Comments about ‘8-year-old's homework rejected after she names Jesus as her hero’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, March 20 2014 10:25 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Scientist
Provo, UT

Those who make the claims that something or someone is real have the burden to provide proof of their claims.

I know people who testify that Big Foot is real.

Others testify that the Loch Ness Monster is real.

And then there are those who testify that Jesus is real.

At least some people have produced pictures they claim are of Big Foot and "Nessy".

Whittling Whistler
Lehi, UT

My homework was rejected at the "U" because I quoted God from the D&C. I tried to avoid it, but it was a philosophy class discussing religious issues (The Problem of Evil and Determinism) and we were asked to write on solutions. The only valid solution was given through Joseph Smith : ). I guess the atheists didn't like having a solution to their biggest complaint against God, so I was chastised in front of the class for quoting Joseph Smith, and was given a bad grade for giving a solution to something that has been a problem for the religious for thousands of years.

Lehi, UT

@ the "Scientist" you seem to enjoy putting the burden of proof for YOUR faith upon others ;), but we both know there is abundant evidence that Jesus Christ is a real person, and so, I must again ask, why don't you request evidence or proof from atheists, or from those who claim Jesus is a "myth" or not a "real person" or is "a figure from fiction or mythology"? Just askin : )...again.

(I suspect you know there is none...but I would like to hear it from you again, maybe something like "you can't prove a negative" ; ) although we both know we can, and that it can be proven that Santa isn't real or that some documents are forgeries (and the evidence indicates that the BofM is not) etc.) : ) still luvya just been busy

Salt Lake City, UT

D&C 89:5
5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

Literally the only use of wine in the LDS church was in the early days for the Sacrament and you want me to believe Jesus made non-alcoholic wine? By the way, I've never had wine or any alcohol myself.

@John Pack Lambert of Michigan
"KKK developed doctrine of the speration of Church and state."

That is completely and totally false, particularly since the KKK championed integrating their perverted views of faith based views into the law.

Tempe, AZ

Even the most critical of New Testament scholars will affirm to you that Jesus was an historical figure.

To say otherwise bespeaks the priority one places on his own predilections in the face of a mountain of evidence.

Mcallen, TX

@The Scientist--so you need a sign before you can believe?

The signs are all round you if you're eyes is open.

St Louis, MO

Janet, the purpose of the article is to grab eyeballs and keep people coming back to the trough for more. This story is troubling . . as much as a single, solitary isolated incident with fuzzy details can be troubling in the context of discussing US society as a whole. Which is to say, it's worth about one furrowed brow or disapproving scowl.

Off the cuff I'd say the teacher was wrong and was begging for some pious parent to make a mountain out of a molehill, but that's pretty much all the outrage I can spend on such trivia. The fevered minds of so many Christians/Mormons love to read these stories, inflate them to about 10,000 times their actual size, and add them to the mental files they're keeping to nurture their personal persecution complexes.

People, just stop the silliness. The Liberal vultures are not out to get you. Obama isn't cackling as he plans the next assault on your religious freedoms. Just live your life. This little girl and her mommy will be fine.


A Scientist:

Since those who purport hte existence of something have the burden of proof, Could you please proove to me the following:

Big Bang Theory
Theory of Evolution

St Louis, MO

Red Wings -

The evidence leading to the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution is readily available if you really cared to look it up. Note that both are openly called "theories" even by people who subscribe to them. A theory is "an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events."

Are you willing to accept the "theory" label for existence of God? Most religious folks I know would consider that tantamount to "denying the spirit" or some other such Very Serious Sin. No; you must say "I KNOW . . " before every statement made in church regarding the veracity of doctrine, or you're going to looked upon askance.

And that's the big difference between the two angles . . the religious start with cart-before-horse: "I know God is real (or Joseph Smith is a prophet, etc)" and then accept only facts or interpretations that fit that presupposition. The scientific process (if not all scientists) is at least honest in that is starts with observable facts and works forward to a theory.



Actually, the biggest difference between the two is that science attempte to explain the natural world around us while religion is concerned with our origin and meaning. Science will never explain nor disprove religion. It is not designed to.

Religion is based on faith. Absolute proof of God would negate the need for faith. Finding and nurturing faith is one of the reasons for our existence. Hence the reason that religion does not start with empirical observation, but with belief and hope. This does not make one better than the other, just different.

BTW, scientists exercise "faith" in their theories all the time. And there are plenty of "scientists" who only accept the evidence that fits with their presuppositions.....

St Louis, MO

"And there are plenty of "scientists" who only accept the evidence that fits with their presuppositions."

Hence my acknowledgement that the process is perfect, but followed by imperfect beings. That sounds pretty close to the LDS church credo that "the gospel is perfect but church members aren't."

My primary point stands. Religion and faith tend to work backwards; pure science doesn't. It requires no thought. Hey; I had a warm fuzzy feeling, so I'm good! Does't pass the smell test? So what; I had a warm fuzzy feeling.

I guess I've never really accepted the value of faith for its own sake. Is it better to have faith in Something even if it's complete bunk? I guess if that's comforting to someone, then maybe it is better. I'm sure you've known people who absolutely believed something you found absurd. Were they better off just because, well, at least they believed SOMETHING? I can't get there.



You clearly state the impasse between "believers" and "atheists".

I can tell you that I believe, but based on more than the warm feeling. That is part of it, but not all. There is also experiences with acting on faith and having things work out when there was no ratioal way they should.

I have looked at the same "evidences" against Joseph Smith as others I know, but to me there are plenty of holes in that material. I have never hidden from evaluating criticisms, because I want to know for myself. And I still believe.

Some of us believe, some do not. Neither will end up being proven correct in this life. However, I believe we will find out all the truth in the next....

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments