Miracles...The Mormon View

Has anyone else noticed all the recent ads on TV, pushing the Mormon religion? Obviously the Mormons are softening up the electorate in order to help Romney get elected. But here in my town, the Mormons are already taking pot shots at other religions which amuses me no end. And of course when a battle breaks out among religious rivals, I revel in getting right in the middle of it.


So in that light I am posting a guest column from today’s paper under the heading, “Perspectives in Faith” by Jerry Fredrick, a Mormon, wherein he takes to task another religious nutcase from another religion. The electronic edition of the paper allows comments from readers and I have provided mine which follows the column by Mr. Frederick. I harbor no illusions my letter will suddenly cause Mr. Frederick to become rational. His magic underwear will no doubt fend off any dissenting argument so that his religion remains pure.

From today's Herald Times: 

This guest column was written by Jerry Frederick, a resident of Bloomington and local pharmacist.

The Rev. Byron Bangert reveals a startling lack of understanding of science in his column “To be or not to be . . . a Christian” of Sept. 24. He also reveals a bewildering distance from historic Christianity.

The latter choice is his. The first cannot go unchallenged. We’ve have all heard the phrase, “Science has proven miracles cannot happen.” As Bangert put it: “a literal interpretation of these accounts (the resurrection of Jesus and others) ... is ... impossible if one trusts the knowledge and understanding of our world that come to us through the sciences.”

Science only deals in repeatable phenomena. By definition, a miracle is not that. If one could cause a miracle, given the correct set of circumstances., it would not be a miracle, would it? By necessity, science is silent on miracles because they cannot be reproduced. So “the knowledge and understanding of our world that has come to us through the sciences” has not proven miracles to be impossible and it cannot.

More significantly, Bangert assumes his opinion of the resurrection of Jesus to supplant the Apostle Paul’s. Paul said if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then we are still in our sin and of all people most to be pitied. Bangert said that “a literal interpretation of these events (the Resurrection and others) is unnecessary.” Unnecessary? So the resurrection is both unnecessary and impossible. Paul claimed to be writing while more than 500 witnesses of the resurrection were still alive. Perhaps Bangert has new information: He should enlighten us all. But with all due respect, I doubt that he does.

I was a science major in college, make my living by science, and stand in awe of the orderly cause-and-effect universe which the scientific method presumes. But if there is a God, as Bangert says he believes, surely that God is big enough to break through scientific laws and accomplish a miracle.

He says that “certain claims of religion present themselves to critically thinking people as ... embarrassing remnants of a naive understanding of the world.”

 I, for one, do not count the bodily resurrection of Christ as “an embarrassing remnant ... ” What is embarrassing about it?

Has our culture become so biased against miracles by its oracle-like view of science that we are embarrassed by something “unscientific”?

“To be or not to be ... a Christian.” I assume that title refers to Hamlet’s famous soliloquy: “To be or not to be? That is the question” and Hamlet goes on about his struggle between life and death — a struggle because he finds both so unappetizing. Compare that to the Apostle Paul who said: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” He cannot decide between the two because both are so appetizing. You decide which one you want to follow.

But for now, let’s keep science within its boundaries of competence — repeatable physical phenomena — and that excludes miracles.

My reply:



” I, for one, do not count the bodily resurrection of Christ as “an embarrassing remnant ...” What is embarrassing about it?

Well, for starters, consider this.

Fossil evidence reveals that we humans reached our present state with a fully developed brain of about 1500cc some 200,000 years ago.

Jesus, a Jew, appeared around 2000 years ago.

So the Christian god who allegedly made us, sat around and twiddled his thumbs while his crowning creation (us) suffered from cold, heat, drought, disease, starvation, and fear of wild animal predation for 198,000 years.

Then he plopped a savior out of a virgin, in one of the most remote places on earth, and among the most ignorant people, where the news of his arrival would not begin to spread for over 300 years. Then this omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god, brushed his hands and said, There! “That oughta do it.”

So how’s that been workin’ out for ya?

Well, after 2000 years of effort, 4.7 billion (67%) of the 7 billion people presently alive on this tiny blue planet totally reject Jesus as their personal savior. And half of those Christians who do embrace the myth, think the other half are practicing the wrong kind of Christianity and are therefore destined for hell. So now we are down to a lucky 16.5% minority that will escape the everlasting fires of hell.

If civilization survives another 50 years (which in my view is highly unlikely) we will look back on this time as we look back on slavery now and wonder how highly intelligent, clever and gifted people like Jerry Frederick could have ever bought into the myth of religion, let alone Mormonism.

I already know. It was handed down to him. If, at birth, he had been accidently switched to Muslim parents, he would have grown up thinking his own mother was destined for hell. Same if he accidentally got switched to a Baptist mother.

So here’s the question for both Byron Bangert and Jerry Fredrick and their followers.

Are the circumstances of your birth a good enough reason to believe what you believe?

The answer should embarrass you both.