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.

While Elder Nelson doesn’t make what I would call an “official church declaration” about when life begins, he comes about as close to it as you can to it, in my opinion, when he says:

Nearly all legislation pertaining to abortion considers the duration of gestation. The human mind has presumed to determine when “meaningful life” begins. In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins.10 To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion.

Hopefully this will end any doubt as to what Mormons believe about abortion and when life begins.

In 1839, Joseph Smith was asked to describe the difference between his religion and the other religions of his day. Smith replied that the primary difference was primarily in mode of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (HC 4:42). However, Smith neglected to mention that he believed that his visions were contrary to classical Christianity. He needed to tell them that, “God the Father and His son Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820. Joseph revealed that the Father and the Son each have a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” (D&C 130:22). Smith’s answer is obviously evasive. He neglected to explain his view of God as in the form of a man, the importance of works, temple ordinances, polygamy and deification.

Another way this same basic question has been phrased in the form of a statement is “Mormon missionaries only teach the stuff that appeals to mainstream Christians and then once they’re baptized they throw all the stuff at them like baptism for the dead and man > God doctrine after it’s too late.”

There are at least two reasons why Joseph Smith didn’t mention these other things in the situation above, and why Mormon missionaries don’t teach certain things.

One reason is because there is limited time and space. Joseph Smith was being asked by a newspaper reporter what the “primary” difference was between the LDS Church and other religions. Surely the questioner didn’t have time for and wasn’t looking for Joseph to sit down and take 30 hours to answer him. Even if Joseph spoke for 30 hours straight there are still things he wouldn’t be able to cover and people could still say “See? He’s being evasive!” Just because something isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it’s being hidden. When people ask me how I’m doing I generally just say “Good” rather than giving them a five-minute explanation of all the good things going on in my life.

A second reason for stating certain things first and other things later is for the same reason certain things are taught to elementary school children and other things are taught to high-school aged kids. You could hardly say that school administrators are sneaky in how they teach kids basic math in elementary school but then throw calculus at them in high school when it’s “too late”. Although I will admit that I did feel a bit betrayed by my upper math classes. There is a progression of ideas in the gospel as with anything else, and it only makes sense to start by teaching those things that are more basic and fundamental, which of course includes those things that are generally understood by the majority of the population.

But aside from this, it’s simply not true that all Mormon missionaries teach is non-controversial ideas that are easy to accept. Traditionally, Mormon missionaries teach about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in the very first meeting with someone who wants to learn more about the LDS Church. If modern-day prophets, Joseph Smith saying that he saw God and Christ appear to him as two distinct being, and scriptures in addition to the Bible aren’t shocking enough for a first introduction to the LDS Church then what is?

Mormon missionaries simply can’t teach it all, and there’s a logical order in which to teach things. Nothing is hidden from those who want to learn about the church, and frequently things like temple garments, baptism for the dead, man > God, and other things are discussed between missionaries and investigators of the church. To me, it seems that no matter what missionaries teach the enemies of the church are going to try and find fault with it, and saying that Mormons are hiding things is an easy target, since there’s so much Mormons couldn’t possibly cover even if they tried.

By the way, in case you’re interested, the LDS Church publishes the entire missionary manual online for anybody to read. If you want to know what Mormon missionaries teach and how they’re taught to teach it, you can read the book and find out for yourself.

When Mormons say they have a testimony of something they are not saying they know 100% that what they are saying is true. On the other hand, they’re also not saying they just think it would nice if it were true. What they are saying is that they have reason to believe something is true. It is an expression of faith, and all members of the LDS Church are encouraged to gain their own testimonies of the doctrines of the church by researching them and praying about them and asking God if they are true or not.

But it would be all too easy if that’s where it left off. It would be great if you could just say “Yeah, I prayed about the Book of Mormon, I feel good, I’m going water skiing.” Being a member of the Mormon faith doesn’t lend itself to helping you be comfortable. It’s not enough just to know and admit that something is true. You actually have to live it. And if that weren’t bad enough, you’re supposed to regularly “bear your testimony” meaning you tell other people what you know. That might be more through your actions than your words, but words matter and Mormons are encouraged to verbally share their knowledge or their testimony with others on a regular basis.

Public speaking is the number one phobia in the United States. Know what #2 is? Death. That’s right, people are more afraid of speaking in front of a group than they are of dying. Or as Jerry Seinfeld put it, most people would rather be the guy in the casket than the one giving the eulogy. So it’s no surprise that some Mormons get nervous when the first Sunday of the month rolls around, because that’s testimony meeting at church.

Every Sunday (with rare exceptions) Mormons have three meetings at church. The most important one is called Sacrament Meeting, and it’s the one in which we take the bread and water in remembrance of Christ’s flesh and blood. After the sacramental ordinance is completed in that meeting, we generally have “talks”. That is, members of the congregation (generally 2-4) get up in front of everybody and talk about a gospel topic, like faith or repentance or helping the poor. People have a hard enough time with this, even though they’re generally asked to give a talk days if not weeks in advance so they have plenty of time to prepare. But on the first Sunday of the month it’s different. Any member of the congregation can go up to the front, stand at the microphone, and bear their testimony, meaning they talk about the gospel things they know and experiences they’ve had that have helped them to know the gospel is true.

This is called “bearing your testimony” or “giving a testimony” and what is said is often referred to as “a testimony.” As in “Hi Jack, I really enjoyed your testimony today.” Jack’s testimony may have been short. He may have stood up and said nothing more than “I know Christ lives and that we can be forgiven of our sins” before sitting down. He may have gone on for 40 minutes talking about how he knows Christ lives and how he knows he can be forgiven of his sins. The length doesn’t matter, what matters is that the testimony is sincere and real. People aren’t supposed to get up and say things they don’t really believe and especially things they don’t even want to believe. I’m sure it happens, but it shouldn’t.

But bearing a testimony and having a testimony are really two different things, and having a testimony is the one that comes first, because if you don’t have it you can’t bear it, although it has been said that bearing it can lead to having it. But leaving that aside for now, let’s focus on the having rather than the bearing.

Having a testimony is important because of the nature of this world. God generally doesn’t throw anything in our face or drop anything in our laps. A large part of why we’re here on earth is so that we can prove to God and ourselves who we really are, and if we could see what’s really going on and God spoke to all of us every day as one man speaks to another then we really wouldn’t have the freedom to choose between good and bad. We’d all choose good because we’d know 100% that we better, or else. It wouldn’t be much of a test. So God keeps things in a sort of limbo. He makes sure that if you want to believe in him, you can find the evidence to support your desire. But if you don’t want to believe in him, he doesn’t present you with proof of himself to force you to believe in him. He wants us to choose for ourselves what we really want, and we prove that every day with the choices we make.

Because we’re in this world where nothing seems 100% certain, a testimony can be an anchor to help us do what is right. In my life, my testimony that there is a God and that God wants me to be doing certain things helps me to be a better husband, father, son, brother, neighbor, and friend. It helps me in my job, my hobbies, my ambitions. If it weren’t that I have something at my core that tells me that God exists, I don’t know what kind of person I would be, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be as motivated to do the things I do. I’d probably eat more Ben and Jerry’s, that’s for sure.

“But how does someone get a testimony? I mean, I still don’t know what that means.” you might say. “How can you claim to ‘know’ something is true?”

For me, I feel as though I’ve always had a testimony that God existed and that there was a plan. It has always made sense to me and I feel like it’s who I am. I can understand the logic people use to explain there is no God, but I don’t believe it. But I’m not very good at explaining how I know God exists. One analogy is to ask you to state whether you know somebody exists when they walk behind a wall and you can’t see them anymore. I’m not asking whether they’re in a certain location, I’m asking you whether that person exists as a human being. You would likely say that of course they still exist, even though you can’t see them. How do you know they exist? Somebody could argue with you and essentially prove to you that you have little if any proof to show that this person exists. You might even be swayed by their arguments. And yet afterwards you would say, “Well of course the person exists, all these hypothetical arguments about how they might not exist are interesting and logical, but I just saw the person walk behind the wall and of course that person still exists.”

Well, if I see someone go behind a wall I know that they exist. And in a similar way I also know that God exists, even though I didn’t just see him a second ago, even though I have no recollection of ever seeing him. But I feel his presence in a way that isn’t subject to scientific scrutiny, at least not with the scientific knowledge we have right now.

You might call all this brainwashing and ridiculous if you don’t believe in God. That’s true, this is what brainwashing would look like. But answer me this, is it any different than how things would look if God does exist?

The practice is based on LDS doctrine that baptism is essential for salvation. Many other churches teach the same doctrine, which leads to the logical question “What about the billions of people who have lived or who will live and die without ever hearing of Christ or having the opportunity to be baptized?” Mormons believe they can perform baptisms on behalf of these people, and that these people have the opportunity to accept or reject that baptism in the afterlife.

There is biblical support for the practice in 1 Corinthians 15:29. In this chapter Paul is teaching that the resurrection is true and real. Some Jewish groups believed in a resurrection and some didn’t and as those that didn’t were converted and brought into the ancient church they sometimes brought their old beliefs with them until they were taught otherwise. As evidence of the veracity of the doctrine of the resurrection Paul says “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?”

Some have tried to say this statement doesn’t support the LDS view of baptism for the dead. They say that when Paul says “they” he’s obviously talking about somebody other than members of the ancient church, perhaps pagans, otherwise he would say “we”. But maybe it wasn’t common for all members of the church to participate in this practice. Even today with temples all over the world there are many Mormons who have never had the opportunity to participate in this ordinance because they do not live near a temple.

I was a Mormon missionary in Manaus, Brazil. The nearest temple was a 1-2 week (week, not day) trip away. The majority of church members had never been to the temple and therefore could not be baptized for the dead. There were also a lot of new members who were learning about LDS doctrines. If I were teaching them about the resurrection it would be easy for me to say “Hey, if there’s no resurrection, then why are members of our church baptized for the dead? I know none of you have been, because you’re too far away from the temple, but what about the others who are close to a temple? Why are they baptized for the dead if there’s no such thing as the resurrection?”

To think that what Paul was really saying was “Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?” seems to be a bit of a stretch. Why would Paul use what the pagans were doing to prove the reality of the resurrection?

Others analyze this verse and it’s sentence structure to the point of being ridiculous. It’s a casual comment made to prove a point, and I can only guess that Paul would be humored to see how much attention has been paid by those who admire him to exactly which words he used in which order for the sole purpose of denying what he and other members of the church accepted as a commonly understood practice.

Yet others say there is no supporting evidence for the practice of baptism of the dead. If indeed the Bible were the final word of God, then this argument would hold water. Mormons do not believe the Bible contains every word God or the prophets spoke (the Bible itself makes references to scriptures which it does not contain). It is easily possible that there are many things written and said by the prophets and apostles in that area of the world that are not contained in the Bible. And so we Mormons would say that a lack of supporting evidence for a doctrine is not evidence the doctrine did not exist.

It is my opinion that, simply put, good people are members of the church of the Lamb of God, and bad people are members of the church of the devil. And since nobody is 100% good or bad (other than Christ who was 100% good), it could even be said that the two churches are not so much made up of specific people, but rather people’s individual actions support either one church or the other. It could then be said that what God expects of us is to try our best to build up the church of the Lamb of God, and do our best to not contribute to building the church of the devil.

Not only does this conform to what is taught within the LDS Church but it is also how the LDS Church acts. The LDS Church is more than just friendly with many other religions, but cooperates extensively with other religions to provide charitable and emergency relief services worldwide. Mormons are taught never to condemn others, but to love and serve others and where possible, share what we believe. Not in order to prove anyone else wrong, but in case others are interested in learning more about what we’ve got. This isn’t to say that some members of the LDS Church might behave inappropriately and condemn those who belong to other religions, but if they do then they’re violating teachings from the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and they have a serious misunderstanding about LDS Church doctrine.