Tuesday, May 19, 2020

What would it take to prove Albert Einstein wrong, and what does that mean about religion?

Albert Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity have been proven time and time again. Yet a famous quote by Einstein seems to indicate that he was not 100% confident in his theories:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
That quote, like so many, has been distorted and taken out of context. The more accurate story has to do with a book called 100 Authors against Einstein. He heard about the book and retorted, “If I were wrong, one would have been enough!”


Einstein had a quick wit, which may explain the numerous quotes attributed to him. But this quote, in both of its forms, can teach us a lot about the way science proves something right, and how we could apply that to other sets of ideas, such as religion.

Science as Proof


First, let's talk about an idea that is common among scientists, which is that "science can never prove something to be true." This may be what Einstein was trying to say, and it is a valuable perspective for those working in the scientific fields. However, the line between "fact" and "opinion" is blurrier than some might think. You can never be sure that your research is complete, that all questions have been answered, and no mistakes have been made. Every experiment can be retested to see if it holds true in different circumstances.

That being said, I don’t think that statement is as useful for the general population who are learning science and how it applies to their life. No one has never seen atoms with the naked eye, but scientists have done thousands of experiments that prove their existence. Physicists are still learning more about the way atoms behave, but none of them would tell you not to be confident in their research because they are only 99.9999999% sure that atoms are real. At some point, the proof is strong enough that they can confidently rely on it.

I think confusion also arises because scientists use the word “theory” to describe a set of ideas that has been successfully tested in repeated experiments, to the point where it can be used to confidently predict other results. The Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution, for example, are not just good guesses, they include the most correct scientific explanations we have. We will surely learn new things that will enhance these theories, but scientists are not worried that the entire theories are wrong.



If you have been in a science class recently, you know that we often describe our knowledge of the natural world in terms of “models”. A model is a physical or mental representation of how something works. Models can illustrate relationships and structures through equations, drawings, graphs, or 3D visuals. Learning happens when our brain uses models to connect prior knowledge to new information. Because models are simplifications, virtually every model is incomplete. We don’t have a model or theory that can describe everything in the universe.

Reacting to new ideas

My last blog post explored the question of whether we can really "know" something is true. Here, I want to talk about what happens when we come across something that doesn't fit our mental model of the world, either in the field of science or religion. First I will discuss how a scientist would react to information that doesn't fit his current scientific understanding, and then we'll see if that process can help us in our search for religious truth.

We see extraordinary claims on the internet all the time, such as a drug, diet, or exercise that is a miraculous “secret to instant weight loss.” I often read headlines about experiments that supposedly “breaks the laws of Physics.” How would a scientist react to these stories? I've written five steps that they might consider as they evaluate new information.
  1. We can disregard the information if the experiment it came from is not valid enough to be useful.
  2. We can check the results of the experiment in different ways to see if there really is new information.
  3. We can modify our theories to account for the new data.
  4. We can throw out our old theories and models and create a new theory based on this evidence.
  5. We may not have a good explanation for the contradiction, so we can wait for further research.

Disregarding the information


Most of the “shocking” headlines you see on the internet are often exaggerated or misunderstood, like the Einstein quote I started with. To keep this sensationalism out of academic journals, there is a system of peer review, which allows other scientists to look at the data and check their work before anything is published. If an idea is so outlandish that it breaks proven laws of science, it is unlikely that anyone will even be willing to consider it. This is why patent offices refuse to look at proposals for perpetual motion machines, since it breaks the laws of thermodynamics, such as conservation of energy.



Checking the Experimental Results


When there is a peer-reviewed experiment that does seem to poke a hole in scientific theories, the next step is to try and replicate it. Repeated tests should make it clear whether the conclusions are correct or if there was an error in the original experiment. For instance, scientists recently claimed to discover faster-than-light particles, but they later found that the results were incorrect because the laboratory had a loose fiber optic cable. A more infamous example was the Cold Fusion experiment in 1989. Some researchers believed they had found a cheap, almost limitless form of atomic energy. When more careful experiments were not able to reproduce the results, it became obvious that the original research was flawed. Likewise, whenever someone claims to have discovered a new particle, scientists are wary of accepting it as true until the evidence for their hypothesis is so strong that it has less than 1 in a million chance of being incorrect. Because scientific laws work no matter which way you turn them, we are confident that thorough experiments will bring the truth into clearer focus.



Modifying our models


As I said earlier, the theories and principles that we call “laws” have that name because they have been shown to be true in many valid experiments. We add new ideas to this body of knowledge once there is enough proof. That’s how science moves forward. In fact, Albert Einstein's original theory of relativity was based on a “failed” experiment. Physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had set up a detector to see how much the speed of light changed as the Earth moved in different directions through the universe. When they were not able to detect any change, Einstein hypothesized that the speed of light must be fundamental and unchangeable, while space and time can be changed. This idea was not immediately accepted, as other scientists put forth evidence that seemed to contradict his theory. Eventually, Einstein was vindicated, but only after his idea was carefully investigated through repeated experiments.


Casting aside old theories


There are times when entire theories have been overturned. For most of our history, humans believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and all other bodies revolve around us. If you hadn’t been taught otherwise, you might think this too, as it is a reasonable conclusion when looking at the sky. 



This idea, called the Geocentric (earth-centered) Model, stuck so long because it worked remarkably well. An Egyptian astronomer named Ptolemy described planets that orbited the Earth with smaller movements within those circles called “epicycles.” His math explained the occasional backwards motion of planets, and it is such an accurate model that it is the basis for modern planetarium systems. We could have kept this theory and had no problem predicting the next eclipse. But to leave Earth and reach for the stars themselves, we needed a deeper understanding.

The move toward a Heliocentric (sun-centered) Model of our solar system began with Nicolas Copernicus, almost 1500 years after Ptolemy. Still, it took 100 more years to prove these ideas correct. Astronomers Tycho Brahe and Galileo Galilei made clear observations that contradicted the Geocentric Model. Based on their work, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton developed the mathematics to prove that planets orbited the Sun by the force of gravity.

This model was not immediately accepted, as it contradicted ideas that were thousands of years old.   Some of the hesitation came from religious leaders, who interpreted scriptures such as Psalms 93:1 and Joshua 10:12-13 to claim there must be a fixed Earth with the Sun orbiting it. Yet Galileo himself asserted in his famous letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany that his ideas were in harmony with his Christian beliefs. Isaac Newton also hoped that his research would help people believe in God.

Now, Christians accept the Heliocentric Model without being bothered by scriptures that seem to depict Earth as immovable or having “four corners.” We understand that much of this is symbolic, and it was written according to the understanding of the people living at the time. Perhaps other apparent contradictions in the scriptures will seem simpler in the future.

Waiting for further research


Any scientist will tell you that the more we learn, the more questions we find to answer. For example, Lord Rayleigh, the physicist who explained why the sky appears blue, created an equation to predict how much light a hot object will emit. While it worked well for visible light, it also predicted that the objects would give off an infinite amount of light in high-energy wavelengths. This conundrum was called the “Ultraviolet Catastrophe.” Later, another physicist, Max Planck showed the math would match our experimental observations if you assumed that light only came in small packets called “photons.”

Currently scientists are trying to figure out how much energy there is in empty space. Once again, we have a huge discrepancy between the theoretical equations and actual observations. This has been called the "Vacuum Catastrophe.” While we cannot fully explain what is happening, we know that if we keep searching, we’ll eventually find the answer.



Even in the more day-to-day sciences, like nutrition, medicine, and the environment, we see conflicts among researchers, and it’s hard to know which theory is correct. Perhaps they are partially right and partially wrong. Scientific research will someday reveal the best explanation. In the meantime, we use the models we have and take them as far as they will work.

Application to Religion


“The Desires of My Heart” by Walter Rane

For the past few years, I’ve taught high school students to think scientifically: to be skeptical of their first impressions and to seek evidence before making conclusions. I have wondered if I needed to apply this sort of thinking to my religious studies; which is why I have written this blog post. 

I know that science and religion represent two distinct ways of searching for truth. They use different tools to reveal different information. However, I believe that as we search for truth in either of those realms, we can use similar processes to evaluate what information is valid and worth keeping. Therefore, I’m going to review the five steps I’ve discussed for scientific theories, and we'll see what to do when our search for religious truth uncovers things that don't fit the model we had in our head.

Is this a valid source of information? 


In the 1980’s, Mark Hofmann caused many Latter-day Saints to question their faith with newly found historical documents, which even General Authorities struggled to explain. Hofmann was not a professional historian, and all of his documents were proved to be forgeries, despite the fact they initially deceived experts in document analysis. Whether something agrees or disagrees with our prior beliefs, it is always wise to be skeptical and check its source. Sometimes it isn’t obvious how valid the source is, in which case we move to the other steps.

Have the authors come to valid conclusions based on the evidence? 


Today, some of the most common criticisms of the Church are full of distortions and errors. It is helpful to go to the original material to try and understand the context for yourself. There are plenty of researchers and writers who have likely asked the same questions you have and are still confident in their testimonies. I appreciate that apologetic websites like Book of Mormon Central and FairMormon always include footnotes to scholarly resources and original source material, allowing you to do your own research as you come to conclusions.

Can you modify your assumptions based on this new information? 


If you have ever taught a young child, you know how eager they are to learn. As adults, we have such a firm grip on what we know that we are sometimes unwilling to adapt our mental models. Perhaps you have a friend who was extremely strict about what they did on Sunday or what kind of media they used, only to later leave the Church entirely. I’ve heard some of these people say they were bothered by something in the Gospel Topics Essays or other new information they were not prepared for. We have to recognize that we don’t know everything, and we must be open-minded if we want to continue to gain knowledge. This reminds me of an idea in structural engineering: that the strongest materials have to find the balance between flexibility and rigidity. If they are too brittle and unwilling to give, they will shatter under stress.

There are only a few basic doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Those should be the foundation we build our beliefs upon. If we are dependent on other humans for our faith, they will inevitably let us down, as no one--not even divinely-called prophets--has been perfect, except the Savior. Our church culture, practices, and policies can change, but our core doctrine will not.

What should you do when there are no apparent answers?



The last two choices in my list describe what to do if you can’t explain a contradiction in your ideas. At this point, some people decide that the evidence against their faith is so strong, they are ready to cast aside their old beliefs and adopt new theories. As Terryl and Fiona Givens describe in their book, The Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest for Faith, this might not be as easy as it sounds.

To the would-be believer, not everything makes sense. Not all loose ends are tied up; not every question finds its answer. Latter-day Saint history can be perplexing, some parts of theology leave even the devout wondering, and not all prayers find answers. Still, many of us believe the disciples had it right. “To whom [else] shall we go?” (John 6:68) The doctrines Christ propounded were troubling, challenging, and they apparently produced in that instance more provocation than peace, perhaps more cognitive dissonance than resolution.
Staying the course takes a great effort of will. Relinquishing faith would solve some problems--but would multiply others. For how does one even begin to address the manifold experiences and tender feelings we have known, the powerful ideas and explanations our theology provides, and the visitations of peace and serenity that are balm to broken hearts like our own? Abandoning our faith because it doesn’t answer all the questions would be like closing the shutters because we can’t see the entire mountain. We know in part, Paul said (1 Cor. 13:12), looking for the flickering flame to give us a glimpse of the way ahead in the gloom. With Nephi, we readily confess: “I know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.” (1 Nephi 11:17) We know more than we think, even if we know less than we would like.

Many critics would have you believe that religion is a lie keeping you from the truth, but I have not found that to be the case. Science and religion are like two eyes that allow us to see the world more clearly. If I gave up one of those sources of knowledge because it was incomplete, it would be like taking out one of my eyes because something was out of focus. As I look at all sides of an issue, it is often frustrating when the answers are not clear. Rather than give up, I choose to continue seeking answers, because the evidence for my beliefs still outweighs any attacks against them.

This brings me to the last point: what do you do with your questions that haven’t been answered? You can keep searching, praying, and waiting for answers. I don’t like the analogy of a “shelf” where you put your doubts to avoid thinking about them. I prefer the image of a desk, with pages of notes and stacks of open books, which reminds us to follow the process outlined in Doctrine & Covenants 88:118: seek faith diligently, teach each other wisdom out of the best books, and seek learning by study and also by faith.

Book of Mormon still life by James Fullmer
Book of Mormon still life by James Fullmer

When I first started this blog post over a year ago, I didn’t realize how important it was, in both science and religion, to be willing to wait for further research. I kept hearing people at Church talk about being okay with incomplete answers. At the same time, I’d watch videos about the edges of scientific theory, and I would see how many gaps there were in our understanding, including contradictions between scientific models. These are not crises or catastrophes; they’re opportunities to learn.

I’ll end with this invitation from Jeffrey R. Holland to not give up when we face challenges:

In moments of fear or doubt or troubling times, hold the ground you have already won, even if that ground is limited. In the growth we all have to experience in mortality, . . . [this] desperation is going to come to all of us. When those moments come and issues surface, the resolution of which is not immediately forthcoming, hold fast to what you already know and stand strong until additional knowledge comes. 






Thank you to Truman Blanchard and Andrew Cazier for their assistance in editing this article.

Posted by at 1 comment:

Sunday, April 8, 2018

Can we really “know” something is true?


So much of what we “know” depends on what we have seen. I can look at the sky and say that I know it is blue. But when you study the science of color, you know that it is a reflection, perhaps an illusion. We only see a small portion of all the light waves in the universe, and we perceive them according to the cells in our eyes. The names and number of colors we identify is a product of the culture we grew up in. Many optical illusions can prove our eyes to be insufficient when we want to truly “know” something.

Astronomers have found ways to use both visible and invisible light to determine size, distance, and chemical composition. By these methods, we can determine that our universe has existed in its current form (with matter and energy) for about 13.8 billion years. We can calculate that our Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago.

Geologists also use visible and chemical clues to determine the age of rock layers and the organisms who lived in them. We know that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, just slightly younger than the Sun. There is evidence of life on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, which slowly evolved into more complex forms. These original life forms lived in water, until 4 or 500 million years ago, when animals, plants, and fungi colonized Earth’s land. Our species, Homo Sapiens, appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

We know all this because of things we can see, touch, and measure. Those numbers are our best approximations from the available data. There is still much we do not know. We don’t know what the universe was like before the Big Bang or what caused it. As usual, science cannot tell us what its purpose or meaning is. Our current scientific explanations leave other gaps, such as the formation of complex DNA molecules and the emergence of consciousness. Scientists may make guesses about how these happened, just as we make predictions about the future of the universe, but the details are still unclear.

More recent history, of course, leaves more evidence. About 12,000 years ago, humans began to raise crops and animals, and organized cities appeared 4000 years later. Finally, in 3000 BC, large civilizations arose with technologies like the wheel, bronze-working, sailing and written language. This gave birth to Mediterranean empires, from the Sumerians and Akkadians to the Greeks and Romans. There were civilizations in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Though we do not have perfect records, we can learn about these cultures from the artifacts they left behind.

Oral history, writing, and painting were the primary means of documenting historical events. That is how we know that over 200 years ago, North American colonists formed an independent government that gave more rights to its people than any previous system. We can read about how these rights were eventually given to all Americans and how liberal democracy has spread to many nations throughout the world.

While we know the main events of history, there are gaps in our understanding. The most famous ones are based on sensational stories: Amelia Earhart, King Arthur, Atlantis, and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. We may never know enough to fill these holes. Even with accepted history, we add more perspectives to our understanding as we encounter more evidence, which we continually do to enhance our knowledge of the past.

Only in the late 19th century could we begin to use photographs to document historical events. Technology eventually gave us videos, but, like photographs, these could only be created by a small portion of the population. Finally, in the 21st century, cameras and smartphones became so prevalent that virtually anyone can record anything, anywhere.

Now it is easier to “know” what is happening than it has ever been, but we must be careful not to put too much emphasis on visual evidence. Even photographs can be altered or taken out of context, keeping us from knowing the whole story. And if there are no pictures of something, that does not mean that we can’t know if it happened. As I mentioned, we can analyze evidence from the past and make accurate conjectures about historical events.

Additionally, the possibility of discovering more does not invalidate our current understanding. Newton’s laws of motion are still true, even though Einstein’s Relativity altered them for more extreme cases. The electromagnetic formulas of Faraday and Maxwell are true, even as Quantum Mechanics provides a more complicated explanation with even more questions.

So, when I say, “I know,” what does that mean? It means that I have looked at the available evidence and decided if it is credible enough to accept as truth. It does not mean that I am the world’s leading expert or that I cannot learn more. I may continue to ask questions, conduct experiments, and investigate the research that others have done.. In the meantime, I can say that “I know” it to be true because all available evidence has led me to that belief.

Truth is not relative, but knowledge of truth is. Because of this, I don’t think that “believing” and “knowing” are all that different, nor does it make sense to say you are “90% sure” that something is true. Either God exists, or he does not. Either there is life after this, or there is not. Not believing in a real God does not invalidate his existence, nor would believing in a life after this make one appear where there wasn’t one.

With all my praying, studying, thinking, discussing, wrestling, and wondering, I strongly believe in a Higher Power--a God who has infinite understanding and infinite reach. This God created us for a purpose. He does not fully reveal himself to us, but can speak to us through our thoughts and feelings to guide us in the correct path. He has given us laws about moral behavior. He has designed this world for our benefit and learning.

Reading the New Testament, I have had personal experiences that have led to me to feel, more than anything I have ever felt, that Jesus Christ suffered and died for my sins. He was the first to rise from death, and because He lives, we will all live again. The Book of Mormon is a powerful testament of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer. It shows that God does not just speak to one people, but that he welcomes all who will listen to his voice.

I have studied the life of Joseph Smith. He was a good and sincere man who was doing his best to follow God, trying much harder than most of us do. With his background, I do not believe he could have written the Book of Mormon or established a rapidly growing religion unless he had divine assistance. By evaluating the fruits of his work, I can say that Joseph Smith must have been a prophet of God. This belief is strengthened by his successors, who currently lead the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are also good men that God has called as witnesses of the Savior to the entire world.

We, the messengers, are imperfect, but the message is true. Those who choose to study the words of the prophets and open their hearts to God can come to that same knowledge. It may begin as a feeling and grow to a hope. It will require study, work, and even difficult experiences before it becomes a set of beliefs and a knowledge of the truth. That knowledge will never be complete in this life because, as Dieter F. Uchtdorf profoundly proposed, “The process of gathering spiritual light is the quest of a lifetime.”

There are still questions that I am seeking answers to. I would like to know how the scientific outline of evolution matches the scriptural accounts of creation. I want to know more about the life to come as well as our existence before our birth. There are things I do not understand in the scriptures, in Church history, and in our modern culture. I will spend the rest of my life studying these questions and seeking to know more. The fact that my understanding is incomplete does not invalidate the beliefs I have chosen and the knowledge I have gained. In fact, I am grateful for the opportunity to continue to learn, to grow, and to enhance my understanding. I find great hope in the promise found in Doctrine and Covenants, section 101:

Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—
Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—
Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.
And all they who suffer persecution for my name, and endure in faith, though they are called to lay down their lives for my sake yet shall they partake of all this glory.
Wherefore, fear not even unto death; for in this world your joy is not full, but in me your joy is full.
Therefore, care not for the body, neither the life of the body; but care for the soul, and for the life of the soul.
And seek the face of the Lord always, that in patience ye may possess your souls, and ye shall have eternal life.

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Questions about the Church and Gospel of Jesus Christ

Former Mormons often make lists of questions that have caused them to doubt and eventually leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These are hard for me to read, partially because I do have answers to some of their questions, like why there are multiple accounts of the First Vision. However, they also bring up many questions that I don't fully understand, often related to Church history or how to correlate science and the Bible.

None of us have a perfect understanding of the world around us--how it works, where it came from, or what it means. We often have to compare conflicting ideas and opinions to come to our own beliefs. In these cases, each of us personally has to weigh the different ideas and decide which is true. 

For me, the arguments in favor of the Church's validity outweigh any unanswered questions I may have. That's because when it comes to the "questions of my soul," the restored Church of Jesus Christ is the only place I have found satisfying answers. So here is my list of questions that have led me to believe in the Church and its teachings.

Where did the energy and matter in the universe come from?
What was before the Big Bang? What caused the universe to form?
Is everything we are--the beautiful world we live in, the loving relationships we form, and the amazing works we create--just the result of random chance? 
How could intelligent life spring from a non-intelligent universe? 
(Note: I am aware that many people answer this with the analogy that a team of monkeys writing on typewriters for an infinite amount of time will eventually recreate the works of Shakespeare. But that just opens up more questions, such as who gave them the typewriters and who identifies what Shakespeare's writings are. It seems that all intelligence must be preceded by intelligence.)

Why have of hundreds of societies used God or a similar Higher Power for their source of moral guidance?
Or in the words of atheist historian Will Durant, why "is [there] no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion"?

What about the Bible? How did the teachings of some wandering Israelis and a carpenter's son become the most influential book in modern civilization? And that carpenter's son, Jesus of Nazareth, how was he able to teach revolutionary moral ideas that upended everything people had been taught previously? How did this humble man teach truths that had as much of an impact as the ideas of Plato and Aristotle? He told them to love their enemies (because all people are your neighbors) turning the other cheek instead of retaliating. He answered a moral dilemma by simply telling his followers to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is his, one of his many proverbs that we continue to quote today. Jesus' message was that God loves the poor and penitent not the self-righteous and wealthy; he went against social norms by inviting them to be humble like children, because the greatest man should be a servant. If such a wise man were not the Son of God, why did he say he was? And why do millions of people still believe him?

What about the Book of Mormon? Where did that come from? I don't believe that Joseph Smith or any of the people around him could have written it themselves. While I have read some possible explanations of the book's origin, none of them seem to answer the most difficult question, which Elder Tad Callister posed in a recent BYU devotional:
Even if Joseph had obtained historical facts from local libraries or community conversations—for which there is no substantiating evidence—the real issue still remains: Where did he get the deep and expansive doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon—much of which is contrary to the religious beliefs of his time? For example, contemporary Christianity taught that the Fall was a negative, not a positive, step forward, as taught in the Book of Mormon (see 2 Nephi 2).
Likewise, contrary to contemporary beliefs, the Book of Mormon refers to a premortal existence in Alma 13 (see Alma 13:1–11) and to a postmortal spirit world in Alma 40 (see Alma 40:11–14). Where did Joseph Smith get these profound doctrinal truths that were in fact contrary to the prevailing doctrinal teachings of his time? Where did he get the stunning sermon on faith in Alma 32? Or one of the greatest sermons ever recorded in all scripture on the Savior’s Atonement as delivered by King Benjamin (see Mosiah 2–5)? Or the allegory of the olive tree with all its complexity and doctrinal richness (see Jacob 5)? When I read that allegory, I have to map it out to follow its intricacies. Are we supposed to believe that Joseph Smith just dictated these sermons off the top of his head with no notes whatsoever? (From "The Book of Mormon: Man-made or God-Given?" given on Nov 01, 2016)
And if Joseph did make it up, what did he find in the hill by his home? Why did so many people try so hard to steal it from him? What was it that Isaac Hale, who hated Joseph, felt in a box?  What about the Three and Eight witnesses to the plates, why did none of them ever deny that the ancient record was real?
I know that many of the early church leaders left to form their own denominations, but why did some of them, like Martin Harris, come back? Why did Oliver Cowdery and William McLellin claim that Joseph Smith's revelations answer questions he couldn't have known they had?

Then there's Solomon Chamberlain, who had a vision similar to Joseph Smith, telling him that none of the churches were true. I've seen critics who use this as evidence that Joseph borrowed his visionary story from the accounts of others. Then why did Solomon believe that the restored church was a fulfillment of his vision? Wouldn't he, more than anyone, have known if Joseph had invented or plagiarized the story?

And what about all those who remained faithful--Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, or Wilford Woodruff? They were closest to Joseph Smith, and they believed everything he taught, even when it wasn't easy. Why were they willing to give their lives for this cause?

Why did my own ancestors believe in this gospel? Why did William and Catharine Morgan cross the country in handcarts in the same year that over 200 pioneers died making the same journey? Why did the Van Tussenbrooks send their 11 children one or two at a time from Holland to Utah? 
Why do I feel a connection to these people when I am doing family history and temple work? Isn't the love and connection we feel to other people a sign of a higher power? Does that really end with death?

What about the current leaders of the church? How can they bear sincere testimony that Jesus Christ directs this church? If the Church were man-made, they would know it. But every six months, I hear talks by men like Thomas S. Monson, Dieter F. Uchtdorf, and Jeffrey R. Holland, and I can't possibly imagine that they are trying to deceive us. And if there were some sort of conspiracy, wouldn't there be a general authority who would crack at some point? From what I can tell, in the last 100 years, no general authority has left the church for any reason except personal misconduct.

How is this church growing so rapidly in age of fading religiosity?
How do young, inexperienced missionaries have so much success in changing people's lives and bringing them to a new religion?
Why does the Church of Jesus Christ do so much good in the world through humanitarian and education services? 
Why are religious people more likely to donate to charity and give service?

What about my own experience? Why do I feel such power when I read the Book of Mormon, as if it were written by prophets who kept a record for future generations? Why is religious music so beautiful and inspiring?
Why has the doctrine of grace and the Atonement given me comfort and peace, helping me feel that I can change and be forgiven of any mistake?
Why does the gospel of Jesus Christ make so much sense and feel so true?
How have I received impressions of things that I needed to do or places I needed to go that I could not have known beforehand?

In fact, I have heard hundreds of people testify of experiences that cannot all be explained by coincidence or imagination. 
There has to be something greater out there, and for me personally, the Church of Jesus Christ answers the questions of where we came from and why we are here far better than any other source I have found. 
Posted by at 5 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)