We do a weekly newsletter that we send out by email to all my family. In her contribution to the newsletter, my mum made mention about my dad and his work.
My dad works in construction and when he started with a new company earlier this spring, he was made project supervisor. In his new position, he oversees an entire project from start to finish. It is a lot less physical work for him, and as he gets older, the less physical work, the better.
Their current project is completely redoing a lecture hall on the campus of BCIT. The project includes everything from cement to walls to carpet.
The project deadline is in roughly a week and my dad has never missed a deadline. Unfortunately, some of the workers aren’t producing the work my dad expects, so he has been spending many nights lately putting in overtime to tidy up the work. Last week, he put in 74 hours—that’s more than double my regular workweek.
My dad’s an amazing guy. Not only has he taught me to work hard, but he’s also taught me to do a job right.
Here’s hoping they meet the deadline.
August 16, 2004
August 13, 2004
Tal Bachman Leaves Mormon Church
As Jeremy reported (as did Mark and William), world-renowned musician Tal Bachman left the church. Apparently, it has taken the former Sunday School teacher two years to come to this decision. Technically, he still is a member because he has yet to formally request name removal through a letter to his bishop.
Nevertheless, one thing in the article really caught my attention.
Why is it historical accuracy is such a big issue for so many people who left the Church? Why do they put so much weight in the accuracy of events happening exactly as described?
These same people, for example, often have no problem accepting that the creation of the world did not happen in six 24-hour periods. However, when they’re faced with the fact that Joseph Smith allegedly wrote a couple dozen versions of the First Vision, all of a sudden it’s too much and the whole Church is a sham.
Sigh.
In all honesty, who cares? Who cares if the First Vision was with God and Jesus Christ or if it was three angels? The point is that the heavens that were closed for millennia were now open. The point is that the Lord opened the way for a church run by revelation. Who cares if the world was created in six days, six thousand years, or 4.5 billion years? The point is that it was created.
Some naysayers may read this post and say, “Who are you to question his decision? Who are you to be an expert on questioning doctrines when you’ve lived the sheltered life of Mormonism?” To such things, I respond by saying that my life has been far from sheltered. I have had my share of worldly indulgences. I have had my share of questions.
In fact, I came to the point where my faith was seriously shaken as well. You want to know the difference between my experience and others like Tal’s? When my faith wavered, it wasn’t because I read that Joseph Smith was a boozer or that Brigham Young was racist. It wasn’t because I found what appeared to be inconsistencies between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. It wasn’t because my bishop couldn’t answer my questions.
It was because I doubted God’s existence.
That’s right. It wasn’t my faith in a single book. It wasn’t faith in the character of a prophet. It wasn’t faith in the sociability of my home teachers. It was faith in God.
The point is when you question your faith, think about what you’re questioning. If you are offended by someone and decide to never come back to church, think about where your faith must lie. If you come across some abhorrent thing Joseph Smith did and decide to leave the Church, think about where your faith lies.
Think about where your faith lies.
It was a very hard and depressing experience I went through. However, I am very grateful for it. The experience has really solidified my faith and I have become stronger as a result. Because of this, odd events and doctrines that would normally offend or shake someone's faith do not phase me. I am now able to question things freely.
Think about where your faith lies.
Nevertheless, one thing in the article really caught my attention.
I came to understand that, much to my shock, many of the foundational claims of the church were not based in reality. I struggled so much with that, and kept trying to un-know what I kept uncovering, that at the end of two years I felt so burdened and so confused and puzzled. I kept going to these church defenders that I'd always trusted and trying to find out what the explanations were for what appeared to be smoking guns. And there weren't any.
Why is it historical accuracy is such a big issue for so many people who left the Church? Why do they put so much weight in the accuracy of events happening exactly as described?
These same people, for example, often have no problem accepting that the creation of the world did not happen in six 24-hour periods. However, when they’re faced with the fact that Joseph Smith allegedly wrote a couple dozen versions of the First Vision, all of a sudden it’s too much and the whole Church is a sham.
Sigh.
In all honesty, who cares? Who cares if the First Vision was with God and Jesus Christ or if it was three angels? The point is that the heavens that were closed for millennia were now open. The point is that the Lord opened the way for a church run by revelation. Who cares if the world was created in six days, six thousand years, or 4.5 billion years? The point is that it was created.
Some naysayers may read this post and say, “Who are you to question his decision? Who are you to be an expert on questioning doctrines when you’ve lived the sheltered life of Mormonism?” To such things, I respond by saying that my life has been far from sheltered. I have had my share of worldly indulgences. I have had my share of questions.
In fact, I came to the point where my faith was seriously shaken as well. You want to know the difference between my experience and others like Tal’s? When my faith wavered, it wasn’t because I read that Joseph Smith was a boozer or that Brigham Young was racist. It wasn’t because I found what appeared to be inconsistencies between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. It wasn’t because my bishop couldn’t answer my questions.
It was because I doubted God’s existence.
That’s right. It wasn’t my faith in a single book. It wasn’t faith in the character of a prophet. It wasn’t faith in the sociability of my home teachers. It was faith in God.
The point is when you question your faith, think about what you’re questioning. If you are offended by someone and decide to never come back to church, think about where your faith must lie. If you come across some abhorrent thing Joseph Smith did and decide to leave the Church, think about where your faith lies.
Think about where your faith lies.
It was a very hard and depressing experience I went through. However, I am very grateful for it. The experience has really solidified my faith and I have become stronger as a result. Because of this, odd events and doctrines that would normally offend or shake someone's faith do not phase me. I am now able to question things freely.
Think about where your faith lies.
August 07, 2004
I am LDS After All
I took a survey yesterday that asked questions regarding religious beliefs. The idea is that after you’ve taken the quiz, it will analyse your answers and tell you which religious movement your beliefs more closely resemble.
Not surprising to anyone—well except maybe those who think I question too much or who consider me a heretic—the quiz said my 100 percent of my beliefs corresponded with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Here are the remaining findings.
Not surprising to anyone—well except maybe those who think I question too much or who consider me a heretic—the quiz said my 100 percent of my beliefs corresponded with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Here are the remaining findings.
- Jehovah's Witness (97%)
- Bahá'í Faith (94%)
- Orthodox Judaism (83%)
- Sikhism (77%)
- Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)
- Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (71%)
- Islam (70%)
- Jainism (69%)
- Liberal Quakers (62%)
- Hinduism (60%)
- Eastern Orthodox (58%)
- Roman Catholic (58%)
- Reform Judaism (57%)
- Seventh Day Adventist (57%)
- Orthodox Quaker (56%)
- Unitarian Universalism (55%)
- Mahayana Buddhism (52%)
- Theravada Buddhism (51%)
- Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (39%)
- Neo-Pagan (36%)
- New Age (33%)
- New Thought (25%)
- Taoism (25%)
- Secular Humanism (23%)
- Scientology (21%)
- Non-theist (19%)
July 30, 2004
DNA, Lamanites and Book of Mormon
Simon Southerton, geneticist and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church, has taken up a crusade to "[examine] church teachings that American Indians and Polynesians have a historic bond with ancient Israelites." He does so by using DNA research and applying it to current popular opinion of members of the Church and writings of some scholars with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
This seems to be a thorny issue for Southerton. He left the Church because there seemed to be no conclusive evidence that supported the widely held notion among Latter-day Saints that Pacific Islanders and indigenous people of the Americas were descended from the Lamanites.
First, I find it unbelievable—actually, I can believe it, but it still is dumbfounding—that someone's conviction to the Church can be swayed by scientific evidence. The Book of Mormon is not a scientific journal. It does not establish scientific fact and does not even heavily support scientific theories. It is nothing more than a spiritual record—interspersed with select historical information—of a distinct, isolated group of people.
Second, there is no indication whatsoever in the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites and Nephites were completely alone in the Americas. To say otherwise is nothing more than speculation. It is entirely plausible and even likely that the Lamanites and Nephites encountered—and even mingled with—other peoples already present in the Americas. This alone would reduce any existence of Israelite DNA. As well, it is entirely plausible that the Lamanite population died off or were exterminated; after all, the record of their history is incomplete.
Third, popular belief among Latter-day Saints does not equal doctrine. Just because many Latter-day Saints hold on to the archaic notion that all people indigenous to the Americas are descended solely from Lehi, does not make it church doctrine. I wish more people would understand this one principle. Tradition is not doctrine.
The Book of Mormon is primarily a religious book containing teachings and doctrine about God and Jesus Christ. To treat it primarily as anything else is to treat it as a very shaky foundation.
That being said, it only take a smidgen of logic to see that DNA research does not disprove the Book of Mormon. One would think a scientist like Southerton would understand that.
This seems to be a thorny issue for Southerton. He left the Church because there seemed to be no conclusive evidence that supported the widely held notion among Latter-day Saints that Pacific Islanders and indigenous people of the Americas were descended from the Lamanites.
First, I find it unbelievable—actually, I can believe it, but it still is dumbfounding—that someone's conviction to the Church can be swayed by scientific evidence. The Book of Mormon is not a scientific journal. It does not establish scientific fact and does not even heavily support scientific theories. It is nothing more than a spiritual record—interspersed with select historical information—of a distinct, isolated group of people.
Second, there is no indication whatsoever in the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites and Nephites were completely alone in the Americas. To say otherwise is nothing more than speculation. It is entirely plausible and even likely that the Lamanites and Nephites encountered—and even mingled with—other peoples already present in the Americas. This alone would reduce any existence of Israelite DNA. As well, it is entirely plausible that the Lamanite population died off or were exterminated; after all, the record of their history is incomplete.
Third, popular belief among Latter-day Saints does not equal doctrine. Just because many Latter-day Saints hold on to the archaic notion that all people indigenous to the Americas are descended solely from Lehi, does not make it church doctrine. I wish more people would understand this one principle. Tradition is not doctrine.
The Book of Mormon is primarily a religious book containing teachings and doctrine about God and Jesus Christ. To treat it primarily as anything else is to treat it as a very shaky foundation.
That being said, it only take a smidgen of logic to see that DNA research does not disprove the Book of Mormon. One would think a scientist like Southerton would understand that.
June 23, 2004
Mormons Can't Have Beards
I have a beard.
Well, ok. It is a goatee. However, this past winter, I let all my facial hair free to grow, as it desired. With all the talk in the Bloggernacle about beard growing, I thought I'd chime in with an experience.
In my stake, there is an unwritten, vague, widely interpreted rule regarding beards. Some bishops have interpreted it to mean a man cannot hold a calling if he has a beard. Some has have interpreted into to mean a man cannot hold a priesthood leadership position (e.g. elders quorum president, high priest group leader) if he has a beard.
Nevertheless, at the beginning of the year, the ward clerk in one of the wards asked about my beard in the context of this non-specific rule. I told him no one has asked me to shave it, so I see no reason to. He then asked me if I would shave upon being requested to do so.
I sit here thinking now about the whole issue. I can understand how drinking coffee, having casual extra-marital sex, stealing a car or promoting the pleasantries of plural marriage might bring to mind disobedience to God’s laws. However, how does not shaving a beard when a local policy suggests to amounts to the same thing?
One might suggest that not doing so is not being obedient to the words of the leaders. Supposedly, this is the same thing as God’s laws since that is how church members interpret D&C 1:38. I have to wonder then if the brethren asked me to pick my nose regularly and I did not, if I would be considered a heretic. If the brethren asked me to exchange my black, wingtip oxfords for a pair of oxblood, cap-toes and I did not—yeah, right, of course I would—would I be considered disobedient?
Honestly, what is the big deal? How did having a beard come to be so controversial as to be outlawed in the temple and the cause of dismissal from callings?
Well, ok. It is a goatee. However, this past winter, I let all my facial hair free to grow, as it desired. With all the talk in the Bloggernacle about beard growing, I thought I'd chime in with an experience.
In my stake, there is an unwritten, vague, widely interpreted rule regarding beards. Some bishops have interpreted it to mean a man cannot hold a calling if he has a beard. Some has have interpreted into to mean a man cannot hold a priesthood leadership position (e.g. elders quorum president, high priest group leader) if he has a beard.
Nevertheless, at the beginning of the year, the ward clerk in one of the wards asked about my beard in the context of this non-specific rule. I told him no one has asked me to shave it, so I see no reason to. He then asked me if I would shave upon being requested to do so.
I sit here thinking now about the whole issue. I can understand how drinking coffee, having casual extra-marital sex, stealing a car or promoting the pleasantries of plural marriage might bring to mind disobedience to God’s laws. However, how does not shaving a beard when a local policy suggests to amounts to the same thing?
One might suggest that not doing so is not being obedient to the words of the leaders. Supposedly, this is the same thing as God’s laws since that is how church members interpret D&C 1:38. I have to wonder then if the brethren asked me to pick my nose regularly and I did not, if I would be considered a heretic. If the brethren asked me to exchange my black, wingtip oxfords for a pair of oxblood, cap-toes and I did not—yeah, right, of course I would—would I be considered disobedient?
Honestly, what is the big deal? How did having a beard come to be so controversial as to be outlawed in the temple and the cause of dismissal from callings?
Pre-Existence is False
There is a post over at T&S discussing a newly found tablet. I have no problems with that, but I do have a question regarding the use of the term "pre-existence" in the post title. Since I don't want to detract from the nature of the conversation over there, I thought I'd post here.
I don't want to come across as a nitpicker, but doesn't "pre-existence" imply "before existence". Since we existed as spirits before coming to earth and as intelligences before being created as spirits, to what does the term "pre-existence" refer?
I don't want to come across as a nitpicker, but doesn't "pre-existence" imply "before existence". Since we existed as spirits before coming to earth and as intelligences before being created as spirits, to what does the term "pre-existence" refer?
Are Mormons Christian?
Many Christians outside of Mormonism claim we, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not Christian. It is a convenient way for them to dismiss what we believe and to avoid having to admit the possibility of any truth in our message or beliefs.
Despite the fact that we proscribe to the logical definition of “Christian”, they insist that we follow a different Christ and thus are not Christian.
The Jesus I follow was born to Mary in Bethlehem. He is the Son of God. He performed countless miracles during his ministry. He taught that we should avoid acts of retribution and replace them with acts of generosity and forgiveness. He died on the cross at Calvary. He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane. He rose from the dead on the third day.
Do other Christians believe something different from this? Does that mentioned above not suggest to the sane, intelligent reader that one who believes in such is indeed Christian? Even is s/he is a Mormon?
Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
Despite the fact that we proscribe to the logical definition of “Christian”, they insist that we follow a different Christ and thus are not Christian.
The Jesus I follow was born to Mary in Bethlehem. He is the Son of God. He performed countless miracles during his ministry. He taught that we should avoid acts of retribution and replace them with acts of generosity and forgiveness. He died on the cross at Calvary. He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane. He rose from the dead on the third day.
Do other Christians believe something different from this? Does that mentioned above not suggest to the sane, intelligent reader that one who believes in such is indeed Christian? Even is s/he is a Mormon?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)