Ever notice how many hecklers have been immortalized in scripture? It seems many a prophet in recorded scripture has some sort of nemesis, and being the amazing men that they were, they always turned stumbling blocks into stepping stones.

Prophets have always been especially good at this: Samuel turned a city wall from an obstacle into a podium, and Ammon turned a occupational disaster into a teaching opportunity. Maybe this is just due to the perilous nature of being a prophet in ancient times, but I’ve started to notice that hecklers in particular have been very instrumental in bringing forth really important points of doctrine. No wonder the devil is an irritable cuss: every time he tries to confound a prophet, he is rewarded with the prophet being able to use a heckler’s traps as springboards and segues into deeper and more profound teaching situations.

Here’s a list of some of the heckler’s Christine and I could think of. I’ve tried to include some of the doctrines they’ve strengthened.

The next time you are trying to spread some honest to goodness truth, and you feel like someone is laying out linguistic lures in your path, take a lesson from these pros (especially the Savior). They weren’t combative or offensive, they just saw right through lame tactics and turned weak times into strong ones. One scripture that was always a help to me, especially when I was out on the front lines during my mission was this:

Neither take ye thought beforehand what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man.
Doctrine and Covenants 84:85

Just read an interesting article, written by Richard Dawkins, who is a professor at Oxford. The article, entitled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God” is Dawkins’ attempt to take down common arguments for the existence of God. It’s a prime example of some of the sorts of arguments people will make for atheism. I think the title is all too ironic. In a way, it summarizes Dawkins… faith in his own arguments:

Almost.

Can you really say “Almost Certainly?” Isn’t that a bit like saying something is “Nearly Guaranteed” or “Not Quite Self-Evident?”

I must admit he brings up a pretty good point from the get-go. It is kind of a horrific self-discovery that over half of America is ready and rarin’ for the world to start ending:

It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ…
Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Now, I think he has a point there. Anyone who sees a burning tower fall, a war waged, a marketplace bombed, and sees God in it needs to turn in his glasses and try to regain a new world view. Sure, we know that rumors of wars and great destruction will bring in parts of the last days, but it is horribly insensitive for any God-fearing person to jump for joy when others are suffering.

When Lazarus died, Christ didn’t point out the silver lining until the ordeal was almost over. Even with his perfect knowledge of the situation, he didn’t slap Mary on the back and tell her to buck up, he wept along with her.

That said, sir, I do think it’s an exaggeration to condemn the Christian world at large to mindlessly waiting for catastrophe. Sure, we’re excited, but I don’t think Mr. Dawkins could be expected to understand exactly what we’re excited about.

The other interesting point is that of the scientific evidence for, or against, the existence of God. Dawkins references something he calls ‘NOMA’, or the ‘non-overlapping magisteria’, which is described by Stephen Jay Gould.

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.
Stephen Jay Gould

In a sense, Gould is telling us that theology is mythos rather than logos: its a metaphysical topic, that can’t really be explained by the scientific method. Makes sense to me, because I think if people get to wrapped up in the specifics (which was created first, did Job really live, how can a whale swallow a man, etc.) you lose the mythos-driven principles from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Fair enough. Get far enough into math, logic, epistemology or metaphysics, and it is much the same anyway.

People get nervous when the gospel is explained as illogical, or unexplainable by rational means (including, apparently, atheists like Dawkins), but I think there’s some truth to that. There are plenty of mythos-like things we depend on and know to be true. Love, for instance. It’s beyond scientific explanation (though scientific knowledge can explain certain aspects or factors dealing with love), but that doesn’t make it any less real or true.

If Dawkins is going to intellectually reject anything that can’t be proven using the scientific method, then technically he can also reject the scientific method itself. There really is a point in science where faith comes in (believe you me: I’ve studied quantum physics), because at some point, you just have to believe in something just for belief sake. Can you prove to me that the scientific method is a sure technique that yields truth?

Descartes, in his Principles of Philosophy, rather successfully reduced the universe down to his own existence. You can’t really prove the existence of the outside world, so your own consciousness is really the only thing you can be 100% sure of. So where does that leave the atheist? Interestingly enough, the tool Descartes uses to rescue himself from such a solitary existence is…

The existence of a benevolent God. There’s no way he would let us be so deceived.

This certainty is founded on the metaphysical ground, that, as God is supremely good and the source of all truth, the faculty of distinguishing truth from error which he gave us, cannot be fallacious so long as we use it aright, and distinctly perceive anything by it.
René Descartes, Principles of Philosophy

While Dawkins refutes many common arguments for the existence of God (including some really clever ones by Aquinas), one of my all-time favorites isn’t really a proof at all, it just lays the options out on the table. It is commonly referred to as Pascal’s wager. It can be summarized using a table showing the outcomes of a belief (or lack thereof) in God, against the possibilities of His existence. I present the super short version here, mostly just for fun:

What Pascal is arguing for is that if you’re an atheist, the worst situation you can find yourself in is if God really does exist—some sort of eternal regret or suffering. Since the worst possible option for a believer is the luck of the draw in living a normal life, you might as well place yourself in the believer’s row: it’s the only row with the possibility of eternal reward. I don’t think Pascal ever intended it as a way to spark belief in others, though I still find it interesting to think about.

One last thought: Dawkins makes a statement as to the importance of the scientific proof for God:

…The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.
Richard Dawkins

Sounds like the matter deserves more than an “almost certain” conclusion, if you ask me. I’m sure there are others who can join with me in saying (even if they’ve taken the ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ route), yet can join with me in affirming the exact, unmistakable existence of God.

Update: Came across another article this morning: now scientists are wondering if things can be in two places at once. This reminded me that the body of accepted truth to science is really liquid. Just check out all the models for matter we’ve had: every thing from plum pudding to miniaturized solar systems.

Another nice thing about religion is that it is relatively constant. Doctrines in the Church are adjusted from time to time in order to tailor to the needs of a growing and modern body of worshipers—but I can pick up the Bible, hundreds and hundreds of years old, and its “up to date” as far as the teachings of the church. I’m not sure I can do that with a science text that is more than 20 years old (maybe not even 10). I think this religion vs. science argument has to level out, because they are both extremely useful, and both are valid attempts to uncover truth. It’s just that each method is best used in different circumstances. If you only use a hammer and not the saw your whole life, I think you’ll be missing out on something.

A good friend of mine pointed me to a PDF booklet written by Mark Hudson, a candidate for US Congress District 1 here in Utah.

The PDF is entitled, “The Weighty Matters of the Law: A Plea for the Latter-Day Saints to Awaken.” The booklet was written by Hudson as part of a local church assignment, and while many of the principles in the booklet are sound, I’ve struggled with parts of it. Some, because of the delivery mechanism, and others because I point-blank disagree.

Do or Die

He starts off with some good points about the signs of the times. Prophets have been warning and calling us to prepare for hundreds of years, and its about time we started to listen. Then Hudson begins to reiterate his points about being prepared, but to me, the delivery is a little too… scare tactic?

In this warning a Prophet is clearly saying that in the event of a famine in the land, which has been prophesied to occur here in America as well as world-wide, that many Saints including some of their leaders would be “wiped out” because of their disobedience to the Lord’s commandment of obtaining a year’s supply of food…

Now if the Saints and many of their leaders could be wiped out because of their disobedience to a plain, temporal (and spiritual) commandment to store a one year’s supply of food, does it follow that there may be other areas where the Saints are potentially failing and/or being deceived?
Hudson, pg 5-6

I just don’t think telling people they could get “wiped out” is ever very productive. People live in enough fear these days, and I don’t think threatening them with death is really going to soften people’s hearts or strenghten their resolve to work on their food storage.

The Fight for Free Agency

I think he makes some good points in the following sections about the importance of being politically active and fighting for freedom. One thing I think that people miss is that the government of the United States of America is set up for liberty and freedom, and that doesn’t always equate to virtuous action.

One section heading that originally troubled me was “You Cannot Separate Politics from Religion.” I think the separation between church and state is very inspired and allows “all men the same privilege” of worshipping according to their own conscience. Mr. Hudson’s words in this section support that point, and I agree: the devil and conspiring men will count on good people to make political assumptions: that everyone else will vote, that mostly good men will come to power, and that politics are well enough off to run themselves.

I was glad to find out that the lack of separation Mr. Hudson was talking about was that of the fundamental principle of free agency taught in our doctrine. Our government was founded on principles of equality and agency, and it is our duty to enforce those virtues (and not virtue itself).

Huh?

After the good stuff, Mr. Hudson makes some really odd references and tries to teach about conspiracies. I’ve always wondered exactly how you are supposed to prepare and find things that are, by their definition, things that most people don’t know of. Seems like it really goes without saying that we should keep our ears and eyes ready for bad things that are happening, and do something about them when we find out about them.

I think talk about conspiracies might bring about more intellectual intrigue about fluff than it does ready us for the designs of wicked men and their secret plans, but that might just be me.

Then he goes on about the Gold Standard, which is absolutely silly.

Republican President Richard Nixon finally outlawed gold as the official backing of our money during the early seventies. This was a direct attack on our property rights.
Pg. 14

Huh? There isn’t enough gold on the planet to back our national economy, so I’m not sure what the reasoning is here. Not sure what the Gold Standard has to do with conspiracies either, but I don’t think it was a secret decision, and I also don’t think it was a bad idea either…

The Less Proper Understanding

This was my main beef with this booklet: that we should fight for the inclusion of gospel principles in government. Sounds okay, right? I personally don’t think so.

I was finally disappointed to see that Mr. Hudson thinks that we should force our morals on others by using the government. What about free agency? What about the constitution? Hudson quotes a “very good friend of Ezra Taft Benson” in order to build his point:

A person’s political philosophy is an extension of his moral beliefs because he cannot determine whether he favors or opposes a law without consulting his moral standards…A person’s political philosophy not only reflects his moral convictions, but it also represents his most intense feelings regarding good and evil…When a person so firmly convinced of the correctness of his political code that he is willing to impose it on all others members of society [through his votes] with death, imprisonment, and fine [using Government force] he has expressed those convictions in the strongest possible manner.
H. Verlan Anderson as cited on Pg. 18

I hope Verlan went on to say “… and that’s not always a good thing. Take Hitler, for example…” The main problem I have with legislating the gospel is the same that the Pilgrims had. Unless God himself happens to be the one drafting the resolutions, you can’t really expect the outcome to be fair. America was founded on principles of equality and fairness, and trying to force others “with death, imprisonment, and fine” to do the will of God isn’t going to help anyone. Why?

1. Acts done without real intent profiteth us nothing. Nothing.
2. Wasn’t it Satan’s idea to legislate righteousness and enforce it? What did God think about that?
3. Once you’ve created a law that dictates worship, you open the doors for strong political powers that are not of our faith to indoctrinate the public sector.

Sure I don’t mind the Ten Commandments on the wall of the courtroom, but I sure don’t want the judge, clerk and prosecuting attourney to speak in tongues before I present my defense case. Fair is fair, so I don’t mind removing the stone tablets from a public building. Atheists use courtrooms too. In some sense, the principles of religion are intertwined with civic responsibility and legislation, but I think those principles are those of equality and justice, not virtue itself.

Laws are meant to provide a level playing field, not enforce (of itself) goodness upon its citizens. Laws in the Book of Mormon were crafted in a similar manner:

For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.
Alma 30:11

If people are behaving in a way that damages the rights or property of others, it is punished. Otherwise, the law maintains “equal grounds,” even for Korihors out there. Doctrine and Covenants 134 sheds some additional light on how government and religious beliefs should interact:

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

We do not believe it just to amingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

Doctrine & Covenants 134:4,7,9, emphasis mine

Conclusion

I think that strong minded Latter-Day Saints should fight for just and holy principles. I think that the nations of the Earth that did not follow the commandments of God harvested the destruction they had sown with centuries of wickedness.

I do however, think that the freedom of religious belief, and the protection of the agency of man—the standard of equality and justice we enjoy—is paramount when dealing with our civic duties. If we cannot protect the right of religious belief and fair religious practices, then we will never be able to make a difference in this world. We might be able to legislate some true principles in order to get men in this nation to behave virtuously, but when we begin to proscribe the opinions of men, we break the inspired safety barriers placed there by the wise founding fathers of this nation.

Wouldn’t it work better, in every possible way, to “legislate morality” or these “weightier matters of the law” on the fleshy tables of the heart? It isn’t the the quill of the President of the United States that can write on that medium: only by by “persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.”

Sure, we need to fight for the right—but such a battle is to be waged by loving teaching rather than by policed legislation.