FAIR

NickGalieti

RiseUp Podcast: What’s Wrong with Masturbation

by

Podcast: Download (19.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Youth, or Young Adults in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have had questions about various aspects and applications of the Law of Chastity. One such question surrounds quotes and commentary on masturbation. This response is read by Steve Densley, Executive Vice-President of FairMormon in a podcast he published in Jan 2013.

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

Question Submitted to FairMormon:

I’ve been reading a lot lately on the internet and listening to podcasts about the church’s stance on masturbation and the current science on the subject. I have understood that masturbation is considered to be addictive and that Jesus taught that we should not think lustfully about members of the opposite gender. But some people are saying that the Church’s approach to this issue has changed lately, and that masturbation is no longer considered a serious sin. I’m also hearing that if a man does not ejaculate regularly, that it could be harmful and even lead to death. I know that looking at pornography is wrong. It is misleading, degrading and lusting after any person who is already married is a sin. However, I wonder now if masturbation without lusting after someone to whom you are not married might be acceptable.

And now for the answer:
In responding to this question, there are two main points that should be considered: 1) Sexuality is sacred, and its enjoyment is given strict bounds by scripture and modern revelation; and 2) Sexual acts, including masturbation, generate profound and powerful neurochemical reactions.

These two principles are, it seems, related–the physical and mental consequences of sexuality are so important and powerful that God has good reason to give us commandments that help us enjoy the best of those consequences and avoid the worst.

Now, you distinguish pornography use from masturbation, and in a way that’s valid. For instance, part of the sin of pornography use is lustfully, selfishly using images of another’s sacred body, and supporting an industry that exploits those sacred bodies for profit. Masturbation without pornography at least avoids that.

However, in a larger sense, pornography use and masturbation are not so distinguishable. Their main feature is the same: They change sexuality from the divinely-sanctioned sacrament of love for another, into a solely self-oriented activity.

Let’s talk more about what it means to say that sexuality is sacred. First, and most obviously, through the power of procreation, we share in the creative power of God by helping to bring His children into this world. But there are other ways in which proper use of the procreative power helps us to become more like God. Our ultimate goal in life is to become like Christ by overcoming selfishness and becoming a person who is perfectly able and willing to love and serve others. Because sexuality is so powerful, it can easily motivate selfishness–wanting to use others for one’s own sexual gratification. To prevent that, and to help us progress, God instead taught us how to express sexuality in a context, marriage, that encourages selflessness, kindness, and loyalty.

Therefore, a problem with masturbation is that it removes sexuality from that very important context of kindness in marriage. Even though masturbation doesn’t use others for gratification, it teaches an individual to regard sexuality as an individual event, free from the demands of a spouse.

This is where neurochemistry comes in, too. Sexual climax involves incredibly powerful chemical events that can even be analogized to the effect of powerful drugs. Both make the brain perceive incredible pleasure. Because of neuroplasticity (the brain’s tendency to rewire itself so that a stimulus and its response are closely associated with each other), sexual stimulus will be associated with its incredible neurochemical reward. Some of the chemicals that are released during sex are the same as those released after a woman gives birth. And just as these chemicals help a mother to bond with a newborn child, they also help sexual partners to feel bonded to one another.

But when sexual stimulus comes in the form of masturbation, completely devoid of the sharing and vulnerability and complementarity of marriage, then the brain can become wired so that it is primarily masturbation that produces the reward, and an individual can become increasingly unable to sexually respond to a spouse. Masturbation and intercourse are simply different. One who masturbates frequently has a very direct knowledge of what actions bring pleasure most effectively. It can be difficult or impossible for a spouse to reproduce the pleasure that a masturbator has learned how to produce on his or her own. Thus, sexuality, if not expressed in the context of a loving and devoted relationship, turns inward and becomes a focus on self. It is spiritually dangerous to use sexuality for self when God intends for it to be used to help us overcome our love of self.

Even if one were to masturbate while focusing one’s thoughts on one’s spouse, it’s still impossible to replicate the experience of being with another, actual person with flaws and fears and perhaps very different sexual needs. It doesn’t change the fact that one is providing one’s own sexual stimulus, instead of having to learn how to give and receive.

Any claims you have heard that you will be physically harmed unless you do masturbate are simply false, or greatly over-blown. There is a study that shows that older men have a lower risk of prostate cancer if they ejaculate more frequently. However, this same finding was not replicated in the case of young men. In fact,higher rates of masturbation raise the risk of prostate cancer in young men. Interestingly, more frequent intercourse did NOT raise the risk, but masturbation did.

In approaching issues of obedience, the correct approach is not to lay out the “risks and benefits” of obeying or not, and then trying to decide where the best “deal” lies. It seems instead, that our first question ought to be, is it true that God wants me to abstain from masturbation. If so, it doesn’t matter what it does to my physical health, or anything else. And, we must not over-look the possibility that men who are more healthy, more vigorous, etc. for a variety of reasons may be more sexually active or interested–thus, the finding may not be a matter of cause and effect, but more ejaculatory acts may reflect better over-all health. And, masturbation in young men might reflect higher hormone levels, which in the long run might lead to higher cancer risk–again, perhaps the link isn’t causative. Or, perhaps masturbation leads to higher hormone levels via positive feedback. No one knows yet.

The prophets have been clear that masturbation is not a practice that is approved by the Lord. While the current edition of For the Strength of Youth pamphlet does not use the term “masturbation,” it clearly refers to the act all the same. It reads: “Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.”

President Packer made it clear that it is not a grave, heinous sin on the order of (say) fornication or adultery, but it is still something we should avoid:

One of you, perhaps, has not fully understood until now. Perhaps your father did not talk to you. You may already have been guilty of tampering with these powers. You may even have developed a habit. What do you do then?

First, I want you to know this. If you are struggling with this temptation and perhaps you have not quite been able to resist, the Lord still loves you. It is not anything so wicked nor is it a transgression so great that the Lord would reject you because of it, but it can quickly lead to that kind of transgression. It is not pleasing to the Lord, nor is it pleasing to you. It does not make you feel worthy or clean.

(To Young Men Only, pamphlet, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

President Kimball said something similar: “Masturbation, a rather common indiscretion, is not approved of the Lord nor of his church, regardless of what may have been said by others whose ‘norms’ are lower. Latter-day Saints are urged to avoid this practice. Anyone fettered by this weakness should abandon the habit before he goes on a mission or receives the holy priesthood or goes in the temple for his blessings.” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Love Versus Lust,” Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [Provo, 5 Jan. 1965], p. 22.)

Note that he calls it both “common” and an “indiscretion.” It is also termed a “weakness.” This isn’t something catastrophic, and it acknowledges that most of us have to learn how to moderate this part of our lives. But, the standards that the Lord teaches are clear. And, if we are not willing to obey him in the “little” things, when faced with a greater trial, we will not have developed either the strength or resolve to obey in the big things.

C.S. Lewis has a wonderful passage in which he describes what may be the root reason that God gives us this commandment:

For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back: sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival. Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect love: no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself….

Masturbation involves this abuse of imagination in erotic matters (which I think bad in itself) and thereby encourages a similar abuse of it in all spheres. After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little, dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.

(C.S. Lewis, letter to Keith Masson (3 June 1956); cited in Yours, Jack: Spiritual Direction from C.S. Lewis (HarperOne, 2008), 292-293.)

At the very least, it violates one of the commands of Jesus:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
(Matthew 5:26 – 30.)

Jesus here tells us to abstain from lust. And, frankly, masturbation without lust is pretty difficult, even in the manner you describe. Could this be difficult for us? Yes, many people find it so. But, Jesus makes it clear that to be his disciple, we must be prepared to sacrifice our comfort, and even things that we cherish deeply. Losing an eye or hand is a big deal: but, Jesus uses these symbolically as something which we must be willing to part with if it keeps us from obeying God.

This is the sort of case where theory and talking is not as good as practice. “If any man will do his will,” said Jesus, “he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17.)

There are many people who can verify that it is entirely possible to have a happy life and later rewarding marriage despite abstinence from masturbation. But, the only way, in some sense, to become convincedRise of that is to try the experiment. And, if one is not able to try the experiment, that suggests that this is more of a problem than one might suspect. If you find yourself in this situation, you will find strength and encouragement if you will read the recent counsel of the Church and if you will take up these matters with your bishop, and with the Lord.

If there is an issue that you have been wondering about, you can often find the latest answers at the FAIR wiki, found at fairmormon.org. If you can’t find your answer there, feel free to pose your question to the FAIR apologists by visiting the FAIR contact page. Occasionally, such a question will be featured on FAIR Questions. Before questions are used for this podcast, permission is obtained from the questioner.

Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to [email protected]. Or join the conversation at fairblog.org.

Tell your friends about us and help increase the popularity of this podcast by subscribing in iTunes and by writing a review.

Music for this episode was provided courtesy of Lawrence Green.

The opinions expressed in this podcast are not necessarily the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or of FAIR.

Articles of Faith Podcast #22 – Neal Rappleye – Making God in Our Own Image to Cast Aside His Prophets

by

Podcast: Download (28.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

neal-rappleyeNeal Rappleye volunteers with FairMormon, The Interpreter Foundation, and writes on his own blog called Studio et Quoque Fide. He is currently attending Utah Valley University and working towards a degree in History, with a minor in Political Science. He served a mission for the LDS Church in the Virginia Richmond Mission from August 2006 to August 2008. He joins us today to talk about an article that he wrote on his blog, the entry is entitled, Making God in Our Own Image to Cast Aside His Prophets.

Questions addressed in this episode:

While a more direct rebuttal to an article featured on the Rational Faith’s blog by Lori Burkman, entitled Disgracing God to Save a Prophet. The themes in the article and the general principles are the points I wish to focus.

In that article on Rational Faiths, there is an assumption that the author makes, and frankly, others have made as well. That is that God would not have commanded polygamy. That conclusion is compounded by the idea that, consequently, Joseph Smith must have been a mistake of Joseph’s own making. How do you answer that concern?

Part of the arguments that are presented by both articles are a perceived allegiance to God or Prophet’s almost to the point that they are mutually exclusive choices, it is one or the other. In Lori’s article her assertion is in her title, defending Joseph is seen as disparaging God. Your counter argument seems to be that Lori, and perhaps others that share her conclusions, are creating a god that fits what they feel comfortable worshiping, they create a god they can agree with, rather than seeking to find a way to agree with God as he is, regardless of the comforts that are in jeopardy with such an assumption. In some ways it sounds like you are both making the same argument but in different directions. So what makes your way, more agreeable in your sight?

For those that engage in reading blogs and various material found online, even from those professing to be members of the church, is a troubling undercurrent, and this is brought up in your article that is, “that people seem know better what God’s will is than do his chosen prophets, past and present.” Perhaps you could elaborate on that point.

There is a point that I think is interesting to consider when looking at any critique of either the church or its teachings. In your article you project or even take the path of Lori’s rationale to its next logical step. You say, “She would replace a God who commands polygamy under some circumstances with one that is inept in actually guiding his Church, or alternatively chooses (for some reason) entirely inept leaders.” Is this the conundrum so to speak, when people open the door to eroding prophetic authority with church practices? Is this the conclusion that they must then face? Is this the kind of God I believe in?

I would love it if you could read your own words, the concluding paragraph of the article as I believe it puts a nice conclusion on both this interview and the article:

I don’t like polygamy any more than you do. Personal experience of my own makes it very hard for me to cope with the idea that God would command his prophet to do something that could so deeply hurt and seemingly betray his wife Emma. I very much feel for Emma and admire the courage she showed during such a trying part of her life. I am not saying God is to blame for every action (related to polygamy) of Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young or anyone else trying to live this difficult command from God. But faith requires that we come to terms with the things God does that we don’t really like—not pawn all the blame onto his prophets who are imperfectly but sincerely trying to follow his will.

RiseUp Podcast – Israel’s Faith Crisis

by

Podcast: Download (11.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

From time to time we may hear the term Faith Crisis. Some may even talk about it as if it a new thing. But, there have been others, good men and women, even in ancient scriptures, who have experienced and made it through challenges to their faith. Some stories come from all the way back in the Old Testament.

Israel of the Old Testament, also known as Jacob, was one that was keenly aware of the value and implications of a birthright. Having traded his brother Esau for the birthright, Jacob or Israel, would have been well acquainted with the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant that were attached to the patriarchal order and birthright concept of the time.

Part of the promised blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant is that one would receive a promised land, a place that is set apart from the world by the divine hand of God to be a place of protection, both spiritually and temporally. One LDS Scholar, LeGrand L. Baker, talks about another aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant that articulates the blessing of invulnerability or protection as found in Abraham 2:11 which reads.

11 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal

There is a promise that one will be preserved, and that their righteous posterity will be preserved as well. From the time of Abrahamic, to Issac, down to Israel, this has been the case. Generations of righteous posterity had been preserved and protected. For Israel, circumstances were such, that he favored his 11th son, Joseph. Joseph was to inehrit the birthright after Ruben had forfeited it. Joseph was the first son of his second wife, and tradition called for him to be the heir of that birthright. Israel felt that perhaps that promised lineage of the protections and blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant would continue through Joseph.

In consideration of these factors, after Joseph’s brother’s sell him as a slave and bring a bloodied coat back to their father Israel implying that Joseph had been killed, we can see another layer to the suffering Israel must have faced.

It is a sad thing to experience the death of a child. The scripture in Genesis 37:34-35 states that Israel, upon the realization of his son Joseph’s death:

“rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days.

And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.”

Not only had his son died, but it would appear that by all that was in front of Jacob, that the Lord’s promises of protection and for a righteous posterity were broken. This child of promise had died. How else could Israel see what had taken place. In his old age, a son that showed promise had been taken from him. Israel may have even felt some sense of guilt as it was he who sent Joseph out to his brothers, some 45 miles away.

Israel may have lost his son, but to a certain extent, he probably experienced a loss of faith as a result of what he felt took place.

As the story continued, we find that even years later after Joseph had been preserved multiple times by the hand of the Lord while living in Egypt, Israel was still hurting from the loss of his son Joseph. In fact, it was something like 20 years later before Israel was told that Joseph was alive and was then reunited with his father.

How that must have felt to Israel to see his initial faith in the Lord’s promise sustained after all those years. After years of pain from what he perceived as a great and terrible loss, the Lord was able to show his Hand in the keeping of his covenants. To Israel it would appear to be as if his son had been risen from the dead, a miracle explainable by either extreme coincidence or improbable odds, or the divine hand of the Lord.

How then can we see more from Israel’s story of redemption and salvation?

On the LDS Church’s website, LDS.org is found the statement under the topic of Abrahamic Covenant:

A person can receive all the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant—even if he or she is not a literal descendant of Abraham—by obeying the laws and ordinances of the gospel

As one completes the ordinances of the gospel, including and up to being sealed in the temple, families become under the abrahamic covenant. These are individuals taught by faithful leaders to come to love the Lord and his promises. While there is nothing in the covenant that says that trials and hard times will be kept at bay, some will see these hard times as a sign that God has forgotten them, or is punishing them, or is breaking his word.

Much like Israel, there might seem to be overwhelming evidence that God’s promise was of no value or was broken. But, like Israel, we can see that God’s hand is watching over all his Children. The ways in which God answers our prayers or keeps his promises may seem allusive, or impossible. Even if we see how God’s promises may be fulfilled, it may not be the way He has chosen to fulfill his promises. However, similar to Israel and his son Joseph, the Lord does keep his promises. Sometimes it may take 20 years, sometimes it may take a week; but the Lord will keep his promises.

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

RiseUp Podcast: Small and Simple Truths Blog Interview

by

Podcast: Download (26.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

SST-Header

In this episode of the RiseUp podcast, Blake sits down with some young adults who are called as digital missionaries in their stake. As digital missionaries they share articles and testimony on a blog called SmallAndSimpleTruths.com

These youth talk about being called as digital missionaries, and what it means to defend your beliefs online, as well as sharing your testimony with strangers. They talk about how they were able to overcome the fears they had and how this calling has blessed their lives and the lieves of their readers.

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

Articles of Faith: Samuel M. Brown – First Principles and Ordinances (Book)

by

Podcast: Download (73.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

headshot-MikeStack-2014-09-24-art-background-croppedSAMUEL M. BROWN is Assistant Professor of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Medical Ethics and Humanities at the University of Utah and an intensive care physician in the Shock Trauma ICU at Intermountain Medical Center. His award-winning book In Heaven as It Is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early  Mormon Conquest of Death was published by Oxford University Press in 2012. He is also translator of Aleksandr Men’s Son of Man: The Story of Christ and Christianity. Here is here today to talk about his book First Principles and Ordinances: The Fourth Article of Faith in Light of the Temple being published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

Questions addressed in this interview:

Your book addresses, among other things, the topic of faith, but your journey through your own faith crisis becomes an important backdrop for your perspective as a writer. Perhaps you could give the cliff notes version of that to set the stage.

Your book is part of the Living Faith Book Series that is being put out by the Maxwell Institute at BYU. As I understand the series as a whole, and therefore part of the feel and function of your book, is the reconciliation of faith and knowledge which is particularly notable challenge some are having in discourse about Mormonism. How do you seek to approach the challenge of reconciling faith and knowledge with your book?

There is a statement that opens the promotional one-sheet that I received on your book that was quite gripping and thought provoking. I don’t know if you wrote it or if it was someone with the publishing side of this effort, but I want to share it and give you a chance to expound upon that in context of your book: “Familiarity can lead to a kind of blindness in life and in religion. The first principles and ordinances of the Latter-day Saint gospel are particularly at risk for misunderstanding through such familiar neglect.”

While not set up in such a way that it addresses critical questions that some may have about the church, there is a sort of positive apologetic angle, almost devotional feel to your book. Is that a fair assessment?

Your book addresses active faith initially. This is something that I have been studying and feeling for years now so it was nice to see some confirmation in your writings to that idea. You speak of two main models of faith at least the way Latter-day Saints talk about Faith, what are those two models?

RiseUp Podcast: Helping People in Faith Crisis

by

Podcast: Download (18.5MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Faith Crisis is a term describing a period of time or event where someone has serious doubts about their belief’s. You may have even experienced a faith crisis yourself. But how are we to approach those who are experiencing or have experienced this “faith crisis?” We have a few ideas….

There is a website called Millennial Mormon’s. It is a blog site that posts some decent articles but does so from a perspective and understanding shared by the rising generation, those of you who are in seminary or institute programs. The tag line of the site is “your grandpa’s gospel, now with #hashtags.

On that site was posted an article by Tanner Gilliland on November 4th, 2014. The article is entitled, “4 “DO NOTs” for Treating People in a Faith Crisis.” I actually found the article to be a pretty good opening reference that addresses some of the things that we may find ourselves doing or thinking with respect to people that experience a faith crisis. While I don’t agree with all the assertions they are minor and I trust that you will be smart enough and in tune enough to take in the correct spirit of the article, and not haggle over a couple of words.

4 “DO NOTs” for Treating People in a Faith Crisis

BY TANNER GILLILAND · NOVEMBER 4, 2014

With more and more information becoming available on the internet, more and more people are asking important questions about the church and its history. Sometimes these questions lead to serious doubts. Many of these doubts and concerns are not easily solved and require much prayerful effort, patience, and study.

Some people feel that they can’t find adequate answers to their questions so they leave the church. This usually is not an easy decision for them. Some lose friends or family, and others even lose their employment.

It is imperative that faithful members of the church, particularly millennials, learn how to appropriately interact with those who wrestle with doubt. To that end, I have created this list of things NOT to do when someone you know raises serious questions about religion:

1) Do NOT assume they are sinning

While sin is certainly darkens our minds, it is not always the cause of doubt. We must eliminate the stigma that those who doubt have some lurking evil, and that those who leave the church were just looking for a way out. This unrighteous judgment can be both harmful to us (it is a sin) and detrimental to the person we are judging.

2) Do NOT pretend that you know all the facts

Our religion is very complex. There are aspects of our doctrine and history that are very difficult to understand and we don’t claim to know all the answers. People who are deeply concerned with these issues have often given them many hours of study and consideration, so the “seminary answers” often don’t quite cut it. Rather than throwing out platitudes, try to understand their perspective. Share what you know and understand, and acknowledge that you don’t know everything. Always be honest.

3) Do NOT belittle their concerns

As one who ventures “down the rabbit hole” so to speak, I can testify of the frustration that comes when someone tells you not to worry so much. If we believe that our religious convictions will affect the our eternal destiny then of course we should worry about getting it right! What seems like a minuscule molehill to you may be a monstrous mountain for another. We can’t solve problems by ignoring them. Remember that our religion started with a boy who had some serious religious questions. Instead of disregarding the question, listen to the concerns and help find the answers.

4) Do NOT ostracize them

Though this is the last item, it is probably the most important. Nobody should feel like they aren’t able to express their concerns for fear of losing friends or family. Our love cannot be conditional upon someone’s level of belief. Christlike love is unconditional.To individuals with spouses whose beliefs are different, remember the counsel of Paul: “And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.” (1 Cor 7:13-14)People need your love, not your diagnosis. Expressing doubt or even leaving the church does not equate to being a bad person. In the end, even the acts of good by atheists will be accounted to them as righteousness. God’s love does not have a membership number or require a temple recommend. Neither should ours.From the Joseph Smith Papers project to the video about temple clothing, the church is taking progressive steps toward transparency and more open dialogue about controversial issues. I believe that our generation will be instrumental in continuing that trend. Let us always be quick to lend a listening ear, a supportive shoulder, and most importantly, an open heart.”

– End Article –

Wether you know someone right now experiencing some challenges to their faith or not, you will likely encounter someone in the not so distant future. So it is best to have this information and resource at the ready should this come up.

Should you be experiencing a faith crisis right now yourself, and someone is not following these 4 basic principles, try to do your best to also extend the same level of understanding you want others to have with you. Take these 4 things and reverse them…with a slight adjustment.

1) Don’t assume that people are judging you harshly.

2) Don’t assume that people know nothing about faith challenges – many go through them, and many come through them with even stronger faith than when they entered the faith crisis.

3) Do not belittle people who are trying to show concern but may not be the best at being crisis counselors.

4) Do not ostracize yourself. I once heard the analogy that the worst time to leave the storm shelter is when the hurricane is passing over you. In other words, if you are having a faith crisis and you are scared or upset and don’t know where to turn for help or answers, it is best to not leave the church, the source of strength that you need to help you through this time, especially when you are in the middle of the trial.

We don’t always know how to respond to people when they encounter difficulties in life, wether they be faith related or not. So, remember to be patient with others, as you would want them to be patient with you.

In conclusion I want to share with you a thought that was kind of sneaky from the October 2014 General Conference. Elder Anderson gave a talk and in the foot note of that talk was a quote from President Eyring that says this about how to approach those in faith crisis:

“In your love for them you may decide to try to give them what they ask. You may be tempted to go with them through their doubts, with the hope that you can find proof or reasoning to dispel their doubts. Persons with doubts often want to talk about what they think are the facts or the arguments that have caused their doubts, and about how much it hurts… You and I can do better if we do not stay long with what our students see as the source of their doubts… Their problem does not lie in what they think they see; it lies in what they cannot yet see… We do best if we turn the conversation soon to the things of the heart, those changes of heart that open spiritual eyes.”

(“‘And Thus We See’: Helping a Student in a Moment of Doubt” [address to Church Educational System religious educators, Feb. 5, 1993], 3, 4

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

RiseUp Podcast: President Eyring Defending Marriage at Vatican Colloquium

by

Podcast: Download (24.5MB)

Subscribe: RSS

EyringHB_1Apr10President Eyring of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was invited to speak at a gathering at the Vatican-The headquarters for the Catholic Church worldwide—Think of it as the Salt Lake City of the Catholic Church..sort of….

(Here is a link to the Church’s press release and world report video on the gathering)

This gathering featured religious leaders from all over the world and from a variety of denominations. In some cases this gathering was called Humanum, in others the gathering was simply referred to the Colloquium.

The website for the event states this as the purpose of the gathering:

The Complementarity of Man and Woman: An International Colloquium is a gathering of leaders and scholars from many religions across the globe, to examine and propose anew the beauty of the relationship between the man and the woman, in order to support and reinvigorate marriage and family life for the flourishing of human society.

Witnesses will draw from the wisdom of their religious tradition and cultural experience as they attest to the power and vitality of the complementary union of man and woman. It is hoped that the colloquium be a catalyst for creative language and projects, as well as for global solidarity, in the work
 of strengthening the nuptial relationship, both for the good of the spouses themselves and for the good of all who depend upon them.

The Colloquium is sponsored by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and co-sponsored by the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and
 the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.

In short, the Catholic church put on a meeting of religious leaders from across the world to talk about and defend the family unit, but more specifically, marriage between a man and a woman. His presentation was about 13 minutes long. This was an important presentation for a few reasons that I can see, but there may be even more.

It was important because historically, such a connection between the LDS Church and the Catholic church was not such an open door. I personally consider this to be a tremendous act of kindness and christian fellowship on the part of the Catholic church to invite President Eyring, but also for President Eyring to attend.

This was also significant in light of the various perspectives and direction the laws of many nations throughout the world have taken with respect to legalizing same-sex marriage. Sometimes we might feel like a small minority of people who believe that marriage should be only between man and woman legally and lawfully married. This event stands to show that some of the largest and most well respected faith traditions in the world can be unified in our defense of God’s moral standard regardless of where some in the world advocate.

President Eyring stood as a prime example of what it means to defend our faith to all the world. He is an apostle and hopefully you will sense the nature of his calling coming through in the message he was sharing. He spoke with authority, and with purpose. While this particular environment was not considered hostile, other engagements between the communities of some of these faiths have not always been so kind to the LDS Church. President Eyring, without fear and without reservation bore his testimony of God our Father, Jesus his divine Son and our Savior, and of the central role of eternal marriage in the plan of Salvation. His example of both missionary work and being one to stand and defend the faith is a powerful example to the membership.

Additionally, this became a message to the larger audience of people that may have misconceptions about the LDS views on marriage in a polygamous sense. While not a direct part of his message, it should be clear that a top leader of the faith has 1 wife. The relationship of current church practice with regard to polygamy is still in question with many people in spite of a tremendous amount of transparency on the part of the church with regards to this issue.

His message is a call for a renascence or a rebirth of happy marriages. While many of you listening to this are young adults, and probably not married or even engaged, marriage is a topic that is something you should be educated on in order to either put your life in order, or know what it means to seek for and work towards having a happy marriage. When that time comes to get married, or what qualities you are to look for is a topic for another time. However, as you listen to President Eyring’s message, you may hear some important advice as you move on in life towards that goal.

So, I am going to play for you parts of the presentation, but I would encourage you to watch the presentation in its entirety.

Articles of Faith 20: Geoff Biddulph – Why Didn’t The Church Teach Me This Stuff?

by

Podcast: Download (53.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Geoff BiddulphGeoff Biddulph is a convert to the Church of just over 15 years. Before joining he read a lot of anti-Mormon literature. However, it was the Spirit that converted him and helped him be open to being baptized. Since then, Geoff has read the book of Mormon more than 10 times and have read the entire Bible at least five times. He has a large library of Church-related material from which he draws upon as he writes for the Millennial Star blog—where he has contributed for nearly a decade. He his wife Cindy were married in the Denver temple nearly 11 years ago and they now have five kids. He is joining us by phone today from Denver, CO. Geoff is here to talk about an article he wrote for the Millennial Star Blog entitled, “Why Didn’t the Church Teach Me This Stuff”

Questions:

During your time as an LDS blogger, how have you seen the “bloggernacle” as it is often referred to, the catalog of blogs who claim some voice in the Mormon Community, how have you seen it change during that time?

While we seek to focus on Articles that come from what would be considered more academic or scholarly, we do find articles from time to time that strike an apologetic tone and regardless of the level of scholarship, the argument presented can help those struggling to reframe their position in such a way that might help calm the stormy waters of a faith crisis. Your article entitled, Why Didn’t the Church Teach Me This Stuff, was released on November 12th, 2014. This was a response to a gospel topics essay that the Church released on Polygamy in the early church, specifically during the Kirtland and Nauvoo periods. If you could, for those that haven’t read the article, summarize what one might find in that piece, specifically the parts that have caused some stir in public discourse recently.

The Church released its gospel topics essay Around October 22nd. A google search just this morning showed a massive amount of news outlets posting articles just three days ago (from the date of this recording), so on November 11th there seemed to be this bump in interest, which makes me wonder what about this topic seems to be keeping this subject around so long?

Your article is in response to a strain of discourse that centers around some discontent or uneasiness with the Church’s release of this gospel topics article. What is that position and why did that strike as something that warranted a response?

You ask the question of the reader but I want to turn it back on you, Why didn’t the Church teach me this stuff?

It is a difficult position to respond to because you don’t want to demean what someone is feeling, that kind of hurt or shock is sometimes not so easily dismissed. So, how does your article serve to address that dissonance?

This may sound like a loaded question or one that is hard to answer in a short podcast, but if people are feeling that the church hid this from them, it begs the question, what is the role or responsibility the church has towards its members with respect to topics such as this? All the lurid details as you put it in your article?

The article concludes:

The Church did teach you stuff about even controversial topics. Perhaps you were distracted or didn’t pay attention or were not curious enough to explore on your own. You are ultimately responsible for your own learning, and you are responsible for how you respond to new information. That is what that whole “free agency” thing is all about.

Articles of Faith Podcast: Dan Peterson – Reason, Experience, and the Existence of God

by

Podcast: Download (46.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

DanPetersonBio: Daniel C. Peterson holds a Ph.D., University of California at Los Angeles, is a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, and is the founder of the University’s Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, for which he served as editor-in-chief until mid-August 2013. He has published and spoken extensively on both Islamic and Mormon subjects. He is the author, among other things, of a biography entitled Muhammad: Prophet of God.

Formerly chairman of the board of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and an officer, editor, and author for its successor organization, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, his professional work as an Arabist focuses on the Qur’an and on Islamic philosophical theology. Peterson is most recently, although it may not seem so recent anymore, Chairman and President of the Interpreter found at Mormon Interpreter dot com. He is here to today to talk about an article that he recently released for The Interpreter Journal entitled Reason, Experience, and the Existence of God.

Questions and topics addressed in the interview:

Dan Peterson, loved by some, agitating to others, and probably a variety of opinions in between. But how does Dan Peterson view Dan Peterson?

You have a blog on Patheos entitled Sic et Non. What does it really mean and how does that frame your writing on that blog?

When you are not blogging, you have other irons in many fires it seems. One of those efforts is the Interpreter. I don’t know that enough people are aware of what The Interpreter is or what it’s goals are as a foundation. Perhaps you could take a minute to offer a brief introduction.

Both your professional work at BYU and the subject of the articles we are going to be addressing today centers around Islam, which uses the Qur’an as its central scripture. When did you first say, “This Islam stuff, I think I ought to check this out. Qur’an, yeah that sounds like a light read.” What was the genesis of your interest in Islamic studies?

What value is there in the average Latter-day Saint in picking up the Qur’an and at least giving it a read let alone dedicate and study time to it? Is there tempering caution with such a thing?

Referring somewhat back to the title of your blog Sic et Non, your article in the interpreter essentially asks the main question Must human faith be completed by reason, or not? Is reason the genesis of faith or the other way around? Please set the stage for how this article came into being.

This article takes the reader on quite a journey so I want to try and help navigate that read. What I mean by that is the article starts out with what you’ve said, then it refers somewhat back to your work and studies with Islamic literature, and commentaries on it, then hits on alien radio transmissions, then back to Faith and Reason. So, let’s take the next step in the article

In Robert Reilly’s book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, the case is brought up that Reason is the pre-requisite for revelation which you feel is a problematic foundation for the development of faith. Why is that?

A quote was repeated by Riley in his book, but the original quote was from Qadi ‘Abd al-Jabbar, an Islamic theologian that lived about 1000 years ago who said, “Reason first needs to establish the existence of God before undertaking the question as to whether God has spoken to man. Natural theology must be antecedent to theology.” On the surface that sounds fairly convincing, but you find this also problematic, in what way? Can reason alone establish the existence of God?

Is the assumption here that if one can reason that there is a God, then from there the idea of revelation becomes more approachable, less of a deceptive thing where the individual is just fooling themselves into believing in God is talking with them?

What then is the role of reason in authenticating revelation? Is faith, as was taught in Alma 32, the seed, and reason is the fertilizer or perhaps the soil for what grows up into revelation and, symbolically, the Tree of Life? It seems to me that works because reason has produced a variety of symbolic plants, but the seed that reason must foster is one that leads to eternal life.

As your article is a journey that seems to end where it began, only coupled now with reason and experience, this interview is brought back around to the Interpreter and its core value. You end your article with the following:
“The Interpreter Foundation was established on the premise that both reason and revelation have their place in determining religious truth. We believe reasoned investigation to be essential, but we will not discount revelation.”

Moving forward, how will we see this evident in the works of The Interpreter? I believe you have some new titles coming out in joint effort with Eborn Books. What are those?

Daniel C. Peterson is the Chairman and President of The Interpreter found at Mormon Interpreter dot com. A link to this article Reason, Experience, and the Existence of God will be found at the posting for this episode at blog.fairmormon.org.

Click here to read Daniel C. Peterson’s article in the Interpreter – Reason, Experience, and the Existence of God.

RiseUp Podcast: Building a Testimony on a Sure Foundation – Part 2

by

Podcast: Download (22.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Part 2 of a 2 Part episode from J. Max Wilson on strategies for building a strong testimony on a sure foundation by being a critical consumer of information. This means judging information, its sources, its place in revealed truth and doctrines, and avoiding folklore and speculative teachings.

For part 1 of this podcast, click here.

RiseUp is a podcast designed for Young Adults in Seminary and Institute to offer answers to difficult or critical questions about the LDS Church, it’s culture, and teachings.

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo