It therefore seem fair enough for any Christian to question whether Mormons worship Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith. After all, didn’t Christ say “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”?

But with only slightly closer examination it becomes clear that there is no contradiction between the Bible and Brigham Young’s statement. In fact, they support one another.

As Stephen R. Gibson has pointed out, in every period of time throughout history when there have been prophets or apostles of God upon the earth, rejecting the words of those prophets and apostles has been the same as rejecting God or Christ. As Christ himself stated “He that receiveth you receiveth me” (Matt. 10:40), which means the converse “He that receiveth [not] you receiveth [not] me” is just as true.

If one lived in the time of Moses and rejected the message Moses delivered, he would also be rejecting God. Moses is the passport to heaven for the people who lived in that time, as well as for us, at least in a sense, since we also have his words and are responsible for our obedience or lack thereof to them. Likewise if one rejects Joseph Smith’s teachings, he is rejecting Christ, since Joseph Smith is merely communicating Christ’s teachings to the world.

If that doesn’t do it for you, consider this analogy. Imagine a city surrounded by a wall, with only a single gate granting entrance into the city. We could say that no one comes into that city except by that gate, right? Then let’s suppose a guard is placed by the gate, and no one can enter the gate without first obtaining permission from the guard. Does this invalidate the statement that no one enters the city except through that gate? Of course not, the gate is still the only way into the city, and having a guard at the gate doesn’t change this. The gate is Christ, the guard is Joseph Smith, Moses, Peter, or whichever prophet or apostle is Christ’s authorized representative, depending on time and place.

But seriously, Mormons don’t believe in making “eternal judgments” or “final judgments” about others, although we all have to make temporal or intermediate judgments about situations and people in order to survive in this world. We believe Jesus’ admonition to not judge referred to the former type of judgment and not the latter. For more on the Mormon perspective about this matter read Elder Oaks’ talk on the matter.

But getting onto the day of judgment, Mormons do not believe this is a day when a vengeful God will hand out arbitrary judgments to those who happened to trip up and find themselves on the wrong side of the line. We don’t see it as something to dread, but something to look forward to, when the righteous will be rewarded and everyone will get what they want, in essence.

The Mormon perspective can be better understood when one understands that Mormons don’t see God as a being who sets up arbitrary rules and punishments, but rather as a loving Father in Heaven who is telling us how things work, how to avoid actions the natural consequences of which lead to pain, and how to perform the actions the natural consequences of which lead to happiness.

It is also helpful to understand that from the Mormon perspective the Final Judgment is not so much about what we’ve done, although that is important, but about what we’ve become, because ultimately we believe we will become like God. Thus, the judgement will be fairly easy to make, at least as easy to make as it is to judge whether or not someone is a body builder. Just about any of us can tell whether someone is an accomplished body builder or not. Becoming one is not based on a flurry of last-minute activity (deathbed confession) but rather is the accumulation of the results of specific activities over an extended period of time. As LDS scholar Hugh Nibley stated:

If every choice I make expresses a preference; if the world I build up is the world I really love and want, then with every choice I am judging myself, proclaiming all the day long to God, angels and my fellowmen where my real values lie, where my treasure is, the things to which I give supreme importance. Hence, in this life every moment provides a perfect and foolproof test of your real character, making this life a time of testing and probation.

Thus the Judgment may be less God judging us, and more us judging ourselves. Or that is, the judgment may be a rather quick and obvious process, a foregone conclusion in many ways.

In addition, to understand where Mormons come from when it comes to the Judgment, one must understand that we do not see this life as all there is that comes before the Judgment. Mormons believe that everyone will have a full and conscious opportunity to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s plainly unjust for someone who has never heard of  Jesus Christ in this life to be condemned to an eternity of suffering due to their ignorance. Mormons believe that those who did not have the opportunity to accept Christ’s sacrifice in this life will have the opportunity in the next life, and therefore the only people who will not be “saved” will be those who reject Christ. We believe that while relatively few will have the opportunity to fully understand and accept the gospel of Christ in this life, that opportunity will be given to everyone in the next. And so again, we do not see the Final Judgment as a terrible day of pain and suffering, but rather a happy one because we Mormons believe that great numbers of people will accept Christ in the end.

The author of the comment then quoted this passage of scripture from Matthew 22:

25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother.
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh.
27 Last of all the woman died also.
28Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God[b] in heaven.

The short answer is that the marriages referred to in this passage of scripture were not eternal marriages, hence, as Jesus said, the woman would not be married to any of the brothers in the next life.

The somewhat longer answer is this:

First, we should understand that the men questioning Jesus were Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection at all. But the question appears to have been a common one amongst other Jews of the time, and the Sadducess were perfectly happy to use it to try and bait Jesus into giving them an answer that they could say contradicted Moses, who taught the children of Israel that if a man died, his brother should marry that man’s wife. What’s interesting is that there is brought up the idea that one of these seven brothers would indeed be married to this woman in the next life. Although the Sadducess clearly did not believe this would be the case, the fact that they asked this question shows that amongst other Jews of the time the idea of a marriage relationship after this life was probably commonly held. In other words, this passage actually lends support for the idea of eternal marriage having once been a common doctrine that was lost during the Great Apostasy that followed the death of the Apostles.

Second, we need to read carefully the words used in the scripture. The scripture nowhere says that a marriage relationship will not exist after death. It only says that the act of getting marriage, or being “given in marriage”, will not occur. This is in complete accordance with LDS doctrine, which teaches that eternal marriages can only be performed on earth, by living individuals. Even though Mormons practice proxy marriages on behalf of those who have died and were married civilly in this life (no, we don’t just marry random dead people to each other), these eternal marriages, which can either be accepted or rejected by those who have moved on, occur for those who have died prior to their resurrection, in a space that exists between the time of death and time of the resurrection.

Jesus further pointed out that the men questioning him didn’t understand the scriptures or the power of God, which is plain to see based on the question. If they had understood the doctrine of eternal marriage, then they wouldn’t have had to ask the question in the first place. The answer would be that the woman would be the wife of whichever brother she was “sealed” (the term used to refer to the performance of eternal marriages) to.

More references:

Doesn’t Matthew 22:23-30 Contradict the LDS Doctrine of Eternal Marriage?
Inasmuch as Latter-day Saints believe in marriage for eternity, how do we explain Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 22:29–30?
Is there Eternal Marriage?

“Are there many gods? Are gods more holier than each other?”

This question requires some explanation beyond a simple “yes” or “no” answer, because both answers are correct and incorrect at the same time.

Mormons believe that every human being is a God in “embryo” form, or childlike form. Just as a boy becomes a man or a girl becomes a woman, we believe men and women become Gods and Goddesses. We believe the purpose of this life is to move us along that path, and that this life is one of multiple steps in that direction. Of course if this is what we believe, then yes, we believe there are multiple Gods. In fact, there must be billions, trillions, or even more Gods.

However, when we speak of worshiping God, we only speak of one God. Mormons believe in the commandment “You shall have no other gods before me”, but whereas those of other faiths think of “other gods” as being Baal or other gods that don’t really exist, or perhaps other “gods” in the sense that one can “worship” his career, fame, money, Blu-Ray, etc., Mormons believe all that plus the idea that there are in fact other gods, but only one God that we need to worry about. Or in other words, we only have one boss, one chief, one being that we worship and obey, and he is a specific person, separate from other gods. The other gods have no power over us, and we owe them no obeisance, no loyalty, etc. They are not in charge of us, responsible for us, nor do they appear to have any interaction with us, just as our God, theoretically, has no involvement with the children of those other Gods. In a sense, you might as well say there are no other Gods, because for all intents and purposes there aren’t. The only reason it’s even important for us to know that there are is because it tells us something about our own divine purpose.

Now, for the second question regarding whether one God can be “holier” than another God, the answer is more straightforward–no. Mormons believe that God is 100% perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. There is no being more righteous, more knowledgeable, more powerful, etc. If there were, then it wouldn’t make much sense to do the bidding of the less powerful God, because the more powerful God could come along and turn all the first God’s plans upside down.

But this is kind of a weird part of the discussion, because there is and cannot be any such thing as a “less powerful” God, because by definition that person would not then be God. All Gods must, theoretically, be exactly equal in power if they all have 100% of whatever power can be attained.

To sum up, Mormons believe there are many Gods, but only believe in one God. Or to put it another way, Mormons know there are many Gods, but only know one God.

To answer this question requires a more than a one or the other type of answer because the answer is “yes” to both…sort of. Well, it depends on what you mean by “big bang”. As I understand things, it’s fairly settled science that everything in the universe is moving away from a center point. This loosely supports the big bang theory, although I have not heard it explained as to why everything is moving away from that point at an accelerating speed. Now that’s just kind of weird, but I digress.

If the question is “Do Mormons believe everything is moving away from a center point of the universe?” then the answer is that Mormons don’t have any doctrine to that effect, although Mormons generally regard any scientific knowledge or discovery as interesting and valuable, since we believe we’re all children of God, destined to become like him, and since God knows everything we’re interested in knowing everything as well.

Just as well for any other aspects of big bang theory. Science doesn’t have all the answers yet and can’t fully explain the big bang, so there’s nothing Mormons can truly agree or disagree with. It’s mostly theory and hypothesis.

The one part of Mormon doctrine that touches on this subject is that our scripture says that everything has always existed. Not necessarily in its current form, but that there’s no such thing as creating something out of nothing. So if one assumes that a belief in the big bang means you believe that a bunch of stuff came out of nowhere, then no, Mormons don’t believe in that. But if nowhere actually means “nowhere” as in “we don’t know where it came from” then sure, there’s nothing in our doctrine to preclude a belief in a big bang.

Krauss claims that “Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” But this simply isn’t true. At best we can only claim that what we know about science at this point in time doesn’t fully explain how certain miracles happened. The Bible says that Jesus rubbed dirt and spit in a blind man’s eyes and then told him to go wash his eyes in a contaminated, filthy pool of water, and then the man’s blindness is cured. Sounds fantastic, but only because we don’t know how it happened. We cannot legitimately claim that it is impossible. To do so one would have to prove that under no circumstances could the actions taken in that story result in blindness being cured.

What’s especially interesting about science with regards to religion is that the scientific method itself is based on faith. A hypothesis is an expression of faith. It says, in effect, “I believe that if we do such and such, that such and such will follow.” We then create tests to prove or disprove our statement of faith.

You can find atheistic scientists who have faith in all sorts of things the rest of us would find ridiculous or impossible. Most of the technology we have today would have sounded ridiculous and impossible a mere 50 years ago, let alone 200 years ago. It took faith to believe man could fly through the air, and without that faith we wouldn’t have airplanes today that can carry many tons of cargo thousands of miles through the air in a few hours. It took faith to create computers, the Internet, the light bulb, pharmaceuticals, etc. Before any of it was created it was “seen” with the eye of faith. And many more inventions and discoveries will be made in the future. I would guess there are many scientists who don’t believe in God, yet have no trouble believing that someday man will travel throughout space at, near to, or faster than the speed of light. It is true that some discoveries are made accidentally, but generally when someone is “expressing faith” in something else. It is rare that someone invents something or discovers something when they are looking for nothing at all, or not trying to create something.

The difference between faith in revealed science and faith in God is the supporting evidence. Naturally, there is more evidence to support the things we already know than there is to support things we don’t know. But a lack of knowledge about something is no reason to disregard it. Just because what limited information we have about God (which may or may not be correct) sounds hokey, that doesn’t mean it’s a matter not worth investigating. If we were to extend this line of thinking to science, then where would we be today? How many inventions would not exist? How much knowledge would still be hidden? How many diseases would remain uncured if scientists looked at a sick person and said “I have no evidence to convince me it is possible to cure this person, therefore I will not try.”

On the contrary, if God really does exist, what more important discovery could there possibly be? So many people have so much “faith” that there is no God based on so little evidence.

But what if there is a God? What if he has a plan for us? What if it is integral to that plan that we are not allowed to know for sure whether he exists or not unless we already want to believe he does? Then those who do not want to believe in God will receive no convincing signs that he does, while those who do want to believe he exists will receive evidence of his existence. And naturally, those who do not receive such evidence will think those who claim to have received such evidence are crazy, and vice versa.

My advice to scientific atheists would be to not base your belief in the non-existence of God on what you think you know about God. Maybe what you think you know about God is wrong. Maybe there is a God but he’s not like anything you’ve imagined before. Maybe there is no conflict between science and belief in God, only unresolved questions. If there is a God, is it worth missing out on that knowledge because you based your theory on faulty information?

So, do Mormons hate gay people? No. If Mormons don’t hate gay people, why are they against gay marriage? Why are they forcing their religion on other people and taking away their rights? Why would they want to rob committed couples of the opportunity to legalize that commitment?

Mormons don’t hate gay people any more than they hate people who steal batteries. Mormons see the homosexual act as a sin, but they don’t hate people who sin. Mormons recognize that everyone is a sinner, and nobody has the right to say “I’m good and you’re bad” because we all fall far short of perfection. We are all “bad” if you want to look at it that way.

But there are two ways we can look at “badness”. We can either say “I’m bad, but I want to be good” or we can say “There is no such thing as being bad.” Mormons want to be good, and want to help others be good as well. Mormons believe that legalizing gay marriage is a way of saying that there is no such thing as bad and good or right and wrong, and Mormons believe that if people think something that is truly bad is accepted as being good, then that will lead to increased levels of general unhappiness. Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t change what it is. It forces society to accept it, but doesn’t make it acceptable. If California legalized stealing batteries we would all be forced to accept battery thieves, but we would all know that it’s still stealing, whether it’s legal or not.

Or would we? What message would it send to our children if we legalize stealing batteries? What if a child’s parents teach them that stealing is wrong, no matter what, but then at school they learn that stealing is usually wrong, except for batteries? In at least some cases might this not result in the child doubting the teachings of the parents? And if everyone else believes stealing batteries is ok, but my parents don’t, what else might my parents be wrong about? And what’s the difference between batteries and music CDs? Why is one ok and the other wrong? What about cars? If it’s ok to steal batteries, isn’t it ok to steal anything?

Of course legalization of the theft of batteries wouldn’t result in every child becoming a thief. But what if it negatively affected the actions of 1%, 2%, or 5% of the population? Might the actions of that small percentage be enough to negatively effect the entire population?

Likewise, the legalization of gay marriage will send a message to children that what their parents teach them at home and what they learn outside the home are at conflict. This will force them to either doubt the legitimacy of the government, or the legitimacy of their parents as authoritative figures. It puts parents at odds with the government in the education of their children.

Of course this isn’t the first time this has happened, but can you expect parents to not oppose anything? If the government wanted to legalize stealing cars would you oppose it? Of course you would. Why? Because stealing is wrong. It hurts people. Making stealing acceptable would hurt all of society. Mormons and others see legalization of gay marriage the same way. The only difference between you and them–assuming you were against Prop 8– is that they’ve drawn the line in a different place. You are willing to accept things Mormons aren’t. But we all believe discrimination is good, we just don’t always agree on what should be discriminated against. We can all agree that discriminating against negative behaviors like murder and theft is good for society (except for some real nut-jobs), and we generally agree that discriminating against inherent characteristics like gender and skin color are not good for society. But homosexuality falls into a gray zone where we’re split. Some think it is a similar issue to skin color, and others see it as a behavior, like stealing things.

The question has been decided democratically, by the vote of the people. I don’t oppose the right of those who are trying through legal means to stop Prop 8 or overturn it. I think they have every right to try as long as they don’t circumvent the laws of the state and country. If they win someday, as I’m afraid they may, I won’t react the same way they have with protests and hateful words, nor will I hate them. I’ll be disappointed and frustrated but I’ll deal with it.

While these are clearly my own opinions I believe they’re held by a majority of Mormons. In my 33 years as a member of the LDS faith I have never heard any hateful talk about gays. On the contrary I’ve heard much about love and compassion and I expect to see more of it as time goes on and Mormons come to understand the issue more thoroughly.

The same can’t be said for other religions due to their de-centralized leadership. If you wanted to picket the head of the Baptist religion, where would you go? What about the Methodists, Presbyterians, or evangelicals? I can see the Prop 8 protesters assigned to picket those religions meeting at a parking lot in the morning and then all looking puzzled as they try and figure out where they’re supposed to go, and then finally giving up and saying “But we know where those Mormons are! To the Los Angeles temple!” and then they all go storming off in that direction like villagers with pitchforks running after Frankenstein.

In addition, Mormons were quite active in fundraising for Prop 8. The estimates I’ve heard hover around 40%, which is obviously disproportionate when you understand that Mormons make up only 2% of the population in California.

So in light of those facts, it’s no surprise to me to see that Mormons have been targeted more than other faiths in the backlash against Prop 8.

The fight to pass Prop 8 has been a bright beacon of hope as religions with conflicting doctrines have joined together to promote a common cause. Our opponents have tried to divide us based on our doctrinal differences in order to defeat us, but they failed. But they’ll try again, and if they can succeed in turning us against each other, then eventually they’ll win and we will all lose. But if we can continue to come together on the causes that unite us, we can maintain the society that has provided us with the freedom we currently have to have differences of doctrine and each worship as we please.

The thing about evolution is that it generally happens over millions of years, right? So theoretically, human beings, or the species that led to them, over millions of years would have gotten a little more intelligent here, a little more sophisticated there, and so it seems there would be an archaeological record showing a gradual increase in human capabilities over many, many years.

Instead, we have humans going from a life barely superior to that of animals to inventing spacecraft and computers all within a period of less than 10,000 years. How would you account for this radical advancement in terms of the evolutionary process? And why wouldn’t this have happened previously? Why now? Why weren’t airplanes invented 3,000, 2,500, 2,000, 1,500, 1,000, 500, or 250 years ago? Heck, why wasn’t the cotton gin, a relatively simple invention, invented 500 years ago? How does evolution account for those individuals who compose symphonies where 100+ musical instruments must work in harmony to produce the desired results? Is that ability tied to the ability to throw a spear better?

On a somewhat related note, what happens to us all now since we can create inventions to overcome the disadvantages of individuals of the human species? If a fat, lazy guy with a low iq can reproduce just as well as the smart guy with the great physique, does that mean our species is on a downward path and someday we’ll all be a mess, having devolved, in essence?

There’s also the question of whether those Mormons who believe in natural selection believe that all existing species descended from green algae vs. being placed on earth in some other way by God. My guess would be that 99% of Mormons haven’t thought about it since it doesn’t affect our theology one way or the other.

In fact, whether or not Adam and Eve were descendants of apes or green algae doesn’t really affect our theology either. I do believe Adam and Eve existed and that all humans are their descendants, and I don’t believe Adam and Eve were descendants of apes or cavemen or anything like that, but if they were, so what? It doesn’t change anything for me so I don’t care. It’s interesting to think about the various possibilities, and I’m curious to know exactly how it all came about, but whether it’s one or the other doesn’t make that much of a difference to me.