known by Joseph Smith and unlikely for a farm boy to know. Nevertheless, someone put subtle clues in the Book of Mormon of these.
A second bit of evidence is shown on Book of Mormon Central's website. They show that a pattern of proper behavior for a king is found in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The unself-conscious pattern of good kingly behavior, by Mosiah and Benjamin, contrasted with bad kingly behavior in King Noah, is a masterful literary technique, unlikely to be within Joseph Smith's capability and unlikely to even be known from the Bible.
Here is the source: https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/deuteronomy-1714%E2%80%9320-criteria-book-mormon-kingship. Quote: "Deuteronomy 17:14–20 represents the most succinct summation in the Bible of criteria for kingship. Remarkably, the Book of Mormon narrative depicts examples of kingship that demonstrate close fidelity to the pattern set forth in Deuteronomy 17 (e.g., Nephi, Benjamin, or Mosiah II) or the inversion of the expected pattern of kingship (e.g., king Noah)."
Here is a third example found here: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/where-did-the-brother-of-jared-get-the-idea-of-shining-stones
Hundreds of these little, circumstantial evidences are being found in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, doctrines of the church, and the history of the church. Together, they fill out the whole picture, making it harder to deny that there's something to this church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)