Jana Reiss’s Flunking Doctrine

by Dennis B. Horne

            I have almost come to dread running into Jana Reiss’s blog posts because they are so inept and activist for modern progressive/liberal propaganda. I don’t know what missionaries taught her the discussions/Preach My Gospel, but either they did one lousy job, or she didn’t listen, and instead got her “gospel” knowledge from internet dissidents and our severely troubled society at large.

            These erroneous sources of information have enabled her to misunderstand and misstate most everything she muses or complains about in her aptly named “flunking” blog. Perhaps she knows she is clueless about what she writes; I don’t know. Yet she does have the modern misinformed activists agenda, and that keeps her from gaining any improvement or enlightenment regarding gospel subjects.

            She recently criticized President Dallin H. Oaks, pitting her false understanding of the gospel against his correct teachings in General Conference. The result is that she looks like a fool with a third-grade level of competence. (I sometimes wonder why someone so poorly informed feels to open her mouth and remove all doubt.)

Seeking Truth

by Dennis B. Horne

            Some months ago I noticed the comments of a critic of the Church posted on a (highly critical) chat-site forum. This person wanted to engage with me in a discussion (debate) about Church history and doctrine in hopes of causing doubt or loss of faith. His opening catch-phrase was clever. Something like: “I assume he is a truth-seeker” (meaning me). This was meant to sound innocent; after all, for goodness sake, shouldn’t we all be truth-seekers?; especially Latter-day Saints?

            At first glance I knew sophistry was in play. I realized that this question “are you/is he a truth-seeker,” was a wolf-question in sheep-question disguise. It was a way to ensnare, to set a trap. Something like “beware of the evil behind the smiling eyes.”

            But it also gave me further occasion to ponder whether or not I am a truth-seeker, and if so, what kind of truth-seeker I am, and this caused me to engage in some introspection. Sometimes the deceptions of the enemy (Satan’s mortal servants and spokespeople who often don’t know they are) can prod thoughtful people into adjusting or refining their thinking and views, and such was the case for me. While I made no direct response to the subtle crafty critic then, I now offer some broader thoughts on the subject.

LGBT Activists and Reporters Oppose the Prophets Again

by Dennis B. Horne

             In an LGBT activist “news story” recently published by the Salt Lake Tribune, Peggy Stack, the (alleged) religion reporter and progressive activist, took special aim at President Dallin H. Oaks’ message to church leaders in the General Authority leadership training session of General Conference. (Whether this Tribune piece is really news is debatable, but it did give Peggy an opening to gripe.) President Oaks referenced and defined the word “gender” in the Proclamation on the Family and in other church publication since then, and clarified that it meant biological birth sex—not what some confused person might decide to decree for themselves later. “ ‘Finally, the long-standing doctrinal statements reaffirmed in [The Family: A Proclamation to the World] 23 years ago will not change. They may be clarified as directed by inspiration.’ For example, ‘the intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation and as used in Church statements and publications since that time is biological sex at birth.’ ”

            This doctrinal statement and clarification from President Oaks evidently upset and offended some LGBT activists, including Peggy Stack (the religion reporter), who then raced to collect some quotations from her activist contacts that could be used to criticize the story. Hence the title including the misleading words “dark day for transgender Latter-day Saints.” The fact that a non-Latter-day Saint (a transgender excommunicant) gave her the quote is ignored; maybe it is simply the fault of a bad headline writer).

            This excommunicated (former) member, who clearly decided it was more important to portray themselves as supposedly becoming the opposite sex than to be a member of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is then referenced again: “Oaks’ definition of gender as being the ‘biological sex at birth,’ she [or really he] said, directly contradicts Hall’s own ‘personal revelation.’ ” Stack explained that this person “believes that gender is eternal but that she was born in the wrong body.” And “That is a view shared by many transgender Latter-day Saints who continue in their faith and practice with the church.”

            There are some major issues brought up here. One pertains to the validity of “personal revelation” that contradicts the position of the Church of Jesus Christ and the scriptures. Another is the faulty doctrinal notions of the transgender group Stack references. It might very well be that the very reason that the First Presidency devoted some time to clarifying this doctrine is because some people were viewing it wrong. And another is to speak of “transgender Latter-day Saints who continue in their faith and practice with the church.” People who use surgery and hormones to attempt to change their God-given sex would be highly restricted in any “faith” or “practice” in the Church; their status would leave them able to do little more than a nonmember.

            President Harold B. Lee shared an experience from his tenure as a stake president that explains this transgender activist’s experience with getting false personal revelation. A man in his stake had committed gross immorality, having “harmed a lovely young girl.” The stake presidency and high council met for most of a night and deliberated. The verdict was that the man should be excommunicated. That morning, the man’s brother met a weary President Lee at his office. “This man said, ‘I want to tell you that my brother wasn’t guilty of that thing which you charged him with.’ ‘How do you know he wasn’t guilty?’ I asked. ‘Because I prayed, and the Lord told me he was innocent,’ the man answered.” Thereafter followed a little discussion, in which President Lee interviewed this man who was the brother of the man who was excommunicated. He quickly learned that the man was inactive, did not keep the commandments, and was angry with (had been offended by) his bishop. He did not pray or read the scriptures. President Lee then explained to him how attending church and keeping the commandments and praying and studying the word of God were necessary activities that helped someone to carry the Spirit of the Lord with them and receive personal revelation; the most important one of all being keeping the law of chastity; being morally clean.

            “ ‘Now then,’ I said, ‘fifteen of the best living men in the Pioneer Stake prayed last night. They heard the evidence and every man was united in saying that your brother was guilty. Now, you, who do none of these things, you say you prayed, and you got an opposite answer. How would you explain that?’ Then this man gave an answer that I think was a classic. He said, ‘Well, President Lee, I think I must have gotten my answer from the wrong source.’ And you know that’s just as great a truth as we can have. We get our answer from the source of the power we list to obey. If we’re keeping the commandments of the devil, we’ll get the answer from the Devil.”

            Could any clearer explanation of this current transgender person’s scenario be given, than that set forth 67 years ago by a prophet of God? Anyone getting answers to prayers that conflict with or contradict the word of the Lord as given through His prophets and apostles can easily conclude they are getting their answers from the Devil, like this confused activist did. He/she won’t accept this truth because it runs counter to their new worldly sinful lifestyle and culture, but it is true nonetheless.

            The second issue is whether male spirits can mistakenly get born in female bodies, or female spirits be born in male bodies. We should just as well ask whether God is perfect or not, whether He makes mistakes or not, whether He is omnipotent or not, and so forth. If we buy this argument, then God becomes imperfect and ceases to be God (some baloney that many LGBT activists are arguing is the case anyway).

God does not make mistakes; He puts the right spirit in the right body: male in male and female in female; that we can know with absolute surety. Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone said that President Marion G. Romney taught the Brethren that God has never put a female spirit in a male body or a male spirit in a female body. "Just a word about homosexuality. President Marion G. Romney said, 'the God of heaven will never put a female spirit in a male body and he’ll never put a male spirit in a female body.' You can write that down as God’s truth. . . . You’re going to hear so much of it in this generation. You need to hear and understand the word of the Lord in this dispensation. And understand the great direction the Brethren have given over the years." God does not make mistakes. The LGBT activist’s arguments are erroneous and only lead themselves and others astray. But Peggy Stack must make an issue of it, being a marvelously misled activist herself—even if it means criticizing in public print a prophet of God. The sad thing is, General Conference time is the most visible time for her to do it and she knows it.

Another Mistaken BYU Harmonize-Evolution-with-Doctrine Movement

by Dennis B. Horne

“There is no need to attempt to harmonize conflicting views when some of the

views are out of harmony with the Standard Works. This is what life is all about.

The Lord is finding out what we will believe in spite of the allurements of the

world or the philosophies of men or the seemingly rational and logical

explanations that astute people make.” Elder Bruce R. McConkie[1]

“Informed members of the Church know that when they come across statements or

 doctrinal explanations which are contrary to what is in the revealed word, they are duty

bound to reject such.” Elder Bruce R. McConkie[2]

“I see others, [BYU Students] sharp, cynical, skeptical, in the know-it-all arrogance of blossoming young manhood and womanhood. They have inquisitive minds. They are easily taught—and easily led astray. Teach these with extra care.” Elder Boyd K. Packer[3]

            I may be behind the news, but I recently learned, to my dismay, that some professors in the Brigham Young University Biology Department are actively promoting another attempt to harmonize evolution with the gospel. Such a misguided and possibly even spiritually dangerous effort must not go unchallenged and uncorrected.

            I recognize and fully appreciate that BYU biologists must study and teach evolution for the school to be acceptable to the world as an accredited institution of higher learning. I also enthusiastically appreciate the almost inestimable value of the great majority of science for the betterment of the world.

            What is not appreciated, and what is unacceptable, is when the theories of the historical life sciences are forced to mix with the gospel of Jesus Christ as found in ancient and modern revelation—specifically, the theory (or theories) of organic evolution. Round pegs just don’t fit in square holes without causing damage; in this case spiritual harm. Where this latest BYU movement loses its way, as with its predecessors, is in supposing it can harmonize evolution of any brand with revealed gospel doctrine.

Modern Science and the Light of Christ in the Biblical Creation Story

by Joseph Callender

Abstract

The scientific properties of Light are key to reconciling science and the biblical creation story. The article thus begins with a brief primer on Light, thereby establishing a sound basis for a scientific analysis of Moses’s masterpiece of subtlety and symbolism.

The dual, wave/particle personality of Light – the “complementarity principle” – defines the “heaven and the earth” of Genesis 1. The creation of Light, followed by the firmament, then the appearance of land and so on is not an account of the creation of Planet Earth, but a metaphor for the creation of the universe.  Understanding this, the major anachronisms plaguing the usual understanding of Genesis 1 disappear and the timeline tracks well with scientists’ “Big Bang” cosmological model.

Re-examining the “fall” in terms of complementarity reveals that the “forbidden fruit” was physical sensory experience, and the fall was a quantum event in which the focus of Adam’s consciousness shifted from God to the physical world in accordance with this principle of quantum physics. Details of the physical creation as distinct from the spiritual then come into sharp focus, the meaning of the six “days” of creation and other symbolic elements becomes apparent, and the old earth/new earth conflict is resolved.

History of the Universe (Detail, cropped from original).
Credit: www.particleadventure.org

Article

Genesis 1: 1 – 2:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Without a basic understanding of modern cosmology and the scientific properties of light, any attempt to reconcile science and the biblical creation story is doomed from the start. The first chapter of Genesis is a metaphor for the creation of the universe, not an account of the creation of Planet Earth. That begins in Chapter 2. When we understand this the apparent anachronisms disappear and the creation story then agrees quite well with scientists’ “big bang” model.

We’ll return to Genesis in a bit, but since the Light of Christ underpins the entire universe, let’s start by discussing some of the properties of light. I’ll try to keep it as simple as possible without losing important detail.

Revelation and Relativity: Modern Science in Abraham 3

by Joseph Callender

Abstract

Abraham 3, Verses 2 through 12 reflect several features of General Relativity, including black holes and time dilation. The 4.1 million solar mass black hole at the center of our galaxy, closely surrounded by thousands of more ordinary (typically 25 – 40 solar mass) black holes, is “the great star,” Kolob, with “many great ones near unto it.” Every galaxy, as far as is currently known, contains one and only one of these “supermassive black holes” (SMBHs), that controls or “governs” the galaxy.

Many well respected physicists, including Nobel Laureates, now also believe black holes likely involve higher-dimensional portals leading out of our universe and into an alternate reality. This is almost certainly the sense in which Kolob is “nearest to the throne of God.”

Another feature of Relativity is the warping of time in the presence of mass, called “time dilation.” Understanding Verses 4 through 10 in terms of time dilation, obscure terms and phrases such as “set time” and relative “reckoning of time” become clear.

Verses 10 and 11 then answer a common question regarding Kolob and our galaxy relative to other galaxies, and neatly wrap up Abraham’s lesson on galactic astrophysics.

Kolob is the Supermassive Black Hole “Sagittarius A*.” Source: Author

Article

Abraham 3:2-10 is scientifically correct in terms of modern galactic astrophysics and General Relativity. Yet Einstein did not publish his seminal paper on General Relativity until 1915, 73 years after first publication of Abraham’s revelation. No one alive in Joseph Smith’s day could have known anything about Relativity’s predictions of black holes, Einstein-Rosen bridges (AKA wormholes), and the warping of time and space (time dilation), except by revelation. Yet there it is, in the first few verses of the chapter!

Terryl Givens Seeks to Weaken Church Doctrine re: “Becoming Like God”

By Dennis B. Horne

            A couple of years ago (Nov. 2017), Terry Givens (now with the Neal A. Maxwell Institute) was interviewed for an LDS Perspectives podcast, giving his views on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ gospel topic essay “Becoming Like God.” As he answered questions, he made a concerted effort to diminish or weaken or dilute the long-standing settled doctrine of the Church that man (men and women) can become like God; can become gods themselves.

            Some of Mr. Givens’ disturbing comments are these:

There is a good deal of folk theology that has developed around this notion, especially during the Brigham Young years. Because of the theologizing of people like Orson Pratt and others, the emphasis was often on world creation. Joseph Smith, of course, in section 132 referred to the possibility that men and women sealed in the everlasting covenant of marriage would produce seed eternally. That was extrapolated to mean that men and women who were exalted would create their own worlds and people them with their own spirits, then preside over those planets as God does over His. There isn’t, as far as I can find, any authoritative scriptural or prophetic pronouncements with that degree of specificity. I think it’s an unfortunate misdirection that serves the church poorly, both because of the delusions of grandeur which it can lead to and because the last thing we want to be known for to an outside community is the aspiration to have planets of our own.

            Setting aside the troubling issue of discounting the teachings of such inspired apostolic timber as Elder Orson Pratt and President Brigham Young, not to mention their contemporaries; and forgetting for a moment the temerity of labeling of their teachings as “theologizing” and “folk theology”; and setting aside for a moment that the Book of Abraham and modern apostles have taught that in the pre-existence the “noble and great ones” already helped create this earth as practice; the most startling comment found in this narration is that Mr. Givens has been unable to find “any authoritative scriptural or prophetic pronouncements” that directly speak of or teach that exalted men and women would one day become gods and preside over worlds/planets, “as God does over His.” And further that Mr. Givens states as a reason that Latter-day Saints don’t want to be known to “outsiders” (also known as non-members) as aspiring to have planets of their own.