By Living Waters

So begins The Captive Mind by Czeslaw Milosz. I’m looking forward to reading further, and to reading more of his work.

I recently subscribed to the LDS Newsroom email list, recently receiving notice of their piece, “Proportion and Perspective in Polygamy Reporting.” I quickly encountered a lesson that perhaps Mormons should considering taking to heart. Let me explain.

As you may know, of late Mormons have borne the burden of having to distinguish themselves from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a group in Texas that distinguishes itself from the Salt Lake City-based Church by the practice of polygamy and a claim to faithful observance of original Mormon doctrine. The group members want to be known as “Fundamentalist Mormons.” The LDS Church doesn’t appreciate this at all, seeking to lay claim to the name “Mormon” and distinguish themselves from the polygamous group. Their analysis is quite instructive. Their explanation begins:
(more…)

Recently I was interviewed by David Wheaton for his radio program, The Christian Worldview.

The Christian Worldview with David Wheaton
06-28-08 Of Worldviews and Wimbledon
My interview begins at 6:45 and runs to 13:30. Enjoy.

When the missionary asked whether I had prayed about the Book of Mormon, I knew we were entering what I term “the realm of decision.” This is precisely the point at which the missionaries offer what they deem to be the clincher. They firmly believe that if people read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and feel good about it, that feeling is the testimony of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith truly was a prophet of God, the prophet of the restoration.

I admitted that I had not pray specifically about the Book of Mormon. I explained that I had prayed and thanked God for his faithfulness, for his presence, for the many answers to prayer. Then I noted that I had previously read the Book of Mormon and prayed about it. I also noted that when I had done so, there was a time in my life when I didn’t receive the answer that the missionaries expected. (more…)

My conversation with the Mormon missionaries turned toward the Book of Mormon. They had given me a new copy at our first meeting and had asked me to read a few passages. I had. They asked my thoughts about a passage in 3 Nephi 11. This is a chapter that tells of Christ appearing to the Nephites in somewhere in the Americas. As I had read the passage, it reminded me of a resonant text in John 20. Here are the Book of Mormon verses that I had some thoughts about. (more…)

Today I met with the Mormon missionaries again. It was another interesting and important conversation. I’d like to make a few observations about our conversation.

Our time began with with typical greetings. Accompanying the missionaries was a young man in his early-20s. He is a recent convert. He was a bit to zealous and forceful, often dominating the conversation with his overdrawn enthusiasm. He kicked off the conversation even before we had prayed. The missionaries said nothing. “I’ve got a question,” he offered. “Given all the different Christian denominations here in Colorado Springs, how do you know which one is the one true church?” (more…)

This week I met with a few Mormon missionaries — actually two missionaries and a young local man who drove them to the meeting (as the missionaries are limited to 17 miles per day with their own car — back to bikes, I should think). My friend Dustin was with me. We chatted for about an hour. Our learning experience centered on why they didn’t bring their Bibles and why they surmised that using logic simply won’t get people to the truth. Perhaps I’ll address the latter issue later; for now, lets focus our attention on why they didn’t bring their Bibles.

Some prefatory comments are in order. (more…)

It is good and right to be pious, to be devoted to our Creator with an ultimate allegiance of heart, mind and will. And this pertains to matters of our hands, our feet, and our mouths — indeed, our entire beings. Of all the commandments of God, only one is the greatest: to love the Lord our God. He is our center, the One around whom we orbit.

But how our love is expressed sometimes is above and beyond our calling. We desire to ascribe to God superlatives that are ultra-superlatives, ascriptions that exceed even what he has revealed as most worthy to ascribe to him. Our motives may be honorable though our extrapolations unnecessary if not muddled and mired in thoughts that are not God’s thoughts.

Such excessive expressions may be found, I believe, in such ejaculations as, “God is all I need,” and “no creed but Christ,” and “no law but love.” Such a list could be extended by the length of bumper stickers lathered on the rears of the vehicles that God’s people own and operate. (more…)

It is highly unlikely that I’ll bother to comment much about Obama and the coordinated declarations of Christian faith and denunciations of biblical authority. Nevertheless, here’s a peek into the mind and heart of the man who would, to my thinking, make America an Obamanation. On March 3rd, 2008, he said the following.

Just what part of the Sermon on the Mount he was alluding to remains a mystery. The part about lust and adultery? Unlikely. The part about righteousness? Unlikely. Oh, he part about not judging? Perhaps. But then what is one to do with Jesus’s judgmental words regarding adultery and lust, not to mention his spicy confrontations with religious and political leaders?

I don’t know, but waving the magic wand of “the Sermon on the Mount” just doesn’t do it for me. I hold to the canon of Scripture. If Obama does too, then why pit Paul against Jesus? That wouldn’t be a position of faith but a position of opposition.

And then one wonders why Obama felt the need to swipe at Romans 1 as “obscure.” Surely Romans 1 isn’t any more obscure than is the Sermon on the Mount. This appears as a sort of hermeneutic of/by preference. Perhaps one could be forgiven for supposing that to Obama’s mind, any part of Scripture that diverges from his own ideology and socio-political agenda naturally would come off as “obscure.” That’s one way to muzzle the words of God.

Perhaps the more manly position would be a full frontal rejection of Romans rather than a back-sided obscurantism. Of course, that would make too easy a target for seeing Obama’s Christian faith as dodgy.

You and I both know that Obama and James Dobson have been sharing their divergent thoughts on biblical interpretation. I suppose that on this front my post reveals that I’d be more in line with Dobson’s remarks. If Obama learned his interpretation of Scripture from Jeremiah Wright, then perhaps we can more fully understand the squirrelly nature of his use of Scripture.

Do not be deceived, dear friends. What Obama promotes is nothing less than abominable.

Chesterton notes, “Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say.” Unfortunately, so many ideologues claim that “Science says,” when what they supply are scientists’ projections of personal philosophy. Perhaps that is where the delusion resides. (Hint, hint. Wink, wink.)